# C_2020414EN.01004102.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/41

---

Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case T-606/20)

(2020/C 414/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria) and seven other applicants (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul, insofar as it affects the applicants, the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, insofar as it affects the applicants, the contested decision;

| — | annul Article 1 of Decision No. 02/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 and Articles 3(3), 3(4)(b), 4(6), 6, 11(1)(c) and 12 of the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1 of Decision No. 02/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 and Articles 3(3), 3(4)(b), 4(6), 6, 11(1)(c) and 12 of the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation;

| — | order ACER to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ACER to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this application, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 16 July 2020 in Case A-001-2020 (consolidated) dismissing the appeals brought against Decision No. 02/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation and, as relevant, of Decision No. 02/2020 of ACER and Annex I to that decision.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law following the finding of the defendant’s Board of Appeal that the defendant had the competence to supplement and amend the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL (1) by taking a decision that departed from the agreed position of the national regulatory authorities, in breach of the principle of conferral and the ACER Regulation |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law following the finding of the defendant’s Board of Appeal that the defendant had the competence to supplement and amend the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL (1) by taking a decision that departed from the agreed position of the national regulatory authorities, in breach of the principle of conferral and the ACER Regulation

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law through the failure of the defendant’s Board of Appeal to apply correctly the requirements for the design and operation of the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation, endorsing ACER’s amendment of the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law through the failure of the defendant’s Board of Appeal to apply correctly the requirements for the design and operation of the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation, endorsing ACER’s amendment of the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of good administration, the rights of defence and the obligation to state reasons, and fails to discharge the legal obligations of the defendant’s Board of Appeal as an appeal board. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of good administration, the rights of defence and the obligation to state reasons, and fails to discharge the legal obligations of the defendant’s Board of Appeal as an appeal board.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing (OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6).

---