CELEX: 62016TN0883
Language: en
Date: 2016-12-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-883/16: Action brought on 16 December 2016 — Republic of Poland v Commission

6.2.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 38/52
            
         Action brought on 16 December 2016 — Republic of Poland v Commission
   (Case T-883/16)
   (2017/C 038/68)
   Language of the case: Polish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Commission of 28 October 2016 concerning amendments to the conditions of the exemption of the Opal gas pipeline from the requirements on third-party access (TPA) and tariff regulation granted under Directive 2003/55/EC;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               The first plea in law alleges infringement of Article 36(1)(a) of Directive 2009/73/EC, in conjunction with Article 194(1)(b) TFEU, and of the principle of solidarity through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline, even though that exemption undermines the security of gas supplies.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The second plea in law alleges lack of competence on the part of the Commission and infringement of Article 36(1), in conjunction with Article 2(17), of Directive 2009/73/EC through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline, even though that pipeline is not an ‘interconnector’.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The third plea in law alleges infringement of Article 36(1)(b) of Directive 2009/73/EC through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline despite the fact that there was no risk that the investment would not take place if that exemption were not granted.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               The fourth plea in law alleges infringement of Article 36(1)(a) and (e) of Directive 2009/73/EC through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline despite the negative impact of that exemption on competition.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               The fifth plea in law alleges infringement of international agreements binding the European Union, namely the Energy Charter Treaty, the Energy Community Treaty and the Association Agreement with Ukraine.