- Christopher WJones, EU Energy Law-Volume 1, The Internal Energy Market (Claeys & Casteels, 2004), p.1
- For a similar opinion, see Philip-Xenophon Pierros and Sabina Nüesch, ‘Trade in Electricity-Spot On’ (2000) 34 Journal of World. Trade 112–113.
- Andreas J Gunst, ‘Energy Trade in the European Common Market-Free Movement, Exceptions and Regulatory Inaction’ (2003) 21JERL448.
- The second Electricity Directive, Directive 2003/54/EC, was adopted on 26June 2003, which repealed Directive 96/92/EC.
- OJ 1997 L 27/20.
- Jones, n 1 above, at 2–3.
- Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/ 92/EC, OJ 2003 L 17/37–56.
- Today Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor BV (NEA). At the time when the dispute first started, NEA was still known as SEP. This article will use the former name SEP.
- ECJ, press release No 53/05, 7June 2005.
- Judgment, paras 15 and 16.
- During 2000, 47 per cent and from 2001 until 31 March 2009 23.4 per cent.
- Judgment, paras 19–24.
- In essence the questions were: (1) Can Art 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 in connection with such operation a special right to enable it to honour those commitments after the particular task assigned to it has been completed? (2) Is Art 7(5) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of discrimination contained therein is restricted to the requirement that the system operator must not draw any distinction in granting access to the system by means of technical rules? In the event that the allocation method must be regarded as a technical rule or in the event that Art 7(5) of the Directive is not limited to technical rules, is a rule under which preferential cross-border transmission capacity is made available for contracts concluded in connection with a particular public task compatible with the prohibition of discrimination contained in that article?
- Eg Art 7(2) refers to technical designs and operational requirements for connection to interconnectors, etc.
- Judgment, para 40.
- Judgment, para 39.
- Judgment, para 51.
- Judgment, para 36.
- Judgment, paras 41–45.
- Judgment, paras 57–61.
- Judgment, para 62.
- Communication COM (89) 336 final of 29 September 1989 on increased intra-Community electricity exchanges.
- Judgment, paras 73–78.
- Judgment, paras 80–82.
- Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity. Given on the 26 June 2003, OJ 2003 L 176/0001–0010.
- These two principles, as well as some of the other principles suggested in this article, would be classified as policies rather than pure legal principles in the Dworkinian division, but as has been often stated, this division does not fit well in the EC law context and these policies are therefore treated as principles in this article.
- However, as the exemptions and derogations of this group reduce the regulatory risks involved in the construction of interconnectors, they also function in favour of market integration.
- Judgment, para 84.
- Judgment, para 85.
- Article 1 of Regulation 1228/2003.
- Joined Cases 7/56,3/57 to 7/57, DinekeAlgera, Giacomo Cicconardi, Simone Couturaud, Ignazio Genuardi, Fétide Stachen v Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community [1957] ECR 39.
- Judgment, para 81. This finding of the ECJ relates to the demand of continuity in a legal system, which can be traced back to Roman law. See Case 23/68, Johannes Gerhardus Klomp v Inspektie der Belastingen [1969] ECR 43.
- Case C-6/64, Costa v Enel [1964] ECR 585.
- Exemption decision, Finnish Energy Market Authority, 2 February 2005, available at: http://www.emvi.fi/files/Estlink_decision_2005_02_02.doc.
- An analysis by the author of the awarded exemption and procedure for the exemption was published in the previous issue of the Journal.(2005) 23 JERL 266.
- This need has also been recognised in Regulation 1228/2003 and the possible exemption is a compromise between these two interrelated aims.
- It must be noted, however, that this particular case was about capacity reservations and not about long-term power purchase agreements. A long-term agreement can be acceptable in the current legislative situation as well. Unless, of course, special circumstances such as the dominant position of one of the parties affects the setting. In the present case the court did not deny the legality of the long-term power purchase agreements, only the long-term capacity reservations.
- Rajala Kärkkäinen, Effects of long-term wholesale contracts on the competitive situation in electricity sales [Pitkien tukkusähkösopimusten vaikutukset sähkön vähittäismyynnin kilpailutilanteeseen]. Report commissioned by Ministry of Trade and Industry on 3 August 1998. Studies and Reports 7/1999. Available in Finnish language only.
- At the time of writing, the Commission inquiry is already in the execution phase. For more information see: www.europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/others/sector_inquiries/energy/.
- Communication by Neelien Kroes in Agreement with Mr Piebalgs, COMP/B-1/39172 (electricity sector inquiry), para 3:10.
- For some interesting points on possible reasons for governmental obstacles to free energy trade see: Thomas Wälde and Andreas Gunst, ‘International Energy Trade and Access to Energy Networks’ (2002) 36(2) Journal of World Trade 191–218
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
Volume 24, 2006 - Issue 1