11.4.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/29

—

(Case C-121/23 P)

(2023/C 127/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Swissgrid AG (represented by: P. De Baere, P. L'Ecluse, K. T'Syen and V. Lefever, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

—set aside the order under appeal;

—dismiss the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility and declare the action for annulment admissible, and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment on the merits of the action;

—reserve judgment as to the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea: the General Court erred in law by applying an incorrect legal test for deciding whether the decision contained in a letter of 17 December 2020 signed by the Director of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy (‘the contested decision’) constitutes a challengeable act under Article 263 TFEU.

Second plea: the General Court erred in in law by asserting that Articles 1(6) and 1(7) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing (1) do not confer rights upon the appellant, which are capable of being affected by the contested decision.

Third plea: the order under appeal lacks an adequate statement of reasons to support the determinative finding that Article 1(7) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 does not confer any rights on the appellant.

* Language of the case: English.

(1) OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6.

—