2. The Unbundling and Unbundling-Related Measures in the EU Energy Sector

Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (19 December 1996) OJ 1997/L 27/20.

Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (22 June 1998) OJ 1998/L 204/1.

Article 14(3) of Directive 96/92/EC (n 1); Article 13(3) of Directive 98/30/EC (n 2).

Article 13 of Directive 96/92/EC (n 1); Article 12 of Directive 98/30/EC (n 2).

Article 9 of Directive 96/92/EC (n 1); Article 8 of Directive 98/30/EC (n 2).

Article 7(6) of Directive 96/92/EC (n 1).

Peter Cameron, Competition in Energy Markets – Law and Regulation in the European Union (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2002) [4.117]. Talus ambiguously writes in this respect that the ‘first internal market directives contained mere “management unbundling”’, see Kim Talus, EU Energy Law and Policy: A Critical Account (Oxford University Press 2013) 78.

European Commission, Proposal for a Council Directive concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and for a Council Directive concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (21 February 1992) COM(91) 548 final, 9; European Commission, Proposal for a Council Directive concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (24 February 1992) OJ 1992/C 65/4, 13; European Commission, Proposal for a Council Directive concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (24 February 1992) OJ 1992/C 65/14, 21.

European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 96/92/EC and 98/30/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and natural gas (13 March 2001) COM(2001) 125 final, 31.

European Parliament, Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 13 March 2002 with a view to the adoption of European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/…/EC amending Directive 96/92/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (13 March 2002) OJ 2003/C 47 E/351, 359.

Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (26 June 2003) OJ 2003/L 176/37.

Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (26 June 2003) OJ 2003/L 176/57.

For an overview, see Eugene Cross and others, ‘EU Energy Law’ in Martha M Roggenkamp and others (eds), Energy Law in Europe – National, EU and International Regulation (2nd edn. Oxford University Press 2007) [5.289ff] (for electricity) and [5.348f] (for gas); Sergey S Seliverstov and Ivan Gudkov, Энергетическое право Европейского союза (Аспект Пресс 2014) 117 (for electricity) and 154–155 (for gas).

Article 19 of Directive 2003/54/EC (n 12); Article 17 of Directive 2003/55/EC (n 13).

Article 10(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC (n 12); Article 9(1) of Directive 2003/55/EC (n 13).

Article 10(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC (n 12); Article 9(1) of Directive 2003/55/EC (n 13). See also 8^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2003/54/EC (n 12); 10^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2003/55/EC (n 13).

Article 10(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC (n 12); Article 9(1) of Directive 2003/55/EC (n 13).

Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 2003/54/EC (n 12); Article 9(2)(a) of Directive 2003/55/EC (n 13).

Article 10(2)(c) of Directive 2003/54/EC (n 12); Article 9(2)(c) of Directive 2003/55/EC (n 13).

An extended implementation period applied to certain unbundling rules for distribution system operators, see Article 30(2) of Directive 2003/54/EC (n 12); Article 33(2) of Directive 2003/55/EC (n 13).

See European Commission, An Energy Policy for Europe (10 January 2007) COM(2007) 1 final; European Commission, Prospects for the internal gas and electricity market (10 January 2007) COM(2006) 841 final; European Commission, Inquiry pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 into the European gas and electricity sectors (Final Report) (10 January 2007) COM(2006) 851 final.

Prospects for the internal gas and electricity market (n 22) 10–11.

Inquiry into the European gas and electricity sectors (n 22) 12.

European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/54/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (19 September 2007) COM(2007) 528 final.

European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/55/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (19 September 2007) COM(2007) 529 final.

Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2003/54/EC (n 25) 22; Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2003/55/EC (n 26) 22. See also An Energy Policy for Europe (n 22) 7: ‘Economic evidence shows that ownership unbundling is the most effective means to ensure choice for energy users and to encourage investment.’

According to the text of Articles 8a and 7a, the ban on foreign ownership was ‘[w]ithout prejudice to the international obligations of the Community’. This qualification, which was clearly designed to prevent breaches of international law, led to discussions regarding the existence of possibly conflicting obligations under international trade and investment law (see for instance August Reinisch, ‘Protection of or Protection Against Foreign Investment? The Proposed Unbundling Rules of the EC Draft Energy Directives’ in Christoph Herrmann and Jörg P Terhechte (eds), European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2010 (Springer 2010) 60ff). The Commission itself specifically referred to ‘WTO rules’ in this regard (European Commission, Energising Europe: A real market with secure supply (MEMO/07/361, 2007)). The consistency with WTO rules of Article 8a(1) draft electricity Directive and Article 7a(1) draft gas Directive was apparently also raised by the Council of the EU. In the run-up to the Energy Council of 6 June 2008, the Commission ‘gave a number of clarifications to delegations, confirming i.a. the compliance of the clause with WTO rules’, see Council of the European Union, ‘TTE (Energy) Council on 6 June 2008’ (9512/1/08 – REV 1, Brussels 27 May 2008), 5. However, within the Commission itself there were diverging views. According to media reports, Commission officials from DG Trade expressed concern about whether the third country clause is in line with WTO rules, see Simon Taylor, ‘EU Struggles to Agree on Anti-Gazprom Clause’ Politico (21 May 2008) <http://​www.​politico.​eu/​article/​eu-struggles-to-agree-on-anti-gazprom-clause/​> accessed 21 June 2016.

