Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (T-149/94, T-181/94)

Judgment of 25 Feb 1997

law://eu/cjeu/1994/t-149-94/para_69@2026-11-13

69In KLE's opinion, the trade agreement referred to by the Commission, signed on 18 December 1989 and concluded by Commission Decision 90/117/Euratom of 27 February 1990 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on trade and commercial and economic cooperation (OJ 1990 L 68, p. 2, hereinafter ‘the Trade Agreement’), cannot justify any interference in the setting of prices. First of all Article 14 of the Trade Agreement is not directly applicable, since it is not sufficiently clear and precise and gives the Community institutions a margin of discretion. Moreover, it is not an exception provided for in the Treaty within the meaning of Article 67, which would allow intervention concerning prices. Besides, even in the context of Article 64 of the Treaty, which provides that the Agency may act within the framework of agreements concluded between the Community and a third State, Article 14 of the Trade Agreement does not allow minimum prices to be fixed, since to do so the Council's exclusive right to fix prices, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 69 of the Treaty, would have to be circumvented. The Agency thus cannot rely on that provision to refuse an offer at prices allegedly unrelated to market prices, unless it is authorized to do so under the Treaty rules on the division of powers, which is not the case.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: General Court · First Chamber, sitting with five Judges
Cases: T-149/94, T-181/94 · ECLI:EU:T:1997:21
Decided: 25 Feb 1997
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Rapporteur: Tiili
Bench: 4 judges
C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 61994TJ0149

Topics

Supply Agency

History · 1 version

25 Feb 1997Reading

Connections

See on a map

Cited by 8: TV1 GmbH v European Commission (T-700/14); Alain Laurent Brouillard v Court of Justice of the European Union (T-420/13); Euro-Link Consultants Srl and European Profiles AE Meleton kai Symvoulon Epicheiriseon v European Commission (T-199/12); French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (T-240/04)2 provisions; Industrias Nucleares do Brasil SA and Siemens AG v UBS AG and Texas Utilities Electric Corporation (C-123/04, C-124/04)2 provisions; Esedra SPRL v Commission of the European Communities (T-169/00)2 provisions; Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (C-161/97 P)9 provisions; this act3 provisions
Cites 10: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Alfredo Grifoni v European Atomic Energy Community (C-308/87); Industrias Pesqueras Campos SA and Transacciones Maritimas SA and Recursos Marinos SA and Makuspesca SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-551/93, T-231/94, T-232/94, T-233/94, T-234/94); Ruling delivered pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 103 of the EAEC Treaty - Draft Convention of the International Atomic Energy Agency on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, Facilities and Transports (C-1/78); EAEC Supply Agency: Rules of the Supply Agency of the European Atomic Energy Community determining the manner in which demand is to be balanced against the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials; 90/117/Euratom: Commission Decision of 27 February 1990 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on trade and commercial and economic cooperation; 94/285/Euratom: Commission Decision of 21 February 1994 relating to a procedure in application of the second paragraph of Article 53 of the Euratom Treaty (Only the German text is authentic); Commission Decision of 4 February 1994 relating to a procedure in application of the second paragraph of Article 53 of the Euratom Treaty (Only the German text is authentic); Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA (ENU) v Commission of the European Communities (T-458/93, T-523/93); Regulation of the Supply Agency of the European Atomic Energy Community amending the rules of the Supply Agency of 5 May 1960 determining the manner in which demand is to be balanced against the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials

Judgment of 25 Feb 1997

69In KLE's opinion, the trade agreement referred to by the Commission, signed on 18 December 1989 and concluded by Commission Decision 90/117/Euratom of 27 February 1990 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on trade and commercial and economic cooperation (OJ 1990 L 68, p. 2, hereinafter ‘the Trade Agreement’), cannot justify any interference in the setting of prices. First of all Article 14 of the Trade Agreement is not directly applicable, since it is not sufficiently clear and precise and gives the Community institutions a margin of discretion. Moreover, it is not an exception provided for in the Treaty within the meaning of Article 67, which would allow intervention concerning prices. Besides, even in the context of Article 64 of the Treaty, which provides that the Agency may act within the framework of agreements concluded between the Community and a third State, Article 14 of the Trade Agreement does not allow minimum prices to be fixed, since to do so the Council's exclusive right to fix prices, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 69 of the Treaty, would have to be circumvented. The Agency thus cannot rely on that provision to refuse an offer at prices allegedly unrelated to market prices, unless it is authorized to do so under the Treaty rules on the division of powers, which is not the case.