Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CN0765

Case C-765/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 6 December 2018 — Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH v RI

OJ C 112, 25.3.2019, p. 17–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.3.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/17


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 6 December 2018 — Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH v RI

(Case C-765/18)

(2019/C 112/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH

Defendant: RI

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 3(3) of 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, (1) read in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that failure to give gas customers timely and direct notice of the preconditions, reasons for and extent of an imminent change in the tariff for gas supplies precludes the effectiveness of such a change in tariff?

2.

If that question is answered in the affirmative:

Has Article 3(3) of 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, read in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A thereto, had direct effect since 1 July 2004 in respect of a supply company incorporated under private law (as a German GmbH), because the abovementioned provisions of that directive are unconditional, so far as their subject matter is concerned, and can therefore be applied without any further implementing act, and confer rights on citizens vis-à-vis an organisation which, despite its private-law legal form, is subject to the authority of the State because the State is the sole shareholder in the undertaking?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57.


Top