- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-558/23: Action brought on 8 September 2023 — Swissgrid v ACER
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0558
62023TN0558
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
Series C
C/2023/229
(Case T-558/23)
(C/2023/229)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Swissgrid AG (Aarau, Switzerland) (represented by: P. De Baere, P. L’Ecluse, K. T’Syen, V. Lefever and V. Ion, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators of 29 June 2023 in Case A-008-2022, dismissing as inadmissible the appeal of the applicant against decision No 15/2022 of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (‘contested decision’), and
—order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law in relying in the contested decision on the fact that the European Commission has not issued a decision authorising Switzerland to participate in the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied in the contested decision the conditions of admissibility under Article 28(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/942 of 5 June 2019 establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (recast) (1).
3.Third plea in law, in subsidiary order to the first and second pleas, arguing that Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing (2) is invalid to the extent it is applied to prohibit the EU TSOs from including the applicant in the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation.
(1) OJ L 158, 14.06.2019, p. 22.
(2) OJ L 312, 28.11.2017, p. 6
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/229/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)