# C_2021412EN.01002201.xml

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/22

---

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne v ACER

(Case T-483/21)

(2021/C 412/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A. (Konstancin-Jeziorna, Poland) (represented by: S. Goldberg, A. Galos and E. White, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of Board of Appeal in case A-007-2021 (consolidated) of ACER of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Contested Board of Appeal Decision’) dismissing the applications for annulment and remittal of Decision No 33/2020 of 4 December 2020 (the ‘Agency Decision’) establishing the Methodology for Regional Operational Security Coordination for the Core Capacity Calculation Region (the ‘ROSC Methodology’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of Board of Appeal in case A-007-2021 (consolidated) of ACER of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Contested Board of Appeal Decision’) dismissing the applications for annulment and remittal of Decision No 33/2020 of 4 December 2020 (the ‘Agency Decision’) establishing the Methodology for Regional Operational Security Coordination for the Core Capacity Calculation Region (the ‘ROSC Methodology’);

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

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal in assuming that ACER was competent to go beyond the strict mandate of approving the methodology developed by TSOs as set out in Articles 6(3) and 6(8) of the Regulation 2017/1485 (1) and that it was entitled to develop policy measures significantly extending the scope and the extent of regional coordination. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal in assuming that ACER was competent to go beyond the strict mandate of approving the methodology developed by TSOs as set out in Articles 6(3) and 6(8) of the Regulation 2017/1485 (1) and that it was entitled to develop policy measures significantly extending the scope and the extent of regional coordination.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure by the Board of Appeal to provide adequate reasoning to its ruling and thus violation of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure by the Board of Appeal to provide adequate reasoning to its ruling and thus violation of Article 296 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that ROSC Methodology as established by the Agency Decision is consistent with Article 35 (5) of Regulation 2019/943 (2) and Article 40 (1)(d) of Directive 2019/944 (3). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that ROSC Methodology as established by the Agency Decision is consistent with Article 35 (5) of Regulation 2019/943 (2) and Article 40 (1)(d) of Directive 2019/944 (3).

| 4. | Fourth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by assuming that the possibility to use central dispatching model by TSOs is not affected by the ROSC Methodology.o |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by assuming that the possibility to use central dispatching model by TSOs is not affected by the ROSC Methodology.o

| 5. | Fifth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that the ROSC Methodology adopted by the Agency Decision does not fail to set fair rules for cross-border exchange in electricity and does not fail to ensure incentives compatibility regarding congestion management and investments in the hardware-related remedial measures such as phase-shifting transformers (PSTs). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that the ROSC Methodology adopted by the Agency Decision does not fail to set fair rules for cross-border exchange in electricity and does not fail to ensure incentives compatibility regarding congestion management and investments in the hardware-related remedial measures such as phase-shifting transformers (PSTs).

| 6. | Sixth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that the ROSC Methodology adopted by the Agency Decision does not impede the maintenance of operational security limits, in particular voltage limits, and therefore by assuming that the ROSC Methodology is consistent with relevant legal provisions. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea of law, alleging an error in law committed by the Board of Appeal by finding that the ROSC Methodology adopted by the Agency Decision does not impede the maintenance of operational security limits, in particular voltage limits, and therefore by assuming that the ROSC Methodology is consistent with relevant legal provisions.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1485 of 2 August 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity transmission system operation (OJ 2017, L 220, p. 1).

(2)  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).

(3)  Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU (OJ 2019, L 158, p. 125).

---