Matthias Schmidt-Preuß, ‘Energieversorgung als Aufgabe der Außenpolitik?: Rechtliche Aspekte’ [2007] Recht der Energiewirtschaft 281, 285.

Ibid.

Reinisch (n 28) 57.

Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2003/54/EC (n 25) 7; Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2003/55/EC (n 26) 7.

Germelmann (n 29) 79–80; Schmidt-Preuß (n 30) 286; Van den bergh (n 29) 237. The third country clause could have even been used to impose unbundling on the respective third country undertaking in its country of origin, see Victor van Hoorn, ‘“Unbundling”, “Reciprocity” and the European Internal Energy Market: WTO Consistency and Broader Implications for Europe’ (2009) 1 European Energy and Environmental Law Review 51, 58.

Strictly speaking, there is also a fourth unbundling option under Directives 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC. Article 9(9) of the Directives provides that Member States may decide not to apply any of the three main unbundling models provided that the transmission system belonged to a vertically integrated undertaking on 3 September 2009 and that arrangements were in place, at that date, which guarantee more effective independence of the transmission system operator than the specific provisions concerning the ITO model. This unbundling option has only been applied in a very limited number of cases.

European Commission, Commission Decision on the application of Article 9(9) of Directive 2009/72/EC to Transmission System Operation in Scotland (14 May 2012) C(2012) 3284 final, [8].

This is the version contained in the Gas Directive. The Electricity Directive refers to ‘generation’ instead of ‘production’.

Article 9(3) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (13 July 2009) OJ 2009/L 211/55; Article 9(3) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (13 July 2009) OJ 2009/L 211/94.

European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Paper – Interpretative Note on Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity and Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Natural Gas – The Unbundling Regime’ (22 January 2010) 10 <https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​energy/​sites/​ener/​files/​documents/​2010_​01_​21_​the_​unbundling_​regime.​pdf> accessed 24 September 2016.

Article 2 No. 34 of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 2 No. 36 of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (20 January 2004) OJ 2004/L 24/1.

13^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); 10^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

See also European Commission, Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (no date) OJ 2008/C 95/1, [55, 63].

Ibid [54, 56].

Ibid [54, 58].

European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/72/EC – Austria – Certification of Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetze GmbH (29 March 2012) C(2012) 2244 final, 5.

European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document – Ownership Unbundling – The Commission’s Practice in Assessing the Presence of a Conflict of Interest including in Case of Financial Investors (08 May 2013) SWD(2013) 177 final, 3, 10; European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Paper – Interpretative Note on Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity and Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Natural Gas – The Unbundling Regime’ (n 42) 9.

European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Paper – Interpretative Note on Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity and Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Natural Gas – The Unbundling Regime’ (n 42) 10.

See 24^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); 21^st recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

The issue of whether activities in third countries are relevant for the purpose of determining compliance with the OU model is discussed below, see Sect. 2.3.1.4.

18^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); 15^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41). Under German law, the splitting of shares would be possible on the basis of section 123(2) of the German Conversion Law (Umwandlungsgesetz).

See 16^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); 13^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Johnston and Block (n 57) [3.32].

Article 13(2)(a) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 14(2)(a) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 14(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 15(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 13(4) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 14(4) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Paper – Interpretative Note on Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity and Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Natural Gas – The Unbundling Regime’ (n 42) 12.

Article 13(2)(b) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 14(2)(b) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 13(2)(c) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 14(2)(c) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Christian de Wyl and Jasper Finke, ‘Entflechtung von Energieversorgungsunternehmen’ in Jens-Peter Schneider and Christian Theobald (eds), Recht der Energiewirtschaft (4^th edn. C.H. Beck 2013) [232].

Article 13(5)(a) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 14(5)(a) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 13(5)(b) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 14(5)(b) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 13(5)(c) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 14(5)(c) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Seliverstov and Gudkov (n 14) 168.

Article 17(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 17(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 17(1)(a) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 17(1)(a) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 17(1)(c) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 17(1)(c) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 17(5) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 17(5) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 17(4) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 17(4) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 18(1)(a) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 18(1)(a) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 18(1)(b) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 18(1)(b) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 18(6) and (7) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 18(6) and (7) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

See Article 21 of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 21 of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 18(3) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 18(3) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 19(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 19(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 19(3) and (7) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 19(3) and (7) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41). The cooling on period referred to only applies to the majority of the management. For the rest, a less restrictive cooling on period applies. See Article 19(8) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 19(8) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 19(4) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 19(4) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 19(5) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 19(5) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

See Article 20(2) and (3) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 20(2) and (3) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41). The independence rules apply to ‘at least half of the members of the Supervisory Body minus one’.

