Case C-539/25 P: Appeal brought on 8 August 2025 by Aquind Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 June 2025 in Case T-342/23, Aquind v ACER
Date: 2025-08-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, United Kingdom, damages, discretionary power, electrical energy, energy grid, energy transport, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty








C_202505079EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5079


29.9.2025






Appeal brought on 8 August 2025 by Aquind Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 June 2025 in Case T-342/23, Aquind v ACER


(Case C-539/25 P)

(C/2025/5079)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Aquind Ltd (represented by: S. Goldberg, Rechtsanwältin, E. White, J. Bille, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


examine the claims of legal error in the judgment under appeal;










—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination, and










—


order ACER to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is directed against the judgment of 11 June 2025 of the General Court in Case T-342/23 (the ‘judgment’) dismissing the application brought by the appellant (hereafter ‘Aquind’) on 16 June 2023 for compensation due to ACER's unlawful actions in relation to its decision of 19 June 2018, refusing to grant the Aquind Interconnector Project an exemption under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No. 714/2009 (1).
In the judgment, the General Court rejected Aquind's application on the ground that none of ACER's actions were unlawful, or ‘sufficiently unlawful’ to find an action in damages. Aquind considers the reasoning of the General Court to reach this conclusion to be defective and brings this appeal to correct those errors and set aside the judgment on the following grounds:

Failure to consider the intentional nature of ACER's breach: The General Court failed to properly consider how ACER sought to deliberately obstruct the approval of the Aquind Interconnector Project by according to itself discretion to refuse the exemption on policy grounds, and to deviate from precedents of the European Commission in granting such exemptions. This constitutes an error of law.

Error of law regarding relevance of reasoning in case T-735/18: The General Court's conclusion that the reasoning of the Court in Case T-735/18 did not have the force of res judicata constitutes an error of law as the reasoning was not considered or set aside by the Court of Justice in C-46/21. Further, the finding that an alleged infringement of EU law by ACER cannot be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law is unfounded as the General Court does not provide any reasoning to support this conclusion.

Rejection of claim based on ‘legal certainty’
            : The General Court erred in holding that ACER could ignore precedents set by the European Commission by relying on the judgment in case C-168/23, which does not apply to the instant case as ACER acts under the authority of the European Commission and cannot disregard its decision-making practice and precedents.

Failure to properly consider the principle of equal treatment: The General Court erroneously rejected that ACER's decision of 19 June 2018 violates the right of equal treatment by treating Aquind and ElecLink Interconnector differently for the purposes of the exemption, by basing its conclusion on irrelevant facts and by disregarding the relevant facts to establish the right to equal treatment.

Unduly restrictive interpretation of 'risk' in Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No. 714/2009: The General Court narrowly interprets 'risk' in Article 17(1)(b) to only relate to obligations under Regulation No. 714/2009, thereby excluding French law restrictions. This reasoning is erroneous because French law restrictions in this case result in restrictions on ownership and free use of revenues – which, by the General Court's own interpretation, falls within the meaning of 'risk' under Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No. 714/2009 by relating to Article 9 and Articles 32 and 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC (2). ACER also considered legal, political and other risks in another exemption decision.

Error of law in holding that ACER had no obligation to review its refusal decision: The General Court's consideration of whether ACER had an obligation to review the ACER decision of 19 June 2018 is vitiated by disregarding that the ‘Projects of Common Interest’ status was an essential factor for refusing the exemption and considering the power to amend decisions to only apply to elements of law and fact existing at the time of adoption of measure, and excluded subsequent facts.

Errors of law in rejecting the claim of violation of Article 266 TFEU: The General Court failed to consider that appeals of General Court judgments do not have suspensory effect and erred in holding that only the Board of Appeal and not ACER, had an obligation under Article 266 TFEU to comply with the judgment in Case T-735/18.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009, L 211, p. 15).

(2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5079/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)