Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Joined Cases C-128/03 and C-129/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): AEM SpA (C-128/03), AEM Torino SpA (C-129/03) v Autorità per l'energia elettrica e per il gas and Others (Internal market in electricity — Increased charge for access to and use of the national electricity transmission system — State aid — Directive 96/92/EC — Access to the system — Principle of non-discrimination)
Date: 2005-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, energy distribution, interpretation of the law, liberalisation of the market, price of energy, transport network

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Joined Cases C-128/03 and C-129/03 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): AEM SpA
(C-128/03), AEM Torino SpA (C-129/03) v Autorità per
l'energia elettrica e per il gas and Others (1)

(Internal market in electricity — Increased charge for access
to and use of the national electricity transmission system —
State aid — Directive 96/92/EC — Access to the system —
Principle of non-discrimination)

(2005/C 132/09)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Joined Cases C-128/03 and C-129/03: reference for a preli-
minary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Consiglio di Stato
(Italy), made by decision of 14 January 2003, received at the
Court on 24 March 2003, in the proceedings pending before
that court between AEM SpA (C-128/03), AEM Torino SpA (C-
129/03) and Autorità per l'energia elettrica e per il gas and
Others, third party: ENEL Produzione SpA — the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A.
Borg Barthet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U.
Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General, L. Hewlett,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
14 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. A measure such as the one at issue in the main proceedings,
which imposes an increased charge for a transitional period for
access to and use of the national electricity transmission system
only on undertakings generating and distributing electricity from
hydroelectric or geothermal
installations to offset the advantage
created for those undertakings, during the transitional period, by
the liberalisation of the market in electricity following the imple-
mentation of 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, constitutes different treatment
of undertakings in relation to charges which is attributable to the
nature and general scheme of the system of charges in question.
That different treatment is not therefore per se State aid within the
meaning of Article 87 EC.

there is hypothecation of

However, aid cannot be considered separately from the effects of its
method of financing. If, in a situation such as that in the main
proceedings,
the increased charge for
access to and use of the national electricity transmission system to
a national scheme of aid, in the sense that the revenue from the
increase is necessarily allocated for the financing of the aid, that
increase is an integral part of that scheme and must therefore be
considered together with the latter.

2. The rule of non-discriminatory access to the national electricity
transmission system laid down in Directive 96/92 does not

preclude a Member State from adopting a measure, such as the
one at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes an increased
charge for a transitional period for access to and use of that
system only on certain electricity generation and distribution
undertakings to offset the advantage created for those undertak-
ings, during the transitional period, by the altered legal framework
following the liberalisation of the market in electricity as a result
of the implementation of that directive. However, it is a matter for
the national court to satisfy itself that the increased charge does
not go beyond what is necessary to offset that advantage.

(1) OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 12 April 2005

in Case C-145/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Juzgado de lo Social no 20 de Madrid: Heirs of Annette
Keller v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
and Others (1)

(Social security — Articles 3 and 22 of Regulation No
1408/71 — Article 22 of Regulation No 574/72 — Hospital
treatment
in a Member State other than the competent
Member State — Need for vital urgent treatment — Transfer
institution in a non-
of the insured person to a hospital

member country — Scope of forms E 111 and E 112)

(2005/C 132/10)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

In Case C-145/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social no 20 de Madrid
(Spain), made by decision of 6 November 2001, received at the
Court on 31 March 2003, in the proceedings pending before
that court between the Heirs of Annette Keller and Instituto
Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Instituto Nacional de
formerly Instituto Nacional de la
Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa),
Salud (Insalud) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V.
Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R.
Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts
(Rapporteur) and A. Borg
Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N.
Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and M. Ilešič, Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, for Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 April 2005, the
operative part of which is as follows: