Case C-17/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by judgemnt of that Court of 13 November 2002 in the proceedings between 1. Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en Water, 2. Amsterdam Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and 3. N.V. Eneco and Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie; Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, energy transport, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, services of general interest, single market, transport capacity

C 70/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2003

The Commission submits, therefore, in reliance on the detailed
legal submissions in its appeal
the
contested judgment should be annulled in the event that the
appeal against the Court of First Instance’s judgment in case T-
5/02 is successful.

in case T-5/02,

that

( 1) OJ C 156, 29.06.2002, p. 27.
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395,
30.12.1989, p. 1).

( 3) Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001
declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
market, Case No COMP/M.2416 Tetra Laval/Sidel.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgemnt of that Court
of 13 November 2002 in the proceedings between 1. Ver-
eniging voor Energie, Milieu en Water, 2. Amsterdam
Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and 3. N.V. Eneco and
Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie;
Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit Administratie-
kantoor

(Case C-17/03)

(2003/C 70/09)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 13 November 2002, received at
the Court
Registry on 16 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between 1. Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en
Water, 2. Amsterdam Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and
3. N.V. Eneco and Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en
toezicht energie; Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit
Administratiekantoor on the following questions:

I.

a) Can Article 86(2) EC be invoked to justify continuing
to grant a company which was formerly entrusted
with the operation of services of general economic
interest and which entered into certain commitments
in connection with such operation a special right to
enable it to honour those commitments after the
particular task assigned to it has been completed?

b)

If this question is answered in the affirmative, is a rule
which provides for the preferential allocation for a
period of ten years of half to a quarter (declining
over time) of the cross-border transport capacity for
electricity to the undertaking concerned nevertheless
invalid because it

II.

a)

Is Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive (1) to be
interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of dis-
crimination contained therein is restricted to the
requirement that the system operator must not draw
any distinction in granting access to the system by
means of technical rules?

If so, is an allocation method relating to the cross-
border transport capacity of electricity to be regarded
as a technical rule within the meaning of the abov-
ementioned provision?

b)

In the event that the allocation method must be
regarded as a technical rule or in the event that
Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive is not limited
to technical rules, is a rule under which preferential
cross-border transport capacity is made available for
contracts concluded in connection with a particular
public task compatible with the prohibition of dis-
crimination contained in that article?

(1) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.01.1997, p. 20).

Appeal brought on 17 January 2003 by Vela Srl and
Tecnagrind SL against the judgment delivered on 7 Nov-
ember 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela
Srl and Tecnagrind SL and the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case C-18/03 P)

(2003/C 70/10)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 November
2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/
99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela Srl and Tecnagrind
SL and the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 17 January 2003 by the appellants, represented by
Maurizio Carretta, lawyer.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

1.

2.

is not proportionate in relation to the — public
— interest served thereby;

1. As regards the substance,

affects trade to such an extent as would be
contrary to the interests of the Community?

— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of

9 March 1999