Language of document :

Action brought on 17 October 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-767/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by O. Beynet and Y. G. Marinova, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

declare that, by failing correctly to transpose:

Article 9(1)(a) of Directives 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC,

Article 37(4)(a) and (b) of Directive 2009/72/EC and Article 41(4)(a) and (b) of Directive 2009/73/EC,

Article 37(6)(a), (b) and (c) and (9) of 2009/72/EC and Article 41(6)(a), (b) and (c) and (9) of Directive 2009/73/EC, and

Article 37(10) of 2009/72/EC and Article 41(10) of Directive 2007/73/EC,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, 1 and under Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC; 2

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against the defective transposition in Belgium of Directives 2009/72 and 2009/73, concerning the common rules for the internal market in electricity and natural gas, respectively. Those directives contain, inter alia, provisions relating to the effective separation between the operation of electricity and gas transmission networks from supply and generation activities in order to prevent the risk of discrimination in the operation of the network. They also provide for the establishment of independent national regulatory authorities in order to achieve the objectives set by those directives.

The Commission takes the view that the transposition of the directives has been carried out insufficiently by the Kingdom of Belgium in two respects, namely the establishment of full ownership unbundling and the provisions concerning the powers and independence of the national regulatory authority.

____________

1 OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.

2 OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.