Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T05:17:23.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter IV - How is the Energy Sector Faring at the EU Courts?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

Catherine Banet
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Oslo
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents an overview of the case law of the European Courts in the energy sector in 2019. It should be noted that it basically revolved around the following two areas: (i) State aid, and, in particular the issue of ‘State resources’; and (ii) issues of sector-specific regulation, stemming from solidarity and public service obligations.

The chapter tracks this broad divide, starting with the case law on State aid. Thus, section 2 first discusses the judgment of 28 March 2019 in Germany v. Commission and the judgment of 20 September 2019 in FVE Hol y šov I and Others v. Commission, both from the point of view of State resources. Next, section 3 starts with an analysis of the judgment in Poland v. Commission (OPAL) of 10 September 2019 on the principle of energy solidarity, followed by a discussion of the judgment in Repsol Butano of 11 April 2019 on public service obligations. The section concludes by presenting the judgment of 15 May 2019 in Achema and Others v. Commission, which is at the interface between State aid and public service obligations. In section 4 we provide concluding remarks and an overview of some pending cases.

STATE AID CASES: THE NOTION OF STATE RESOURCES

Among the cumulative criteria for a measure to be classified as State aid under Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the criterion of State resources features prominently in energy cases. This is because in many instances, the resources do not proceed from the State budget, but from consumers. The mechanism through which the State manages the money flows and channels them to the beneficiary energy companies is thus of paramount importance to determine if a measure is ‘aid’ or not.

In the E ssent and Vent de Col e re9 judgments, the thrust of the analysis was whether funds passing through a public or publicly controlled body or serving a public purpose could be regarded as being under ‘constant public control’.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Intersentia
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×