EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62023CN0121
Case C-121/23 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2023 by Swissgrid AG against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-127/21, Swissgrid v Commission
Case C-121/23 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2023 by Swissgrid AG against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-127/21, Swissgrid v Commission
Case C-121/23 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2023 by Swissgrid AG against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-127/21, Swissgrid v Commission
OJ C 127, 11.4.2023, p. 29–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
11.4.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 127/29 |
Appeal brought on 28 February 2023 by Swissgrid AG against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-127/21, Swissgrid v Commission
(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.