# C_2017402EN.01004101.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/41

---

Action brought on 4 September 2017 — Balti Gaas v Commission

(Case T-596/17)

(2017/C 402/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Balti Gaas OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: E. Tamm and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | join the current case with case T-236/17; |
| --- | --- |

—

join the current case with case T-236/17;

| — | declare pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 265 of TFEU that the Commission has failed to comply with its obligations under Union law by failing to adopt a motivated decision regarding the applicant’s funding application and to order the Commission to carry out a thorough evaluation of the applicant’s funding application, to make a motivated decision and deliver that decision to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 265 of TFEU that the Commission has failed to comply with its obligations under Union law by failing to adopt a motivated decision regarding the applicant’s funding application and to order the Commission to carry out a thorough evaluation of the applicant’s funding application, to make a motivated decision and deliver that decision to the applicant;

| — | alternatively, in case the Court finds that the merits for a failure to act are not met, the applicant asks the Court to annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 14/03/2017 on the selection and award of grants for actions contributing to projects of common interest under the Connecting Europe Facility in the field of trans-European energy infrastructure (C(2017) 1593 final); and |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, in case the Court finds that the merits for a failure to act are not met, the applicant asks the Court to annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 14/03/2017 on the selection and award of grants for actions contributing to projects of common interest under the Connecting Europe Facility in the field of trans-European energy infrastructure (C(2017) 1593 final); and

| — | order the defendants to bear their costs and pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to bear their costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission Implementing Decision of 14/03/2017 on the selection and award of grants for actions contributing to projects of common interest under the Connecting Europe Facility in the field of trans-European energy infrastructure (C (2017) 1593 final) only mentions the applicants receiving funds but Commission has failed to make a motivated decision regarding the applicant’s funding application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission Implementing Decision of 14/03/2017 on the selection and award of grants for actions contributing to projects of common interest under the Connecting Europe Facility in the field of trans-European energy infrastructure (C (2017) 1593 final) only mentions the applicants receiving funds but Commission has failed to make a motivated decision regarding the applicant’s funding application.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the the Commission has infringed an essential procedural requirement, it has failed to give a statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the the Commission has infringed an essential procedural requirement, it has failed to give a statement of reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that INEA/Commission have exceeded their competence. INEA/Commission refused funding based on the reasoning that the Paldiski LNG terminal is no longer necessary for the Baltic Sea region’s security of supply of natural gas. Applicant finds that the effect of this statement is a substantial modification of a PCI list (Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 2016/89. To do so, the Commission has to adopt a delegated regulation, not send a letter to the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that INEA/Commission have exceeded their competence. INEA/Commission refused funding based on the reasoning that the Paldiski LNG terminal is no longer necessary for the Baltic Sea region’s security of supply of natural gas. Applicant finds that the effect of this statement is a substantial modification of a PCI list (Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 2016/89. To do so, the Commission has to adopt a delegated regulation, not send a letter to the Applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that INEA/Commission has infringed an essential procedural requirement on the ground of failure to give a statement of reasons for the contested decision — INEA/Commission did not give sufficient reasons why the applicant did not receive at least 3 points in all categories and INEA/Commission reasons were based on a false understanding of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that INEA/Commission has infringed an essential procedural requirement on the ground of failure to give a statement of reasons for the contested decision — INEA/Commission did not give sufficient reasons why the applicant did not receive at least 3 points in all categories and INEA/Commission reasons were based on a false understanding of the facts.

---