Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/4060

28.7.2025

(Case T-364/25)

(C/2025/4060)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Luminus (Saint Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium) (represented by: C. Breuvart, P. Laconte and V. Viaud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision; and

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/477 of 6 March 2025 on the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council to the award of contracts for the activities related to the generation and wholesale of electricity in Belgium, with the exception of electricity generated in the Doel 4 and Tihange 3 nuclear power plants (‘the decision’), the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 4, 34 and 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU.

—The applicant submits that the decision infringes:

—Articles 34 and 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU, in so far as it grants an exemption only to certain contracting entities and denies it to others in respect of the same activities on the Belgian market for the generation and wholesale of electricity;

—Articles 4, 34 and 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU, in so far as it incorrectly designates Engie as a contracting entity.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the criterion of direct exposure to competition.

—The applicant submits that the Commission, in its analysis of that criterion, relies on the unlawful premiss that Engie is a contracting entity, which led it, wrongly, to refuse to grant Luminus the exemption provided for in Articles 34 and 35 of the Directive.

—The applicant submits that, even assuming that Engie’s classification as a contracting entity is not unlawful, the Commission does not draw the conclusions from its own findings relating to, inter alia, future market developments and the level of imports and does not take account of certain specific features of the market and, in the context of its new approach by contracting entity, unjustifiably conflates Luminus’s situation with that of Engie.

3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

—The applicant submits, first, that the decision, without objective justification, treats Norther, the other subsidiaries of Nethys and Ørsted, on the one hand, and Luminus and the other non-applicant contracting entities currently present on the market (excluding Engie), on the other hand, differently, even though they are in a comparable situation.

—Second, the applicant argues that the decision treats Engie, on the one hand, and Luminus and the other non-applicant contracting entities currently present on the market, on the other hand, equally, even though they are in different situations.

—Third, the applicant states that the decision treats Ørsted (which is not yet present on the Belgian electricity generation and wholesale market) differently from future new entrants on that market.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons.

—According to the applicant, the decision does not sufficiently explain why the Commission departed from its established previous decision-making practice of granting or refusing the exemption provided for in Articles 34 and 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU in respect of the activity on the relevant market as a whole. The applicant also claims in that regard that the operative part of the decision is not compatible with the statement of reasons in that decision.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4060/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—