# C_2021382EN.01003201.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/32

---

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — RTE v ACER

(Case T-472/21)

(2021/C 382/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RTE Réseau de transport de l’électricité (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne, Solicitor, and D. Vasbeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, insofar as it concerns the applicant, the defendant’s Board of Appeal Decision A-001-2021 (consolidated) of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Decision’) upholding the defendant’s Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, insofar as it concerns the applicant, the defendant’s Board of Appeal Decision A-001-2021 (consolidated) of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Decision’) upholding the defendant’s Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020;

| — | Grant the relief sought by the Applicant in its Notice of Appeal before the defendant’s Board of Appeal; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the relief sought by the Applicant in its Notice of Appeal before the defendant’s Board of Appeal; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error of law because, in upholding the defendant’s Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020, the defendant’s Board of Appeal unlawfully extended the scope of Article 16(13), Electricity Regulation (1) as well as Article 74, CACM (2), and breached the fundamental principle of conferral laid down in Article 5(2) of the TEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error of law because, in upholding the defendant’s Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020, the defendant’s Board of Appeal unlawfully extended the scope of Article 16(13), Electricity Regulation (1) as well as Article 74, CACM (2), and breached the fundamental principle of conferral laid down in Article 5(2) of the TEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error of law because the defendant’s Board of Appeal incorrectly interpreted the relevant legal framework and failed to correctly apply the requisite parameters for adopting a common methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading for the Core capacity calculation region. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error of law because the defendant’s Board of Appeal incorrectly interpreted the relevant legal framework and failed to correctly apply the requisite parameters for adopting a common methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading for the Core capacity calculation region.

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

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error in law because the defendant’s Board of Appeal wrongly interpreted and applied Article 3 of Regulation (3) and related provisions and principles of EU law governing the languages in which the defendant is required to issue its decisions, including Article 342 TFEU, Article 3(3) TEU, Article 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 44(1) of the ACER Regulation (4), the principle of legal certainty, and the rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error in law because the defendant’s Board of Appeal wrongly interpreted and applied Article 3 of Regulation (3) and related provisions and principles of EU law governing the languages in which the defendant is required to issue its decisions, including Article 342 TFEU, Article 3(3) TEU, Article 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 44(1) of the ACER Regulation (4), the principle of legal certainty, and the rights of defence.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity (OJ 2019, L 158, p. 54).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (OJ 2015, L 197, p. 24).

(3)  Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958, P 17, p. 385) as amended most recently by Council Regulation 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 1).

(4)  Regulation (EU) 2019/942 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (recast) (OJ 2019 L 158, p. 22).

---