CELEX: C2003/070/09
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: 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

C 70/6                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.3.2003
The Commission submits, therefore, in reliance on the detailed             II.     a) Is Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive ( 1) to be
legal submissions in its appeal in case T-5/02, that the                               interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of dis-
contested judgment should be annulled in the event that the                            crimination contained therein is restricted to the
appeal against the Court of First Instance’s judgment in case T-                       requirement that the system operator must not draw
5/02 is successful.                                                                    any distinction in granting access to the system by
                                                                                       means of technical rules?
( 1) OJ C 156, 29.06.2002, p. 27.                                                     If so, is an allocation method relating to the cross-
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on                       border transport capacity of electricity to be regarded
     the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395,
                                                                                      as a technical rule within the meaning of the abov-
     30.12.1989, p. 1).
( 3) Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001                       ementioned provision?
     declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
     market, Case No COMP/M.2416 Tetra Laval/Sidel.                               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-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
                                                                                      crimination contained in that article?
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
                                                                           (1 ) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and 3. N.V. Eneco and                           of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie;                         market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.01.1997, p. 20).
Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit Administratie-
                               kantoor
                           (Case C-17/03)
                           (2003/C 70/09)
                                                                           Appeal brought on 17 January 2003 by Vela Srl and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Tecnagrind SL against the judgment delivered on 7 Nov-
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep                 ember 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                 Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
Industry) of 13 November 2002, received at the Court                       T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela
Registry on 16 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the               Srl and Tecnagrind SL and the Commission of the
proceedings between 1. Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en                                        European Communities
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                                         (Case C-18/03 P)
Administratiekantoor on the following questions:
                                                                                                        (2003/C 70/10)
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             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 November
           in connection with such operation a special right to            2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
           enable it to honour those commitments after the                 the European Communities in Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/
           particular task assigned to it has been completed?              99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela Srl and Tecnagrind
                                                                           SL and the Commission of the European Communities was
       b) If this question is answered in the affirmative, is a rule       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
           which provides for the preferential allocation for a            ties on 17 January 2003 by the appellants, represented by
           period of ten years of half to a quarter (declining             Maurizio Carretta, lawyer.
           over time) of the cross-border transport capacity for
           electricity to the undertaking concerned nevertheless
           invalid because it                                              The appellants claim that the Court should:
           1.    is not proportionate in relation to the — public
                 — interest served thereby;                                1.     As regards the substance,
           2.    affects trade to such an extent as would be                      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of
                 contrary to the interests of the Community?                            9 March 1999