Article 20(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 20(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 22(3) and (4) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 22(3) and (4) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

The non-binding EU-wide network development plan is adopted in accordance with Article 8(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (13 July 2009) OJ 2009/L 211/15; Article 8(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (13 July 2009) OJ 2009/L 211/36.

Article 22(5) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 22(5) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 22(6) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 22(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 22(7) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 22(7) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document – Report on the ITO Model (13 October 2014) SWD(2014) 312 final, 6.

See Article 9(8) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 9(8) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41). See also Cabau (n 9) [4.50].

European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Paper – Interpretative Note on Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity and Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Natural Gas – The Unbundling Regime’ (n 42) 5.

Article 9(8) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 9(8) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Paper – Interpretative Note on Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity and Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Natural Gas – The Unbundling Regime’ (n 42) 5.

In principle, the ISO and ITO models can be applied to ‘mere extensions’ of existing networks; see European Commission, Commission Decision on the exemption of Adria Link s.r.l. (Italy), Holding Slovenske Elektrarne d.o.o. (Slovenia) and E3 d.o.o. (Slovenia) under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No. 714/2009 for two electricity interconnectors between Italy and Slovenia (17 December 2014) C(2014) 9904 final, [108]. However, the European Commission (correctly) takes the view that extensions of existing transmission grids, for which a new, separate TSO is created, cannot be certified under the ISO or ITO rules; see European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10 of Directive 2009/73/EC – Germany – Certification of the Operators of the Nordeuropäische Erdgas Leitung (NEL) (18 October 2013) C(2013) 7019 final, 4–5.

Republic of Lithuania, Law on Natural Gas (Gamtinių dujų įstatymas) (01 July 2001) Official Gazette, 25.10.2000, No. 89-2743 (as amended), Article 41.

See section 8(1) of the German Energy Industry Act (n 52).

Article 9(11) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 9(11) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Council of European Energy Regulators, ‘Status Review on the Implementation of Transmission System Operators’ Unbundling Provisions of the 3rd Energy Package’ (C15-LTF-43-04 2016) 13 <http://​www.​ceer.​eu/​portal/​page/​portal/​EER_​HOME/​EER_​PUBLICATIONS/​CEER_​PAPERS/​Cross-Sectoral/​2016/​C15-LTF-43-04_​TSO-Unbundling_​Status_​Review-28-Apr-2016.​pdf> accessed 27 September 2016.

Ibid.

The ITO model is much more ‘popular’ in the gas sector: 44% of gas TSOs have been certified under the ITO model, whereas only 12% of electricity TSOs are currently certified according to this model; see ibid 14–15.

European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Paper – Interpretative Note on Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity and Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Natural Gas – The Unbundling Regime’ (n 42) 10.

Ibid.

See Council of European Energy Regulators, ‘Status Review on the Implementation of Transmission System Operators’ Unbundling Provisions of the 3rd Energy Package’ (n 101) 16–17 (giving an overview of the level of public ownership in the gas and electricity transmission sectors).

The gas and electricity TSOs that have been certified in accordance with Article 9(6) of the Directives are located in Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and Sweden.

Dirk Buschle, ‘Unbundling of State-owned Transmission System Operators – Effective Remedy or Eyewash?’ [2013] European Networks Law and Regulation Quarterly 49, 55, 62; Säcker and Mohr (n 52) [34].

See for example European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/72/EC – Denmark – Certification of Energinet.dk (electricity) (09 January 2012) C(2012) 87 final, 4–6; European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Denmark – Certification of Energinet.dk (gas) (09 January 2012) C(2012) 88 final, 3–5.

Cabau (n 9) [4.162].

European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and Article 10 of Directive 2009/72/EC – Latvia – Certification of Augstsprieguma tikls (03 December 2012) C(2012) 9108 final, 2–3.

For a recent example, see European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Lithuania – Amber Grid (23 March 2015) C(2015) 2135 final, 2.

Buschle (n 109) 62.

Ibid 61.

In general terms, the extraterritorial application of ownership unbundling rules is at issue where (i) a foreign person that exercises control over a generation/production or supply company located in a non-EU third country seeks to exercise control or any right over a TSO or a transmission system in the EU; and where (ii) a foreign person that exercises control over a TSO or a transmission system located in a non-EU third country seeks to exercise control or any right over a generation/production or supply company within EU territory.

It will not be discussed here whether the definition of ‘vertically integrated undertaking’, which is contained in Article 2 No. 20 of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41) and Article 2 No. 21 of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41) and which is essential for the application of the ITO model, has extraterritorial reach. As the ITO model allows vertical integration, the question of whether the definition of VIU is geographically limited has no significant implications for third country companies.

See Bundesnetzagentur, Beschluss: Zertifizierung eines Fernleitungsnetzbetreibers – GASCADE Gastransport GmbH (05 February 2013) Az.: BK7-12-031, 17; Bundesnetzagentur, Beschluss: Zertifizierung eines Fernleitungsnetzbetreibers – NEL Gastransport GmbH (20 December 2013) Az.: BK7-12-188, 20; Cécile van Vyve, ‘Financial Investors and the Unbundling Provisions for TSOs’ (2014) 23 European Energy and Environmental Law Review 63, 70; Tim Heitling and Ann-Christin Wiegemann, ‘Fallstrick für Finanzinvestoren? – Die eigentumsrechtliche Entflechtung von Transportnetzbetreibern nach dem neuen EnWG’ [2011] Netzwirtschaften & Recht 233, 236.

