–

Crown Van Gelder BV, by M.R. het Lam, advocaat,

–

TenneT TSO BV, by L. Baljon, and by I. Brinkman, advocaat,

–

the Netherlands Government, by M.K. Bulterman and P. Huurnink, acting as Agents,

–

the Finnish Government, by J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent,

–

the European Commission, by E. Manhaeve and O. Beynet, acting as Agents,

1

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 37(11) of 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 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

2

The request has been made in the context of a dispute between Crown Van Gelder BV and Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM) (Consumer and Market Authority, Netherlands) concerning a decision of the latter declaring inadmissible the complaint submitted by that company against TenneT TSO BV, the operator of the national high-voltage grid, following a failure in that grid.

3

Recitals 37, 42, 51 and 54 of Directive 2009/72 state:

…

…

…

4

Article 1 of that directive is worded as follows:

‘This Directive establishes common rules for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity, together with consumer protection provisions, with a view to improving and integrating competitive electricity markets in the [European Union]. … It also lays down universal service obligations and the rights of electricity consumers and clarifies competition requirements.’

5

Article 2 of that directive sets out the following definitions:

‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:

…

…

…’

6

Article 3 of Directive 2009/72, entitled ‘Public service obligations and customer protection’, states, in paragraph 7 thereof:

‘Member States shall take appropriate measures to protect final customers, and shall, in particular, ensure that there are adequate safeguards to protect vulnerable customers. … They shall ensure high levels of consumer protection, particularly with respect to … dispute settlement mechanisms. …’

7

According to Article 12 of that directive, entitled ‘Tasks of transmission system operators’:

‘Each transmission system operator shall be responsible for:

…’

8

Article 32 of that directive, entitled ‘Third-party access’, provides, in paragraph 2 thereof:

‘The transmission or distribution system operator may refuse access where it lacks the necessary capacity. … The regulatory authorities where Member States have so provided or Member States shall ensure that those criteria are consistently applied and that the system user who has been refused access can make use of a dispute settlement procedure. …’

9

Article 36 of Directive 2009/72, entitled ‘General objectives of the regulatory authority’, provides:

‘In carrying out the regulatory tasks specified in this directive, the regulatory authority shall take all reasonable measures in pursuit of the following objectives within the framework of their duties and powers as laid down in Article 37, in close consultation with other relevant national authorities, including competition authorities, as appropriate, and without prejudice to their competencies:

…

…’

10

According to Article 37 of that directive, entitled ‘Duties and powers of the regulatory authority’:

‘1.   The regulatory authority shall have the following duties:

…

…

…

…

4.   Member States shall ensure that regulatory authorities are granted the powers enabling them to carry out the duties referred to in paragraphs 1, 3 and 6 in an efficient and expeditious manner. For this purpose, the regulatory authority shall have at least the following powers:

…

…

11.   Any party having a complaint against a transmission or distribution system operator in relation to that operator’s obligations under this Directive may refer the complaint to the regulatory authority which, acting as dispute settlement authority, shall issue a decision within a period of two months after receipt of the complaint. This period may be extended by two months where additional information is sought by the regulatory authorities. That period may be further extended with the agreement of the complainant. The regulatory authority’s decision shall have binding effect unless and until overruled on appeal.

…’

11

Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72 was transposed into Netherlands law by Article 51(1) of the Wet houdende regels met betrekking tot de productie, het transport en de levering van elektriciteit (Elektriciteitswet 1998) (Law laying down rules on the production, transmission and supply of electricity (Electricity Law 1998)) of 2 July 1998 (Stb. 1998, No 427). According to that Article 51(1), ‘a party which is in dispute with a grid operator about how it performs its duties and exercises its powers under the present Law or how it fulfils its obligations under that law may lodge a complaint with [ACM]’.

12

On 27 March 2015, large-scale power failure occurred at the 380-kV Diemen substation (Netherlands), which is part of the high-voltage grid operated by TenneT TSO, and resulted in a large part of the province of Noord-Holland (North Holland) and a small part of the province of Flevoland being without power for several hours.

13

The power failure interrupted the transmission of electricity to Crown Van Gelder, which operates, in Velsen-Noord (Netherlands), a paper mill connected to the distribution network managed by Liander NV, which network is fed by the high-voltage grid operated by TenneT TSO.

14

Claiming that it had suffered damage as a result of that failure, Crown Van Gelder submitted a complaint before ACM seeking a declaration that TenneT TSO had not done everything reasonably within its power to prevent interruption of electricity transmission service and that the grid design of the Diemen substation did not meet the legal requirements.

15

By decision of 30 April 2018, ACM declared that complaint inadmissible on the ground that Crown Van Gelder did not have a direct relationship with TenneT TSO and could not, therefore, be considered a ‘party which is in dispute with a grid operator’ within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Electricity Law 1998. It found, in that regard, that Crown Van Gelder’s paper mill was not connected to TenneT TSO’s grid, that Crown Van Gelder had not concluded a contract with that grid operator and that it received no invoices from that operator.

16

Crown Van Gelder brought an action against that decision before the referring court, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court of Appeal for Trade and Industry, Netherlands).

17

That court states that the parties to the dispute before it disagree on the interpretation of the concept of ‘any party having a complaint’, within the meaning of Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72. Before addressing the question, in particular, of whether a complaint may be submitted by a legal person which operates an undertaking connected to the regional grid whose electricity supply has been interrupted by a power failure on the national grid which feeds that regional grid, it considers the scope of that provision not to be so clear as to exclude all reasonable doubt as to its interpretation.

18

In those circumstances, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court of Appeal for Trade and Industry) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72 … be interpreted as meaning that that provision also makes the right of complaint with regard to the operator of the national grid (transmission system operator) available to a party if that party has no connection to the grid of that national grid operator (transmission system operator) but has a connection only to a regional grid (distribution system) to which the transmission of electricity is interrupted as a result of a power cut on the national grid (transmission system) that feeds the regional grid (distribution system)?’

19

By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72 must be interpreted as meaning that the regulatory authority may dismiss a complaint submitted by a final customer against the operator of a transmission system following a power failure in that transmission system, on the ground that that final customer’s installation is connected not to that transmission system directly, but only to a distribution system fed by it.

20

Since Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72 provides that any party having a complaint against a transmission or distribution system operator in relation to that operator’s obligations under that directive may refer the complaint to the regulatory authority which, acting as dispute settlement authority, is to issue a decision within a period of two months after receipt of the complaint, it is necessary, in order to answer the question referred, to interpret the concept of ‘party having a complaint’.

21

According to the settled case-law of the Court, it follows from the requirement for the uniform application of EU law and from the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of EU law which does not contain any express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope, must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, that interpretation must take into account not only the wording of that provision but also its context and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (judgment of 19 December 2019, GRDF, C‑236/18, EU:C:2019:1120, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).

22

In the case at hand, as regards first of all the wording of Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72, it is apparent from it that the competence of the regulatory authority, prescribed by that provision, is expressly subject to two conditions. First, the complaint must concern a transmission or distribution system operator. Second, the complaint must relate to obligations imposed on the system operator by that directive.

23

It does not follow from the wording of Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72, however, that the competence of the regulatory authority, on the basis of that provision, is conditional on the existence of a direct relationship between the complainant and the system operator concerned by the complaint.

24

In that regard, it should be noted that interpreting the concept of ‘party having a complaint’ as involving such a condition would limit the scope of that concept, whereas the use of the term ‘any’, which precedes the term ‘party’, indicates on the contrary that the concept must be construed broadly. Furthermore, as the Advocate General noted in points 30 to 32 of his Opinion, the term ‘party’ does not necessarily refer to a party to a contract, but may also be understood in the ‘“procedural” sense’ of that term, as referring to persons with an interest in having recourse to the regulatory authority. Moreover, in certain language versions of that provision, terms other than ‘party’ are used, such as ‘Betroffene’ (person concerned) in the German-language version and ‘interessado’ (interested person) in the Portuguese-language version, which do not refer to a party to a contract.

25

As regards, next, the context of Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72, it should be noted that no provision in that directive tends to restrict the scope of the concept of ‘party having a complaint’ by excluding from it persons who do not have a direct relationship with the system operator concerned. On the contrary, Article 32(2) of that directive provides that the user of a system to which access has been refused must be able to make use of a dispute settlement procedure, even though, specifically, in the case of such a user, there is no contractual relationship between the person concerned and the system operator.

