1.

This request for a preliminary ruling has been made by the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania) in proceedings between Bursa Română de Mărfuri SA (‘BRM’) and the Autoritatea Naţională de Reglementare în domeniul Energiei (ANRE) (National Energy Sector Regulatory Authority, Romania; ‘ANRE’) in connection with the latter’s refusal to grant BRM a licence to organise and operate centralised electricity markets.

2.

The questions submitted for a preliminary ruling which will be considered in this targeted Opinion concern, first, whether Regulation (EU) 2019/943, ( 2 ) interpreted in the light of Directive (EU) 2019/944, ( 3 ) prohibits Member States from issuing a single licence to organise and operate electricity markets and requires them to bring an end to an existing legal monopoly in that field, and, second, whether the principles of free competition laid down in that regulation apply to the electricity market operator, having regard also to the concept of ‘electricity markets’ defined in that regulation by reference to that directive.

3.

Article 1 of Regulation 2019/943, entitled ‘Subject matter and scope’, provides:

‘This Regulation aims to:

…

…’

4.

Article 2 of that regulation contains the following definitions:

‘The following definitions apply:

…

…

…

…’

5.

Article 3 of Regulation 2019/943, entitled ‘Principles regarding the operation of electricity markets’, states:

‘Member States, regulatory authorities, transmission system operators, distribution system operators, market operators and delegated operators shall ensure that electricity markets are operated in accordance with the following principles:

…

…

…’

6.

Article 10 of that regulation, entitled ‘Technical bidding limits’, provides in paragraphs 4 and 5:

‘4.   Regulatory authorities or … designated competent authorities … shall identify policies and measures applied within their territory that could contribute to indirectly restricting wholesale price formation, including limiting bids relating to the activation of balancing energy, capacity mechanisms, measures by the transmission system operators, measures intended to challenge market outcomes, or to prevent the abuse of dominant positions or inefficiently defined bidding zones.

5.   Where a regulatory authority or designated competent authority has identified a policy or measure which could serve to restrict wholesale price formation it shall take all appropriate actions to eliminate or, if not possible, to mitigate the impact of that policy or measure on bidding behaviour. …’

7.

Article 2 of Directive 2019/944 contains the following definition:

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

…

…’

8.

In accordance with Article 72 of Directive 2019/944, that directive repealed and replaced Directive 2009/72/EC ( 5 ) with effect from 1 January 2021, with most of the provisions of that new directive applying from that date, under Article 73 thereof.

9.

Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1222, ( 6 ) entitled ‘NEMOs designation and revocation of the designation’, provides in paragraph 1:

‘Each Member State electrically connected to a bidding zone in another Member State shall ensure that one or more NEMOs are designated … to perform the single day-ahead and/or intraday coupling. …’

10.

Article 5 of that regulation, entitled ‘NEMOs designation in case of a national legal monopoly for trading services’, provides:

‘1.   If a national legal monopoly for day-ahead and intraday trading services which excludes the designation of more than one NEMO already exists in a Member State or Member State’s bidding zone at the time of the entry into force of this Regulation, the Member State concerned must notify the Commission within two months after entry into force of this regulation and may refuse the designation of more than one NEMO per bidding zone.

…

2.   For the purposes of this regulation, a national legal monopoly is deemed to exist where national law expressly provides that no more than one entity within a Member State or Member State bidding zone can carry out day-ahead and intraday trading services.

3.   Two years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall forward a report to the European Parliament and the Council … On the basis of that report, and if the Commission deems that there is no justification for the continuation of national legal monopolies …, the Commission may consider appropriate legislative or other appropriate measures to further increase competition and trade between and within Member States. …’

11.

Article 10(2)(f) of the Legea energiei electrice şi a gazelor naturale nr. 123/2012 ( 7 ) provides:

‘The competent authority shall issue licences for:

…

12.

BRM is a company that, under Romanian law, has a general competence to operate markets of public interest.

13.

On 20 August 2020, it applied to ANRE for a licence to organise and operate centralised electricity markets. ( 8 )

14.

ANRE rejected that application on the ground that the only licence available, under Article 10(2)(f) of Law No 123/2012, had been granted to the company OPCOM. BRM then brought an action before the referring court, the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest), seeking an order requiring ANRE to grant it the licence applied for. The Federaţia Europeană a Comercianţilor de Energie (European Federation of Energy Traders, Romania) intervened in those proceedings.

15.

In essence, BRM argued that Regulation 2019/943, read in conjunction with Directive 2019/944, required ANRE to prevent any monopoly on centralised electricity markets. For its part, ANRE contended that, on the date of entry into force of Law No 123/2012, a licence to operate centralised electricity markets had already been validly granted to OPCOM on the basis of Regulation 2015/1222 and that nothing in Regulation 2019/943 required Member States to designate several operators to perform the task of organising and operating those markets.

16.

In those circumstances the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

17.

Written observations were submitted by BRM, the Romanian, Greek, Italian and Cypriot Governments, and the European Commission. At the hearing on 22 June 2022, oral argument was also presented by BRM, the European Federation of Energy Traders, the Romanian and Greek Governments, and the Commission.

18.

In accordance with the Court’s request, this Opinion will focus on the examination of the first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling.

19.

By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Regulation 2019/943, in particular Article 1(b) and Article 3 thereof, having regard to the provisions of Directive 2019/944, is to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States, since the entry into force of that regulation, from issuing a single licence to organise and operate electricity markets and as requiring them to bring an end to an existing legal monopoly in that field.