European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/72/EC and to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – United Kingdom – Certification of National Grid Electricity Transmission plc, National Grid Gas plc and National Grid Interconnectors Limited (19 April 2012) C(2012) 2735 final.

Ibid 4.

European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and Articles 10(6) and 11(6) of Directive 2009/72/EC – United Kingdom – Certification of TC Westermost Rough OFTO Limited (15 February 2016) C(2016) 975 final, 3–4. For other cases, see European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/72/EC and to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Portugal – Certification of REN Rede Elétrica Nacional S.A. and REN Gasodutos S.A. (12 May 2014) C(2014) 3255 final, 3–4; European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – France – Certification of TIGF (04 June 2014) C(2014) 3837 final, 2; European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/72/EC – Germany – Certification of 50 Hertz Transmission GmbH (06 September 2012) C(2012) 6260 final, 3–5; European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Sweden – Certification of Swedegas AB (30 April 2012) C(2012) 3009 final, 3.

(n 50) 5.

Commission Opinion – Certification of National Grid TSOs (n 120) 4.

Van Vyve (n 119) 68–69. See also Heitling and Wiegemann (n 119) 236–237.

Bundesnetzagentur, ‘Zertifizierungsverfahren – Hinweispapier zur Antragstellung’ (BK6-11-157, BK7-11-157 12 December 2011) 17 <http://​www.​bundesnetzagentu​r.​de/​DE/​Service-Funktionen/​Beschlusskammern​/​1BK-Geschaeftszeiche​n-Datenbank/​BK7-GZ/​2011/​2011_​0001bis0999/​2011_​100bis199/​BK7-11-157_​BKV/​BK7-11-157_​download.​pdf?​_​_​blob=​publicationFile&​v=​1> accessed 21 July 2015. However, in the certification of the TSO 50 Hertz the German regulator appears to have accepted that the ownership unbundling provisions under German law (section 8(2) of the German Energy Industry Act (EnWG)) have an extraterritorial scope of application, see Bundesnetzagentur, Beschluss: Zertifizierung eines Übertragungsnetzbetreibers – 50 Hertz Transmission GmbH (09 November 2012) Az.: BK6-12-040, 11–24.

See Deutscher Bundesrat, ‘Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung energiewirtschaftsrechtlicher Vorschriften’ (Drucksache 343/11 6 June 2011) 128 <http://​dipbt.​bundestag.​de/​dip21/​brd/​2011/​0343-11.​pdf> accessed 26 August 2015. In fact, also a literal reading of the German Energy Industry Act suggests that activities in third countries are irrelevant for the purpose of determining compliance with the ownership unbundling requirements as transposed into German law. According to section 8(1) of the German Energy Industry Act (n 52), the ownership unbundling model only applies to ‘vertically integrated energy supply undertakings’. The definition of ‘vertically integrated energy supply undertaking’, in turn, excludes activities that take place outside of the European Union (see ibid, Section 3 No. 38). It is, however, clear that the application of the ownership unbundling requirements only to vertically integrated energy supply undertakings is problematic also for a number of other reasons, see Christian Koenig, Jürgen Kühling and Winfried Rasbach, Energierecht (3rd edn, Nomos 2013) [99–101].

James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2012) 456ff; Malcolm N Shaw, International Law (7th edn, Cambridge University Press 2014) 469ff.

Crawford (n 128) 462ff; Shaw (n 128) 499ff.

Maher M Dabbah, International and Comparative Competition Law (Cambridge University Press 2010) 423ff; Thorsten Mäger, ‘Einführung und Grundlagen’ in Thorsten Mäger (ed), Europäisches Kartellrecht (2nd edn. Nomos 2011) 46; Matthias Herdegen, Principles of International Economic Law (Oxford University Press 2013) 90; Monica Waloszyk, Law and Policy of the European Gas Market (Edward Elgar 2014) 60ff. The German regulator Bundesnetzagentur discussed the application of the effects doctrine in relation to the scope of the ITO unbundling model, see Beschluss: Zertifizierung GASCADE (n 119) 16–19; Beschluss: Zertifizierung NEL (n 119) 18–22.

24^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); 21^st recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

See European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the legislative package on the internal market for electricity and gas – Impact Assessment (19 September 2007) SEC(2007) 1179, 40, 107.

Andrey Konoplyanik, ‘Russia and the Third EU Energy Package: Regulatory Changes for Internal EU Energy Markets in Gas and Possible Consequences for Suppliers (Including Non-EU Suppliers) and Consumers’ [2011] International Energy Law Review 24, 29.

Republic of Lithuania, Law on the Amendment of the Law on Natural Gas (Gamtinių dujų įstatymo pakeitimo įstatymas) (01 August 2011) Official Gazette, 14.07.2011, No. 87-4186.

Lithuanian National Control Commission for Prices and Energy, ‘Annual Report on Electricity and Natural Gas Markets of the Republic of Lithuania to the European Commission’ (Vilnius 2013), 83 <http://​www.​regula.​lt/​en/​SiteAssets/​ncc-reports/​NCC-report-2012.​pdf>.

Ibid 85.

Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania, ‘Comment of the Minister of Energy on Gazprom’s Decision to Sell its Stake in Lithuanian Utilities’ (12 June 2014) <https://​enmin.​lrv.​lt/​en/​news/​comment-of-the-minister-of-energy-on-gazprom-s-decision-to-sell-its-stake-in-lithuanian-utilities> accessed 25 June 2015; Andrius Sytas, Lithuania Completes Buy of Gas Utility Shares from Gazprom (Reuters 2014).

See Republic of Estonia, Amendment to the Natural Gas Act (Maagaasiseaduse muutmise seadus) (08 July 2012) Riigi Teataja I, 28.06.2012, 2. See also Ott Ummelas, ‘Estonian Parliament Approves Natural-Gas Unbundling Bill’ Bloomberg (6 June 2012) <http://​www.​bloomberg.​com/​news/​2012-06-06/​estonian-parliament-approves-natural-gas-unbundling-bill-1-.​html> accessed 23 June 2016.

Republic of Estonia, Natural Gas Act (Maagaasiseadus) (07 May 2014) Riigi Teataja I, 06.05.2014, 11.

Article 49(1) Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41) provides in relevant part: ‘Articles 4, 9, 37 and/or 38 shall not apply to Estonia, Latvia and/or Finland until any of those Member States is directly connected to the interconnected system of any Member State other than Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland.’

Eesti Gaas, ‘History’ (no date) <http://​www.​gaas.​ee/​en/​group/​history/​> accessed 8 May 2015.

Latvijas Gāze, ‘Shares and Trading’ (no date) <http://​www.​lg.​lv/​index.​php?​id=​189&​lang=​eng> accessed 23 June 2016.

LETA, ‘Latvijas Gaze shareholders back creation of new company in charge of gas transmission, storage’ (2 September 2016) <http://​www.​leta.​lv/​eng/​home/​important/​133A1865-48EF-844B-16AB-349B536F4803/​> accessed 9 September 2016.

Latvijas Gāze, ‘Reorganisation Prospectus’ (1 July 2016) 15 <http://​www.​lg.​lv/​uploads/​filedir/​File/​Jaunumi/​2016/​Reorganizacija/​2016_​Latvijas_​Gaze_​Reorganisation_​Prospectus.​pdf> accessed 9 September 2016.

Ibid.

European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – United Kingdom – Interconnector UK Limited (26 March 2013) C(2013) 1872 final, 3ff.

Ibid 6.

Ibid.

Fluxys, ‘Fluxys Acquires Gazprom Stake in Interconnector (UK)’ (17 December 2015) <http://​www.​fluxys.​com/​group/​en/​NewsAndPress/​2015/​151217_​Interconnector> accessed 23 June 2016.

See Sect. 2.3.1.2.

These agreements were published in a compendium, see MENA Chambers, ‘South Stream Intergovernmental Agreements: A Compendium’ (2014) <http://​www.​menachambers.​com/​expertise/​energy/​South-Stream-IGAs.​pdf> accessed 1 May 2015.

See, for example, the Bulgaria-Russia South Stream agreement. Article 2 of this agreement states that ‘[t]he Company shall own the gas pipeline as well as other assets and facilities constructed and/or acquired in the process of its business activities’. Article 8 of the agreement stipulates that ‘[t]he functions of the gas pipeline’s operator shall be performed by the Company’. Furthermore, Article 3(1) of the Bulgaria-Russia agreement explicitly provides that the ‘Bulgarian Founder’ (Bulgargas) and the ‘Russian Founder’ (Gazprom) shall have 50% of the shares in the Company’s registered capital each; see ibid 40–41. As Bulgargas and Gazprom are active in the production and/or supply of natural gas in the EU, Article 3(1) of the Bulgaria-Russia South Stream agreement creates a situation where Bulgaria’s obligations under the agreement cannot be reconciled with the OU model as foreseen in Directive 2009/73/EC. This finding also applies to the Hungary-Russia (ibid 102ff), Croatia-Russia (ibid 57ff) and Greece-Russia (ibid 79ff) South Stream agreements, which contain essentially identical provisions.

‘South Stream Bilateral Deals Breach EU Law, Commission Says’ EurActiv (4 December 2013) <http://​www.​euractiv.​com/​energy/​commission-south-stream-agreemen-news-532120>.

