Case C‑394/21

Bursa Română de Mărfuri SA

v

Autoritatea Naţională de Reglementare în domeniul Energiei (ANRE)

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 March 2023

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Internal market for electricity – Directive 2009/72/EC – Regulation (EU) 2019/943 – Article 1(b) and (c) and Article 3 – Principles regarding the operation of electricity markets – Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 – Article 5(1) – Nominated electricity market operator – National legal monopoly for day-ahead and intraday trading services – National legislation providing for a monopoly for short-, medium- and long-term wholesale trading of electricity)

1. Energy – Internal market for electricity – Regulation 2019/943 – Electricity markets

   (Arts 49 and 56 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2019/943, Arts 1(b) and (c), 2, point 40, and 3; Commission Regulation 2015/1222, Art. 5; European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/72, Art. 37(1)(j))

   (see paragraphs 30-36, 38, 39, 41-45, 47, 57, 58, operative part)

2. Competition – Public undertakings and undertakings enjoying special or exclusive rights granted by the Member States – Creation of a dominant position – Not in itself incompatible with Article 102 TFEU

   (Arts 102 and 106(1) TFEU)

   (see paragraph 37)

3. Energy – Internal market for electricity – Regulation 2019/943 – Exhaustive harmonisation – Absence – Assessment of whether national legislation falling within the scope of that regulation is compatible on the basis of primary law

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2019/943, Arts 1(b) and (c), 2, point 40, and 3; European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/72, Art. 37(1)(j))

   (see paragraph 46)

4. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context – Scope of the obligation in the context of the fundamental freedoms – Question raised concerning a dispute confined within a single Member State – No indication as to the connecting factor making the requested interpretation necessary to resolve the dispute – Manifest inadmissibility

   (Arts 49, 56 and 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

   (see paragraphs 48-56)

5. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context – Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition

   (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

   (see paragraphs 60-64)

See the text of the decision.