3. Ownership Unbundling and National Constitutional Law and EU Law: A Brief Summary of the Relevant Legal Issues

The limits of the EU’s harmonization competence under Article 114 TFEU will not be discussed here, as this would not provide any added value for the analysis of WTO law and international investment law.

For a critical analysis of the infrastructure-related exemption regime in the TEP, see Hans Heller, ‘Neue Erdgasinfrastrukturen und Freistellung von der Regulierung: Art. 36 der Erdgasrichtlinie 2009/73/EG (§ 28a EnWG) als legitimes Instrument der Investitionsförderung?’ (2015) 12 Netzwirtschaften & Recht 66. For a discussion of the certification regime in Directives 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC, mainly from a third-country perspective, see Jörg Gundel and Claas F Germelmann, ‘Kein Schlussstein für die Liberalisierung der Energiemärkte’ [2009] Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 763, 769–770; Arnoud Willems, Jung-ui Sul and Yohan Benizri, ‘Unbundling as a Defence Mechanism Against Russia: Is the EU Missing the Point?’ in Kim Talus and Piero L Fratini (eds), EU – Russia Energy Relations (Euroconfidentiel 2010) 233–237; Matthias Schmidt-Preuß, ‘Die Kontrolle des Verkaufs bzw. des Erwerbs von Netzen (Erwerb durch Nicht-EU-Ausländer gem. §4b EnWG; Außenwirtschaftsrecht; Fusionskontrolle)’ in Jürgen F Baur, Peter Salje and Matthias Schmidt-Preuß (eds), Regulierung in der Energiewirtschaft: Ein Praxishandbuch (2nd edn. Carl Heymanns Verlag 2016) [77ff, 88]; Helmut Lecheler and Claas F Germelmann, Zugangsbeschränkungen für Investitionen aus Drittstaaten im deutschen und europäischen Energierecht (Energierecht vol 1, Mohr Siebeck 2010) 166.

German Federal Constitutional Court, Pflichtexemplar (14 July 1981) BVerfGE 58, 137; German Federal Constitutional Court, Denkmalschutz (2 March 1999) BVerfGE 100, 226 [95ff].

Iñigo del Guayo, Gunther Kühne and Martha M Roggenkamp, ‘Ownership Unbundling and Property Rights in the EU Energy Sector’ in Aileen McHarg and others (eds), Property and the Law in Energy and Natural Resources (Oxford University Press 2010) 346; Markus Perkams, ‘The Concept of Indirect Expropriation in Comparative Public Law – Searching for Light in the Dark’ in Stephan W Schill (ed), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press 2010) 134.

Frank Schorkopf, ‘Eigentumsrechtliche Entflechtung aus verfassungs- und europarechtlicher Sicht’ in Wolfgang Löwer (ed), Neue rechtliche Herausforderungen für den Strommarkt: Bonner Gespräch zum Energierecht – Band 3 (Bonner Gespräch zum Energierecht vol 3. V & R unipress 2008) 131; Jürgen F Baur, Kai U Pritzsche and Stefan Klauer, Ownership Unbundling: Wesen und Vereinbarkeit mit Europarecht und Verfassungsrecht (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Energierecht an der Universität zu Köln vol 121, Nomos 2006) 80.

Christian Kahle, ‘Die Eigentumsrechtliche Entflechtung (Ownership Unbundling) der Energieversorgungsnetze aus europarechtlicher und verfassungsrechtlicher Sicht’ [2007] Recht der Energiewirtschaft 293, 297–299; Thomas Mayen and Ulrich Karpenstein, ‘Eigentumsrechtliche Entflechtung der Energieversorgungsnetze: Verfassungs- und gemeinschaftsrechtliche Aspekte des Eigentumsschutzes’ [2008] Recht der Energiewirtschaft 33, 37–38.

Mayen and Karpenstein (n 8) 41–42.

Jarass and Pieroth (n 3) [89–91].

Ibid [36–47].

Baur, Pritzsche and Klauer (n 7) 82–83.

Ulrich Büdenbender and Peter Rosin, Einführung eines Ownership Unbundling bzw. Independent System Operator in der Energiewirtschaft: Rechtliche und rechtspolitische Würdigung der wesentlichen Argumente der Europäischen Kommission (Verlag Energiewirtschaft und Technik 2007) 115; Winfried Rasbach, Unbundling-Regulierung in der Energiewirtschaft: Gemeinschaftsrechtliche Vorgaben und deren Umsetzung in die deutsche Energierechtsordnung (C.H. Beck 2009) 333ff.

Baur, Pritzsche and Klauer (n 7) 83–85; Mayen and Karpenstein (n 8) 40.

See, for example, German Federal Constitutional Court, Bananenmarkt (7 June 2000) BVerfGE 102, 147 [59]; German Federal Constitutional Court, Treibhausgas-Emissionsberechtigung (13 March 2007) BVerfGE 118, 79 [68ff].