20.

In that regard, it should be noted that in Romania, Article 10(2)(f) of Law No 123/2012 provides that only one licence may be granted to the electricity market operator and that ANRE awarded that licence to OPCOM. The activities for which that licence was issued include the operation of the centralised electricity market, which essentially involves managing trade of two types between sellers and purchasers of electricity: short-term transactions, namely contracts for the same-day or next-day supply of electricity, and long-term transactions, namely contracts for the supply of electricity in the longer term.

21.

In the first place, I note that Regulation 2019/943 and Directive 2019/944, ( 9 ) which establish the general principles regarding the operation of the electricity markets, do not lay down any specific rules governing trading services between sellers and purchasers on those markets.

22.

Article 1(b) and (c) and Article 3 of that regulation, which BRM invokes on the ground that they require national regulatory authorities to promote competition between operators on the electricity markets, do not in themselves preclude the existence of a monopoly for the organisation and operation of centralised electricity markets. Nor is that the effect of Article 10(4) and (5) of that regulation, also invoked by BRM on the ground that those provisions call on the competent authorities to identify policies and measures that could contribute indirectly to restricting wholesale price formation and, when they have identified such policies or measures, to take all appropriate steps to eliminate or mitigate their impact.

23.

In the second place, I recall that Regulation 2015/1222 lays down rules on the designation of electricity market operators (NEMOs) to perform single day-ahead or intraday coupling.

24.

Under Article 4 of that regulation, any candidate meeting the criteria set out in that article may be designated as a NEMO and such designation may be refused only if the designation criteria are not met or in the situation referred to in Article 5(1) of that regulation.

25.

The first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of that regulation lays down an exception allowing Member States to maintain a national legal monopoly for day-ahead and intraday electricity trading services. That exception covers only intraday and day-ahead services and, like all exceptions, must be interpreted strictly. ( 10 ) Accordingly, it cannot be extended to other electricity markets, such as the market for long-term trading services.

26.

To conclude, although the maintenance of a legal monopoly for day-ahead and intraday electricity trading services may be justified in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Regulation 2015/1222, EU legislation governing the internal market for electricity, in particular Regulation 2019/943 and Directive 2019/944, does not contain any equivalent rule as regards the maintenance of a legal monopoly for long-term electricity trading services. ( 11 )

27.

That being said, since the interpretation of EU legislation governing the electricity markets is not conclusive as regards the lawfulness of a legal monopoly for long-term electricity trading services, the question arises as to whether or not such a monopoly constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 49 TFEU or, as the case may be, the freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 56 TFEU ( 12 ) and, if so, whether it is justified by a reason in the public interest and is proportionate.

28.

According to the Court’s case-law, all measures which prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services must be regarded as restrictions on those freedoms. ( 13 )

29.

Given that, under national law, it is impossible for undertakings from other Member States to provide intermediation services for energy transactions on the long-term market in Romania, through an establishment in that Member State or on a cross-border basis, since they cannot obtain a licence for that purpose, such legislation, which makes the exercise of an economic activity subject to an exclusive arrangement, may be regarded as a restriction on the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services.

30.

Therefore, Article 10(2)(f) of Law No 123/2012 may be considered to be compatible with Article 49 TFEU or Article 56 TFEU only if it is apparent that it is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest and proportionate to the objective pursued.

31.

However, since the referring court has not raised that question, it has not, in that respect, provided information on the legitimate reasons which might justify a restriction on the freedoms referred to above. ( 14 ) Against that background, I take the view that the Court is not in a position to rule on that question or, still less, on the consequential question of whether the restriction on the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services is necessary or proportionate.

32.

I therefore propose that the answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling should be that Regulation 2019/943, in particular Article 1(b) and Article 3 thereof, having regard to the provisions of Directive 2019/944, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which permits only one licence for day-ahead and intraday electricity trading services, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Regulation 2015/1222. Furthermore, that legislation must be interpreted as not precluding the maintenance of a legal monopoly for long-term electricity trading services, the lawfulness of which is to be assessed in the light, in particular, of the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services enshrined in Articles 49 and 56 TFEU.

33.

By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Regulation 2019/943, in particular Article 1(b) and (c) and Article 3 thereof, are to be interpreted as meaning that the principles of free competition apply to the electricity market operator. It also asks whether the fact that the concept of ‘electricity markets’ in Article 2(40) of that regulation is defined by reference to the definition of that same concept in Article 2(9) of Directive 2019/944 is relevant in that regard.

34.

In view of the numerous definitions and cross-references, particularly in Regulation 2019/943 and Directive 2019/944, it seems to me that electricity market operators, like OPCOM, are covered by the provisions of that regulation.

35.

A designated electricity market operator or NEMO is caught either by the definition of ‘market operator’ within the meaning of Article 2(7) of Regulation 2019/943, which refers to ‘an entity that provides a service whereby the offers to sell electricity are matched with bids to buy electricity’, ( 15 ) or by the broader definition of ‘market participant’ within the meaning of Article 2(25) of that regulation, which refers to ‘a natural or legal person who buys, sells or generates electricity, who is engaged in aggregation or who is an operator of demand response or energy storage services, including through the placing of orders to trade, in one or more electricity markets, including in balancing energy markets’. ( 16 )

36.

I therefore propose that the answer to the second question referred for a preliminary ruling should be that Regulation 2019/943, in particular Article 1(b) and (c) and Article 3 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the principles of free competition laid down apply to the electricity market operator.

37.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania) as follows: