1.

Are the provisions of Articles 70 and 40 of the Commission Registry Regulation (1) regarding the timeframes for reversal of transactions and the final and irrevocable nature of transactions invalid when the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the other rights protected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights are taken into account, in as much as the provisions at issue prevent the retransfer of the allowances to Metsä Fibre Oy in a situation where the surrender of excessive allowances to the Union Registry was based on the application of the provisions which were found in the Schaefer Kalk judgment (2) to be invalid, and the company cannot use the positive compliance status of the compliance account because of the current low level of emissions from the Äänekoski installation?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative, are the provisions of Articles 70 and 40 of the Commission Registry Regulation at all applicable in a situation where the surrender of excessive allowances to the Union Registry was based on application of the provisions which were found in the Schaefer Kalk judgment to be invalid and not on a transaction unintentionally or erroneously initiated by an account holder or a national administrator acting on behalf of the account holder?

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative and Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is there any other way made possible by EU law to put Metsä Fibre Oy in the position, with respect to use of the allowances, in which it would have been if the provisions which were found in the Schaefer Kalk judgment to be invalid had not existed and the company had not surrendered excessive allowances on the basis of them?