Storr (n 14) 1401. See also the references cited in footnote 14 (in this chapter).

Deutscher Bundesrat, ‘Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung energiewirtschaftsrechtlicher Vorschriften’ (Drucksache 343/11 6 June 2011) 144 <http://​dipbt.​bundestag.​de/​dip21/​brd/​2011/​0343-11.​pdf> accessed 26 August 2015.

The explanatory memorandum accompanying the law implementing mandatory ownership unbundling in the Estonian gas sector explicitly states that the legislative changes are proportional and thus constitutional, see Republic of Estonia, ‘Law on the Amendment of the Natural Gas Act – Explanatory Memorandum – Original Proposal’ (2012) <http://​www.​riigikogu.​ee/​tegevus/​eelnoud/​eelnou/​5dea306a-39a3-43c7-9d74-e20d79ad6527/​Maagaasiseaduse%20​muutmise%20​seadus/​> accessed 18 September 2015.

See Stephan Wernicke, ‘AEUV Art. 345 Eigentumsordnung’ in Eberhard Grabitz, Meinhard Hilf and Martin Nettesheim (eds), Das Recht der Europäischen Union: EUV/AEUV (54^th edn. C.H. Beck 2014) [12–14].

European Court of Justice, Fearon v. Irish Land Commission, Judgment (6 November 1984) 182/83 [7]; European Court of Justice, Konle v. Austria, Judgment (1 June 1999) C-302/97 [38]; European Court of Justice, Commission v. Germany, Judgment (18 July 2007) C-503/04 [37]; European Court of Justice, Commission v. Spain, Judgment (13 May 2003) C-463/00 [67]; European Court of Justice, Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg, Judgment (23 September 2003) C-452/01 [24]; European Court of Justice, Commission v. Portugal, Judgment (8 July 2010) C-171/08 [64]; European Court of Justice, Commission v. Poland, Judgment (21 December 2011) C-271/09 [44]; European Court of Justice, Commission v. Greece, Judgment (8 November 2012) C-244/11 [16].

Storr (n 14) 1397.

Calliess (n 22) 94; Calliess (n 22) 65.

For a detailed analysis, see Calliess (n 22) 95ff; Calliess (n 22) 67ff. See also Koenig, Schreiber and Spiekermann (n 21) 11; Säcker and Mohr (n 27) [47].

Article 20 European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union OJ 2012/C 326/391, in conjunction with Article 6(1) European Union, Treaty on European Union (consolidated version) OJ 2012/C 326/13.

Calliess (n 22) 114–129; Säcker and Mohr (n 27) [47].

Article 63(1) European Union, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated version) OJ 2012/C 326/47 states that ‘… all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited’.

Schmidt-Preuß (n 2) [79–82].

Hunt (n 36) 85.

This seems to be the most relevant justification, see also ibid 86.

Schmidt-Preuß (n 2) [89–90].

Hauer (n 41) [19]; European Court of Justice, Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia and ERSA, Judgment (12 May 2005) C-347/03 [122]; European Court of Justice, Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen, Judgment (16 October 2003) C-363/01 [55–56]. See also Norbert Bernsdorff, ‘Artikel 17 – Eigentumsrecht’ in Jürgen Meyer (ed), Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union (4^th edn. Nomos 2014) [20]; Hans D Jarass, Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union: Kommentar (2nd edn, C.H. Beck 2013) 201.

Heselhaus (n 44) [72]; Jarass (n 42) 205–206.

European Court of Justice, Alessandrini, Judgment (30 June 2005) C-295/03 P [86]; Hauer (n 41) [23]; European Court of Justice, Schräder, Judgment (11 July 1989) C-265/87 [15]; European Court of Justice, Wachauf, Judgment (13 July 1989) C-5/88 [17–18].

Kahle (n 8) 294; Jürgen F Baur and others, Eigentumsentflechtung der Energiewirtschaft durch Europarecht: Mittel, Schranken und Rechtsfolgen (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Energierecht an der Universität zu Köln vol 138, Nomos 2008) 35–37; Mayen and Karpenstein (n 8) 44; Johann-Christian Pielow, Gert Brunekreeft and Eckart Ehlers, ‘Legal and Economic Aspects of Ownership Unbundling in the EU’ (2009) 2 Journal of World Energy Law & Business 96, 111; Bernd Holznagel and Pascal Schumacher, ‘Großer Eingriff, k(l)eine Wirkung – Die Pläne der Kommission zur eigentumsrechtlichen Entflechtung der Energienetzbetreiber’ [2007] Netzwirtschaften & Recht 96, 99; Matthias Wohlfahrt, Ownership Unbundling: Die Vereinbarkeit verschärfter Entflechtungsvorgaben für die leitungsgebundenen Sektoren Elektrizität und Gas mit dem Gemeinschaftsrecht (Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag 2009) 162; Rasbach (n 13) 349.

