# C_2014061EN.01000202.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/2

---

Appeal brought on 21 November 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2013 in Case T-465/11: Globula v European Commission

(Case C-596/13 P)

2014/C 61/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, L. Armati, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Globula a.s., Czech Republic

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013, notified to the Commission on 11 September 2013, in Case T-465/11 Globula v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013, notified to the Commission on 11 September 2013, in Case T-465/11 Globula v European Commission;

| — | rule that the first plea at first instance is not well founded and refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the second and third pleas at first instance; and |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the first plea at first instance is not well founded and refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the second and third pleas at first instance; and

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| | First, violation of Articles 288 and 297(1) TFEU, by finding that the rules of the Second Gas Directive (1) apply to the case at hand: this first set of arguments advanced by the Commission will deal with the question whether the General Court was correct in holding (implicitly) that the Commission applied the Third Gas Directive (2) retroactively. |
| --- | --- |

First, violation of Articles 288 and 297(1) TFEU, by finding that the rules of the Second Gas Directive (1) apply to the case at hand: this first set of arguments advanced by the Commission will deal with the question whether the General Court was correct in holding (implicitly) that the Commission applied the Third Gas Directive (2) retroactively.

1

2

| | Second, the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts and failed to properly apply the legal standard that it itself had announced: assuming that the General Court was correct in holding that application of the substantive rules of the Third Gas Directive would have been retroactive (quod non), the question whether the rules contained in Article 36 of the Third Gas Directive constitute an indivisible whole from the point of view of the time at which they take effect will be addressed in order to assess whether the General Court was also correct to hold that retroactive application of the procedural rules contained in that Directive was similarly prohibited. |
| --- | --- |

Second, the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts and failed to properly apply the legal standard that it itself had announced: assuming that the General Court was correct in holding that application of the substantive rules of the Third Gas Directive would have been retroactive (quod non), the question whether the rules contained in Article 36 of the Third Gas Directive constitute an indivisible whole from the point of view of the time at which they take effect will be addressed in order to assess whether the General Court was also correct to hold that retroactive application of the procedural rules contained in that Directive was similarly prohibited.

quod non

| | In Commission's view, the assessment of the notified exemption decision in question on the basis of the procedural and substantive rules laid down in the Third Gas Directive did not entail a retroactive application of that act but is consistent with the principle of immediate application under which a provision of Union law applies from the time it enters into force to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rule. |
| --- | --- |

In Commission's view, the assessment of the notified exemption decision in question on the basis of the procedural and substantive rules laid down in the Third Gas Directive did not entail a retroactive application of that act but is consistent with the principle of immediate application under which a provision of Union law applies from the time it enters into force to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rule.

---

(1)  Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC.

1

OJ L 176, p. 57

(2)  Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC.

2

OJ L 211, p. 94

---