CELEX: 62014TN0788
Language: en
Date: 2014-11-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-788/14: Action brought on 28 November 2014 — MPF Holdings v Commission

23.2.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 65/38
            
         Action brought on 28 November 2014 — MPF Holdings v Commission
   (Case T-788/14)
   (2015/C 065/52)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: MPF Holdings Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: D. Piccinin and E. Whiteford, Barristers, and E. Gibson-Bolton, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By its action the applicant seeks 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 applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the Commission unlawfully deprived MPF of its right to participate in the formal investigation procedure by failing to open a formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, notwithstanding that the capacity market gives rise to doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The applicant submits that:
   
               —
            
            
               the discriminatory availability of long contract durations cannot be justified by reference to the legitimate objective of procuring the necessary amount of generation capacity;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the Commission failed adequately to investigate the likely effects of the discriminatory availability of long contract durations on the efficiency of the capacity market and on the owners of existing plants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the Commission failed adequately to investigate the United Kingdom Government’s purported justification for discriminatory contract durations, namely that independent generators that rely on project finance require long term contracts;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the Commission failed to justify or adequately to investigate the likely effects of the discriminatory price-taker/price-maker distinction.