Alexey S Ispolinov and Tatiana Dvenadtcatova, ‘Принудительное выделение сетевого бизнеса в рамках Третьего Энергопакета ЕС (unbundling): практика применения’ [2014] Закон 111, 119. See also Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, ‘Speech by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, and his Answers to Questions from the Mass Media during the Press Conference Summarising the Results of the Negotiations with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister, Kristian Vigenin’ (7 July 2014) <http://​www.​mid.​ru/​brp_​4.​nsf/​0/​E1E909450FC0862F​44257D10005BA3C4​>; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, ‘Interview by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to the Serbian Newspaper “Politics”’ (3 February 2014) <http://​www.​mid.​ru/​brp_​4.​nsf/​0/​5B3D4C4DD2B0BE57​44257C75005E82AC​>.

‘Russia Says South Stream project is Over’ EurActiv (2 December 2014) <http://​www.​euractiv.​com/​sections/​global-europe/​russia-says-south-stream-project-over-310491> accessed 26 June 2015; ‘Russia Confirms Decision to Abandon South Stream’ EurActiv (10 December 2014) <http://​www.​euractiv.​com/​sections/​energy/​russia-confirms-decision-abandon-south-stream-final-310712> accessed 26 June 2015. See also Jonathan Stern, Simon Pirani and Katja Yafimava, ‘Does the Cancellation of South Stream Signal a Fundamental Reorientation of Russian Gas Export Policy?’ (2015) 4 <http://​www.​oxfordenergy.​org/​wpcms/​wp-content/​uploads/​2015/​01/​Does-cancellation-of-South-Stream-signal-a-fundamental-reorientation-of-Russian-gas-export-policy-GPC-5.​pdf> (writing that the ‘TEP (in)compatibility argument … was the main reason for the South Stream cancellation’).

See Anca Gurzu, ‘Nord Stream 2’s Opponents Look for Legal Ammunition’ (30 December 2015) <http://​www.​politico.​eu/​article/​nord-stream-2s-opponents-look-for-legal-ammunition/​> accessed 23 June 2016.

Karel Beckman, ‘Can Nord Stream 2 Be Stopped?’ (14 April 2016) <http://​www.​energypost.​eu/​can-nord-stream-2-stopped/​> accessed 23 June 2016.

Ibid.

Article 13(3) and Article 18(10) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 14(3) and Article 18(10) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88); Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 (n 88).

Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88); Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 (n 88).

Article 10(4) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 10(4) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 10(3) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 10(3) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

13^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); 10^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Paper – Interpretative Note on Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity and Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common Rules for the Internal Market in Natural Gas – The Unbundling Regime’ (n 42) 23.

But see Lecheler and Germelmann (n 36) 82, and particularly footnote 170, who (erroneously) state that foreign controlled operators cannot choose the ITO unbundling model. Both Directives clearly provide that the ITO model is applicable to certification procedures under Article 11, see Article 18(10) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 18(10) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Johnston and Block (n 57) [3.103].

Article 11(3) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 11(3) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 11(3)(b) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 11(3)(b) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

See section 4b(2) and (3) of the German Energy Industry Act (n 52).

Article 11(5) and (6) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 11(5) and (6) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

See Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (13 July 2009) OJ 2009/L 211/1.

So far, the Commission has never requested the views of ACER.

Article 11(8) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 11(8) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 11 of the Directives was considered in a number of certification decisions (ENAGAS; REN Rede Eléctrica Nacional and REN Gasodutos; TAP), but as in each case none of the foreign shareholders had, solely or jointly, control over the TSO, the provision was not applied. See European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Spain – Certification of ENAGAS, S.A. (gas) (15 June 2012) C(2012) 4171 final, 5; Commission Opinion – Certification of REN and REN Gasodutos (n 122) 3; European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Italy – Greece – Certification of TAP AG (28 January 2016) C(2016) 538 final, 7–8.

Bundesnetzagentur, Beschluss: Zertifizierung eines Fernleitungsnetzbetreibers – Thyssengas GmbH (12 March 2013) Az.: BK7-12-036, 75.

See European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Germany – Certification of Thyssengas GmbH (30 January 2013) C(2013) 570 final.

Commission Opinion – Certification of TIGF (n 122) 5.

Ibid 5–6.

European Commission, Commission Opinion correcting Opinion C(2014) 5483 final of 28 July 2014 pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) and 11(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Greece – Certification of DESFA (17 October 2014) C(2014) 7734 final, 4–6.

Ibid 5 (emphasis in the original).

Ibid 7.

Hellenic Republic, Law 4286/2014 (Νόμος 4286/2014) (2014) Government Gazette, 19.9.2014, No. 194 A. Article 15 of this act introduced Article 65A into the Hellenic Republic, Law 4001/2011 on the Operation of Electricity and Gas Energy Markets, for Exploration, Production and Transmission Networks of Hydrocarbons and other provisions (Νόμος 4001/2011 για τη λειτουργία Ενεργειακών Αγορών Ηλεκτρισμού και Φυσικού Αερίου, για Έρευνα, Παραγωγή και δίκτυα μεταφοράς Υδρογονανθράκων και άλλες ρυθμίσεις) (2011) Government Gazette, 22.8.2011, No. 179 A.

