EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-883/16: Action brought on 16 December 2016 — Republic of Poland v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0883

62016TN0883

December 16, 2016
With Google you find a lot.
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/52

(Case T-883/16)

(2017/C 038/68)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the decision of the Commission of 28 October 2016 concerning amendments to the conditions of the exemption of the Opal gas pipeline from the requirements on third-party access (TPA) and tariff regulation granted under Directive 2003/55/EC;

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.The first plea in law alleges infringement of Article 36(1)(a) of Directive 2009/73/EC, in conjunction with Article 194(1)(b) TFEU, and of the principle of solidarity through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline, even though that exemption undermines the security of gas supplies.

2.The second plea in law alleges lack of competence on the part of the Commission and infringement of Article 36(1), in conjunction with Article 2(17), of Directive 2009/73/EC through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline, even though that pipeline is not an ‘interconnector’.

3.The third plea in law alleges infringement of Article 36(1)(b) of Directive 2009/73/EC through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline despite the fact that there was no risk that the investment would not take place if that exemption were not granted.

4.The fourth plea in law alleges infringement of Article 36(1)(a) and (e) of Directive 2009/73/EC through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline despite the negative impact of that exemption on competition.

5.The fifth plea in law alleges infringement of international agreements binding the European Union, namely the Energy Charter Treaty, the Energy Community Treaty and the Association Agreement with Ukraine.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia