—

annul the decision of the defendant’s Board of Appeal of 9 December 2022 (No A 003-2022);

—

in the alternative, annul the defendant’s decision of 25 February 2022 (No 03/2022);

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

1.

First plea

The defendant’s Board of Appeal erred in finding that the defendant’s decision (No 03/2022) was ‘addressed to another person’ within the meaning of Article 28(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/942 (1) and that it was of ‘direct’ but not ‘individual’ concern to the applicant:

2.

Second plea

Although the Board of Appeal confirmed that the defendant’s decision was a regulatory act pursuant to the third alternative provided for in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, it unlawfully interpreted Article 28(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/942 to the effect that, under that provision — by way of derogation from the third alternative provided for in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — the applicant nevertheless was not entitled to appeal:

1.

First plea

The defendant exceeded its powers under the second sentence of Article 5(1) and Article 5(6), read in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2195, in so far as it did not decide upon the request made by ENTSO-E (European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity), but determined an entirely different matter.

2.

Second plea

The defendant, even if it were deemed to have competence under Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 and Regulation (EU) 2019/942, should not have determined the price limits without a fresh consultation pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2195.

3.

Third plea

There is no legal basis for the price limit determined by the defendant.

4.

Fourth plea

The defendant failed to state sufficient reasons for its determination of the price limit, in breach of Article 14(7) of Regulation (EU) 2019/942 and Article 296 TFEU.

5.

Fifth plea

By its decision, the defendant infringed the provisions of Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (e) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2195.

6.

Sixth plea

In determining the price limit, the defendant infringed the principle of proportionality under the first and second sentences of Article 5(4) TEU and Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2195.