Greek Regulatory Authority for Energy RAE, ‘Final Decision on the Certification of the Hellenic Gas Transmission System Operator (DESFA) SA as an Independent Natural Gas Transmission Operator’ (Decision No 523/2014 25 September 2014) <http://​www.​desfa.​gr/​wp-content/​uploads/​2015/​10/​%CF%84%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE-%CE%91%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%86%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%AE-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-%CE%A1%CE%91%CE%95.​pdf> accessed 29 June 2015. The acquisition of DESFA by SOCAR was not, however, completed after RAE’s decision had been taken. In November 2014, the European Commission announced that it would open an in-depth investigation to determine whether the transaction is consistent with the EU Merger Regulation; see European Commission, Mergers: Commission Opens in-depth Investigation into Proposed Acquisition of Greek Gas Transmission System Operator DESFA by SOCAR (IP/14/1442, 2014).

See European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) and 11(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Poland – Certification of Gaz-System as the operator of the Polish section of Yamal-Europe Pipeline (09 September 2014) C(2014) 6463 final, 8–9.

Polish Regulatory Authority for Energy ERO, Final Decision on the Certification of the Transmission System Operator Gaz-System (19 May 2015) DRG-4720-2(28)/2014/2015/6154/KF, 71.

Ibid.

European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) and 11(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Poland – Certification of Gaz-System as the operator of the Polish section of Yamal-Europe Pipeline (19 March 2015) C(2015) 2008 final, 6.

Ibid.

Final Decision on Certification of TSO Gaz-System (n 193).

Commission Opinion – Certification of TC Westermost Rough OFTO Limited (n 122) 4–5.

Ibid 4.

Article 9 of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 9 of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 32 of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 32 Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 37(6) and (10) of Directive 2009/72/EC (n 41); Article 41(6), (8) and (10) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

For a definition of the terms ‘interconnector’ and ‘new interconnector’, see Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88). In exceptional cases and under certain circumstances, exemptions may also be granted to ‘alternating current interconnectors’. Furthermore, exemptions can be granted to ‘significant increases of capacity’ in existing interconnectors. See ibid, Article 17(2) and (3).

For a definition of the terms ‘interconnector’ and ‘new infrastructure’, see Article 2 Nos. 17 and 33 of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41). Exemptions can also be granted to ‘significant increases of capacity’ in existing infrastructure and to modifications of such infrastructure ‘which enable the development of new sources of gas supply’. See ibid, Article 36(2).

Article 22 of Directive 2003/55/EC (n 13).

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (26 June 2003) OJ 2003/L 176/1.

European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document on Article 22 of Directive 2003/55/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity – New Infrastructure Exemptions (06 May 2009) SEC(2009)642 final, [9].

Johnston and Block (n 57) [4.99].

For a detailed description of this so-called ‘truncation problem’, see Marek Szydło, ‘Regulatory Exemptions for New Gas Infrastructure. A Key Challenge for European Energy Policy’ (2009) 18 European Energy and Environmental Law Review 254, 255–256.

Seliverstov and Gudkov (n 14) 177.

European Commission, Commission Decision on the exemption of the “Gazelle” interconnector from ownership unbundling within the meaning of Article 9 of Directive 2009/73/EC (01 December 2011) C(2011) 8777 final, 51; Italian Regulatory Authority for Energy AEEG, Albanian Regulatory Authority for Energy ERE and Greek Regulatory Authority for Energy RAE, ‘Final Joint Opinion of the Energy Regulators on TAP AG’s Exemption Application’ (2013) 41 <http://​www.​autorita.​energia.​it/​allegati/​docs/​13/​249-13all.​pdf> accessed 21 September 2016.

35^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41) (emphasis added).

Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88) – ‘for a limited period of time’; Article 36(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41) – ‘for a defined period of time’.

Article 17(1)(a)-(f) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88); Article 36(1)(a)-(e) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Therefore, the condition in Article 17(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88) and Article 36(1)(b) Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41) would not be met.

Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88); Article 36(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 17(4) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88); Article 36(3) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 17(4) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88); Article 36(4) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88); Article 36(4) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 17(8) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88); Article 36(9) of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

European Commission, Commission Decision on the exemption of ElecLink Limited under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No. 714/2009 for an electricity interconnector between France and Great Britain (28 July 2014) C(2014) 5475 final; Commission Decision – Exemption of SI-IT Interconnectors (n 97).

Commission Decision – Exemption of the Gazelle interconnector (n 212); European Commission, Commission Decision on the exemption of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline from the requirements on third party access, tariff regulation and ownership unbundling laid down in Articles 9, 32, 41(6), 41(8) and 41(10) of Directive 2009/73/EC (16 May 2013) C(2013) 2949 final; European Commission, Commission Decision on the exemption of the Slovakian-Hungarian natural gas interconnector from ownership unbundling rules in Article 9 of Directive 2009/73/EC (17 September 2013) C(2013) 6159 final.

See, for instance, Commission Decision – Exemption of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (n 224) 232.

According to recital 23 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88) and recital 35 of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41), exemptions granted under Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (n 206) and Directive 2003/55/EC (n 13) ‘continue to apply until the scheduled expiry date as decided in the granted exemption decision’.

