CELEX: 62014TN0793
Language: en
Date: 2014-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-793/14: Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission

9.3.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 81/21
            
         Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission
   (Case T-793/14)
   (2015/C 081/28)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Tempus Energy Ltd (Reading, United Kingdom); and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (Cheltenham, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Derenne, J. Blockx, C. Ziegler and M. Kinsella, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicants.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By their action the applicants seek the annulment of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 in case SA.35980 (2014/N-2) — United Kingdom, Electricity Market Reform — Capacity Market.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that, by failing to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission violated Article 108(2) TFEU, the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and legitimate expectation and made a wrong assessment of the facts. The applicants submit that:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the Commission failed to properly assess the potential role of Demand-Side Response (‘DSR’) in the UK capacity market;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the restrictions on the duration of DSR contracts under the capacity market violate the principles of legitimate expectation and non-discrimination, and are based on a wrong assessment of the facts;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the requirement for DSR operators to choose between transitional and enduring market auctions violates the principles of legitimate expectation and non-discrimination;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the capacity market’s cost recovery methodology violates the principles of non-discrimination, legitimate expectation and proportionality;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the use of open-ended capacity events rather than time-bound ones in the enduring auctions of the capacity market is contrary to the principles of non-discrimination and legitimate expectation;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the capacity market’s bid bond requirement to obtain access to the auctions violates the principles of non-discrimination and legitimate expectation; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the capacity market’s failure to provide for additional remuneration for savings in transmission and distribution losses from DSR violates the principles of non-discrimination and legitimate expectation.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commissions failed to provide adequate reasoning in the Decision.