Mayen and Karpenstein (n 8) 44; Baur and others (n 47) 43, 90.

Baur and others (n 47) 92.

Schorkopf (n 7) 128. See also Wohlfahrt (n 47) 131, 199.

Heselhaus (n 44) [74]; Jarass (n 42) 206.

Müller-Terpitz and Weigl (n 22) 363–364.

Ibid 367–368. See also Baur and Schmidt-Preuß (n 21) [80].

Mayen and Karpenstein (n 8) 39–40, 45; Baur and others (n 47) 56ff; Rasbach (n 13) 333ff, 350; Müller-Terpitz and Weigl (n 22) 366; Holznagel and Schumacher (n 47) 102–103; Pielow and Ehlers (n 17) 261–262.

Müller-Terpitz and Weigl (n 22) 366. See also Schorkopf (n 7) 128.

Kahle (n 8) 296.

Baur and others (n 47) 59–60, 62–63.

Baur and others (n 47) 69; Müller-Terpitz and Weigl (n 22) 367.

Storr (n 14) [35] (referring only to the right to property under EU law).

The Netherlands, Intervention and Implementation Act (Interventie- en Implementatiewet) (01 July 2004) Stb. 328.

See Article 15 of 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; Article 13 of 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.

The Netherlands, Independent Network Operation Act (Wet onafhankelijk netbeheer) (23 November 2006) Stb. 614.

Another important feature was the prohibition of privatization of electricity and gas distribution system operators, which raised issues under Article 345 TFEU.

Article 10b(1) to (3) of the Law on Electricity provides in full:

1.

A system operator shall not be a member of a group, within the meaning of Article 24b of Book 2 of the Civil Code, of which a legal person or company which generates, supplies or trades in electricity in the Netherlands is also a member.

 

2.

Legal persons and companies which are members of a group, within the meaning of Article 24b of Book 2 of the Civil Code, of which a legal person or company which generates, supplies or trades in electricity in the Netherlands is also a member shall not own any shares in a system operator or in a legal person which is a member of the same group as that of which a system operator is a member and shall not have any interest in a company which is a member of the same group as a system operator.

 

3.

A system operator and group companies within the meaning of Article 24b of Book 2 of the Civil Code linked to the system operator:

a.

shall not own any shares in a legal person which generates, supplies or trades in electricity in the Netherlands or in a legal person which is a member of the same group as a legal person which generates, supplies or trades in electricity in the Netherlands;

 

b.

shall not have any interest in a company which generates, supplies or trades in electricity in the Netherlands or in a company which is a member of the same group as a legal person or a company which generates, supplies or trades in electricity in the Netherlands.

 

 

Essent N.V. v. Staat der Nederlanden (n 67) [5.11] (citing Commission v. Italy (n 70) [40]).

Ibid.

Ibid [5.14].

Ibid [4.6].

Ibid [5.2–5.6] (citing European Court of Justice, Commission v. Portugal, Judgment (4 June 2002) C-367/98; Commission v. Italy (n 70)).

Ibid [5.7–5.14].

Dutch Intervention and Implementation Act (n 62).

Dutch Independent Network Operation Act (n 64).

Ibid [6.1].

Ibid [49–66].

Anne Looijestijn-Clearie, ‘Breaking up Is Hard to Do: Dutch Unbundling Legislation and the Free Movement of Capital’ (2014) 15 European Business Organization Law Review 337, 348–353.

Ibid [3.17.2].

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid [3.22.2].

Ibid [4.9.2].

Ibid.

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Staat der Nederlanden v. Eneco Holding N.V. Judgment (26 June 2015) 10/03852 [4.11]; Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Staat der Nederlanden v. Delta N.V. Judgment (26 June 2015) 10/03853 [4.11].

Gerechtshof Amsterdam, Eneco Holding N.V. v. Staat der Nederlanden, Judgment (1 November 2016) 200 175 864/01 [3.6]; Gerechtshof Amsterdam, Delta N.V. v. Staat der Nederlanden, Judgment (1 November 2016) 200 176 186/01 [3.5].

Eneco Holding N.V. v. Staat der Nederlanden (n 99) [3.7–3.9.5]; Delta N.V. v. Staat der Nederlanden (n 99) [3.6–3.8.5]. In the case of Delta, the Court of Appeal examined additional arguments related to Delta’s involvement in the operation of a nuclear power plant in Borssele, Netherlands. Ultimately, however, the court concluded that Delta was mainly affected by decisions of a commercial nature as well as strategic choices, and that there was thus no reason to assume that the enforcement of the group prohibition against Delta was in conflict with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. See Gerechtshof Amsterdam, Delta N.V. v. Staat der Nederlanden, Judgment (25 July 2017) 200 176 186/01.

Ibid [73].

Ibid [75]. See also Henrik Klement, ‘Verstaatlichung statt Regulierung?’ [2014] Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 57, 58.