Action brought on 26 August 2011 - Globula v Commission

(Case T-465/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Globula a.s. (Hodonín, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Petite, D. Paemen, A. Tomtsis, D. Koláček and P. Zákoucký, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul the Commission's Decision dated 27 June 2011 ordering the Czech Republic to withdraw the notified decision of the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade of 26 October 2010 granting the applicant temporary exemption from the obligation to provide negotiated third party access to a planned Underground Gas Storage Facility in Dambořice (C(2011) 4509); and

Order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly applied Article 36(9) of the Third Gas Directive¹, instead of applying Article 22(4) of the Second Gas Directive². As a result, the defendant incorrectly issued the contested decision in the form of a binding decision instead of an informal request. Furthermore, relying on the time period under Article 36(9) of the Third Gas Directive the defendant issued the contested decision late, as under the Second Gas Directive the original time period could only be extended by one additional month. As a result the contested decision is of no legal effect.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the applicant's legitimate expectations when it first provided precise, unconditional and consistent assurances as to when and under what circumstances the notified decision of the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade would become final, later unequivocally reconfirmed this and then, unexpectedly, issued the contested decision inconsistent with its previous statements.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the Treaties and the rules of law relating to their application. In this regard, the contested decision applied incorrect substantive law. The applicant contends that the applicable substantive rules in light of which the Commission should have reviewed the notified decision are to be found in Article 22 of the Second Gas Directive. The Commission therefore infringed the principles of legal certainty and the applicant's legitimate expectations.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error in assessment of the facts when it wrongly rejected the explanation offered by the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade that the applicant was and remains unable to find a reliable long-term partner under the storage capacity allocation rules of Czech law, applicable both at the time when the applicant filed the application for an exemption to the Ministry as well as today.

____________

¹ - 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 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94)

² - Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57)