Section 118(7) of the German Energy Industry Act (n 52).

The Directives do not regulate whether, and to what extent, exempted projects under Article 17 of Regulation 2003/1228 and Article 22 of Directive 2003/55/EC are subject to the new unbundling rules, see Heller (n 217) 275–276. In the literature, the extension of the exemptions granted under the Second Energy Package to the unbundling rules in the TEP was rejected, see Jones and Webster (n 207) [11.138]. The Commission takes the view that the unbundling rules can be dispensed with in so far as their application would be incompatible with the exemption pre-dating the Directives, see European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC – Austria – NABUCCO Gas Pipeline International GmbH (11 December 2012) C(2012) 9575 final, 3–5; European Commission, Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/72/EC – Austria – Certification of Eneco Valcanale S.r.l. (05 March 2015) C(2015) 1547 final, 2–5. This means that decisions on the applicability of unbundling rules (ownership unbundling, ISO, ITO, Second Energy Package) are to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

See for example the NordLink project between Germany and Norway; the submarine interconnection between Italy and Montenegro; and the interconnector between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Katja Yafimava, The EU Third Package for Gas and the Gas Target Model: Major Contentious Issues Inside and Outside the EU (Oxford Institute for Energy Studies 2013) 21–28, 45–46, 49, 51, 55; Simon Pirani and Katja Yafimava, Russian Gas Transit Across Ukraine Post-2019: Pipeline Scenarios, Gas Flow Consequences, and Regulatory Constraints (Oxford Institute for Energy Studies 2016) 27–29.

See, for instance, European Commission, Exemption decision on the Austrian section of the Nabucco pipeline (08 February 2008) CAB D(2008)142; European Commission, Exemption decision on the Austrian section of the Nabucco pipeline (22 October 2008) CAB D(2008) 1094, C(2008) 6254.

European Commission, Ausnahmegenehmigung der Bundesnetzagentur für die OPAL-Gasleitung gemäß Art. 22 der Richtlinie 2003/55 (12 June 2009) C(2009) 4694.

Commission Decision – Exemption of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (n 224).

‘EC: Russia Should Apply for South Stream Exemption’ Natural Gas Europe (7 December 2013) <http://​www.​naturalgaseurope​.​com/​south-stream-pipeline-exemption-eu-rules> accessed 17 July 2016.

Stern, Pirani and Yafimava, ‘Does the Cancellation of South Stream Signal a Fundamental Reorientation of Russian Gas Export Policy?’ (n 158) 4.

Article 2 No. 17 of Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (n 88).

Seliverstov and Gudkov (n 14) 178.

The NEL pipeline, which is the second onshore extension of the Russian Nord Stream project in Germany (apart from OPAL), did not fulfill the requirement to interconnect at least two national transmission systems of EU Member States, see Bundesnetzagentur, Antrag auf Freistellung von der Regulierung – OPAL NEL Transport GmbH (25 February 2009) Az. BK7-08-009, 20–22.

See the critical remarks of Ivan Gudkov, ‘Газовый диалог России и ЕС: взаимодействие и конфликт международного и европейского права’ [2014] Научный журнал Российского газового общества 49, 53 (for the gas sector) and Gudas (n 229) (for the electricity sector).

Cf. 35^th recital of the preamble to Directive 2009/73/EC (n 41).

Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (16 December 2002) OJ 2003/L 1/1.

Ibid, 12^th recital of the preamble.

European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document: Ten Years of Antitrust Enforcement under Regulation 1/2003 (09 July 2014) SWD(2014) 230 final, 188.

See, for example, Inquiry into the European gas and electricity sectors (n 22) 44.

European Commission, Commission Staff Working Paper: Report on the functioning of Regulation 1/2003 (29 April 2009) SEC(2009) 574 final, 92.

Talus (n 7) 83.

See Hubertus von Rosenberg, ‘Unbundling Through the Back Door…the Case of Network Divestiture as a Remedy in the Energy Sector’ (2009) 30 European Competition Law Review 237.

Apart from being a general principle of EU law, the principle of proportionality features in the 34^th recital of the preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (n 243), which states that ‘[i]n accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as set out in Article 5 [TEC], this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objective, which is to allow the Community competition rules to be applied effectively’.

European Court of Justice, European Commission v. Alrosa Company Ltd, Judgment (29 June 2010) C-441/07 P [35–50] (referring to General Court of the European Union, Alrosa Company Ltd v. European Commission, Judgment (11 July 2007) T-170/06 [101, 140]). For an opposing view, see Andreas Klees, ‘Das Instrument der Zusagenentscheidung der Kommission und der Fall “E.ON” – Ein (weiterer) Sündenfall’ [2009] Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 374, 378–379.

Ibid [42].

Ibid [61].

See Commission Decision relating to a proceeding under Article 82 TEC – German Electricity Wholesale Market (n 248) 14. E.ON can reacquire the divested network after a period of 10 years.

Rosenberg (n 253) 254 (who notes that EU competition law ‘cannot be used as a vehicle to fulfil regulatory ambitions’).