26

Finally, as regards the objectives pursued by Directive 2009/72, it should be noted that it follows from recitals 37, 42, 51 and 54 of that directive as well as from Article 1 thereof that it aims to grant energy regulators the power to ensure the full effectiveness of consumer protection measures, to ensure that all Union industry and commerce and all citizens of the Union enjoy high levels of consumer protection and have access to dispute settlement mechanisms, to put consumer interests at the heart of the directive, to have that regulatory authorities, where the Member State confers on them that competence, enforce the consumer rights of electricity consumers as well as to implement effective means of dispute settlement for all consumers.

27

Likewise, Article 3(7) of Directive 2009/72 requires Member States, inter alia, to ensure high levels of consumer protection, particularly with respect to dispute resolution mechanisms, and Article 36(g) of that directive assigns to the regulatory authorities the objective of helping to ensure consumer protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 January 2020, Energiavirasto, C‑578/18, EU:C:2020:35, paragraphs 34 and 35).

28

In order to achieve those objectives, Article 37(1)(b) of Directive 2009/72 gives the regulatory authority the task of ensuring that transmission and distribution system operators and, where appropriate, the system owners and electricity undertakings, comply with their obligations under that directive and other applicable EU provisions. To that end, the regulatory authority is to have, inter alia, under Article 37(4)(a), (d) and (e) of that directive, the power to issue binding decisions on electricity undertakings and to impose effective penalties or to propose that a competent court impose such penalties, as well as appropriate rights of investigations and relevant powers of instructions for dispute settlement under Article 37(11) of that directive.

29

In the context of the main proceedings, it should also be noted that, under Article 37(1)(h) and (m) of Directive 2009/72, the regulatory authority is responsible for monitoring compliance with and reviewing the past performance of network security and reliability rules and monitoring the time taken by transmission and distribution system operators to make connections and repairs.

30

Limiting the right to refer a complaint to the regulatory authority in accordance with Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72 exclusively to final customers with a direct link to the system operator concerned does not appear to be consistent with the objectives recalled in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the present judgment, in that it restricts consumers’ access to the dispute settlement mechanism and, accordingly, the possibilities, for that authority, to carry out the duties entrusted to it, such as those set out in paragraphs 28 and 29 of this judgment.

31

In addition, with regard to transmission system operators in particular, it should be observed that, as the Advocate General noted in point 47 of his Opinion, the tasks and obligations imposed on them by Directive 2009/72 do not concern only those entities whose installation is connected to their network. Thus, in particular, Article 12(a) to (d) of that directive requires them inter alia to operate, maintain and develop under economic conditions secure, reliable and efficient transmission systems, to ensure adequate means to meet service obligations, to contribute to security of supply through adequate transmission capacity and system reliability and to manage electricity flows on the system, taking into account exchanges with other interconnected systems.

32

Accordingly, limiting the right to refer a complaint to the regulatory authority in accordance with Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72 exclusively to final customers with a direct link to the transmission system operator concerned restricts, in particular, the ability of the regulatory authority to carry out, by means of a complaint, the task entrusted to it, inter alia, consisting in ensuring that transmission system operators comply with their obligations under that directive.

33

It follows from all the above that the concept of ‘party having a complaint’ cannot be interpreted as involving a direct relationship between the complainant and the transmission system operator concerned by the complaint.

34

Thus, while Article 37 of Directive 2009/72 does not require Member States to confer on the regulatory authority the competence to settle disputes between electricity consumers and system operators, but allows them to confer that competence on another authority (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 January 2020, Energiavirasto, C‑578/18, EU:C:2020:35, paragraphs 36 to 40 and 43), that competence, when it is conferred by a Member State on the regulatory authority, cannot be made conditional on the existence of a direct relationship between the complainant and the network operator concerned by the complaint.

35

Consequently, where it receives a complaint from a final customer alleging non-compliance with obligations imposed on transmission system operators by Directive 2009/72, the regulatory authority is not entitled to dismiss that complaint on the ground that the installation of that final customer is connected not to that transmission system directly, but only to a distribution system fed by it.

36

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72 must be interpreted as meaning that the regulatory authority may not dismiss a complaint submitted by a final customer against the operator of a transmission system, following a power failure in that system, on the ground that that final customer’s installation is connected not to that transmission system directly, but only to a distribution system fed by it.

37

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 37(11) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the regulatory authority may not dismiss a complaint submitted by a final customer against the operator of a transmission system, following a power failure in that system, on the ground that that final customer’s installation is connected not to that transmission system directly, but only to a distribution system fed by it.