CELEX: C2006/178/28
Language: en
Date: 2006-07-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-206/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Groningen (Netherlands) lodged on  2 May 2006  — Essent Netwerk Noord BV v Aluminium Delfzijl BV, Essent Netwerk Noord BV v 1. Saranne BV, and 2. BV Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor, and Aluminium Delfzijl BV v State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Economic Affairs)

29.7.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/17
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Groningen (Netherlands) lodged on 2 May 2006 — Essent Netwerk Noord BV v Aluminium Delfzijl BV, Essent Netwerk Noord BV v 1. Saranne BV, and 2. BV Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor, and Aluminium Delfzijl BV v State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Economic Affairs)
   (Case C-206/06)
   (2006/C 178/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank Groningen
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Claimant: Essent Netwerk Noord B.V.
   
      Defendant: Aluminium Delfzijl B.V.
   
      Other parties: B.V. Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor, Saranne BV, BV Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor, State of the Netherlands (Ministry for Economic Affairs)
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Must Articles 25 EC and 90 EC be construed as precluding a statutory rule under which domestic purchasers of electricity are required during a transitional period (31 August 2000 to 31 December 2000 inclusive) to pay to their net operator a price surcharge on the amounts of electricity delivered for their use, in the case where that surcharge is to be paid by the net operator to an undertaking designated by the legislature for the purpose of defraying non-market-compatible costs which have arisen as a result of obligations incurred, or investments made, by that undertaking prior to liberalisation of the electricity market, and that undertaking:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           is the joint subsidiary of the four domestic generating undertakings;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           was solely responsible, in the period in question (2000), for the non-market-compatible costs which arose during that year;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           requires, by general agreement, an amount of NLG 400 million (EUR 181 512 086.40) in order to cover those costs incurred in that year; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           so far as the income generated by the price surcharge exceeds the aforementioned amount, is required to forward such surplus to the Minister?
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Does the rule mentioned in the first question satisfy the requirements of Article 87(1) EC?