Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
E.On Natural Gas Ltd. (E.ON Földgáz Zrt.; hereinafter: plaintiff) lodged four requests for long-term capacity allocation at the entry point of the gas interconnector between Hungary and Austria with the Hungarian manager of the gas transmission network, FGSZ Natural Gas Transmission Ltd. (FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt.; hereinafter: FGSZ). The requests exceeded the capacity available at the entry point, thus FGSZ requested the regulatory authority, the Hungarian Energy Authority (Magyar Energia Hivatal; hereinafter: HEA) to inform them of their position. HEA adopted a decision that amended the decision which approved the Business and Trading Code (Üzemi és Kereskedelmi Szabályzat; hereinafter: BCC) of FGSZ and redefined the rules governing the allocation of capacity for a term longer than one gas year. According to the amendment, in the given gas year FGSZ was required to reserve 80% of spare capacity for long-term contracts and the remaining was left for annual contracts. The plaintiff relying on the standing (locus standi) granted by Section 110 (3) of Act no. XL of 2008 on natural gas (2008. évi XL. törvény a földgázellátásról) submitted a petition to set aside the HEA decision: it claimed that the HEA interfered with the contracting process between the plaintiff and FGSZ and prevented it from concluding a long-term contract on the basis of the BCC in force at the time of submitting the request. The plaintiff argued that the decision was unlawful, violated procedural rules and breached the principle of the rule of law and legal certainty. Neither the first, nor the second instance court accepted the plaintiff’s standing. The plaintiff submitted a petition for review by the Curia (Kúria).
Outcome of the case:
The Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment held: Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No. 1775/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council on the conditions for access to the natural gas transmission network, read in conjunction with its Annex and Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, which does not make it possible to confer on an operator, such as the plaintiff, standing for the purpose of bringing an action against a decision of HEA relating to the gas network code. While it is for the national legislator to decide on standing and legal interest in bringing proceedings, EU law nevertheless requires, in addition to observing the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, that the national legislation should not undermine the right to effective judicial protection as provided in Article 47 of the Charter. As a conclusion the Curia accepted that the plaintiff had standing, and quashed the first and second instance judgments and ordered new procedures.
According to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union it follows from certain provisions of the preamble and Article 10 that the regulatory authorities are required to implement in the context of the exercise of their powers the observance of the principles set out in Article 5 of [Regulation no 1775/2005] read in conjunction with the Annex containing the details that of (guidelines) ensuring that market players have access without discrimination and along transparent conditions. Since the capacity allocation mechanisms and congestion management procedures contained in the EC Regulation are to be interpreted as protective measures adopted in the interest of users wishing to gain access to the network, so they confer rights on them, also by analogy the judgment in Tele2 Telecommunication, C-426/05 [EU:C:2008:110] 34. point. For this reason, the in the view of the European Court for the purposes of Article 5 of the EC Regulation E.ON Trade Natural Gas Ltd. has to be regarded as potentially having its rights infringed by a decision of the regulatory authority. Thus, although it is for the domestic legal system to regulate standing and legal interest in bringing proceedings, EU law requires in addition to the observance of equivalence and effectiveness, that the national law does not undermine the right to effective judicial protection as provided by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of Mono Car Styling, C-12/08, [EU:C: 2009:466], 49. point as well.
Az Európai Unió Bírósága ítélete szerint a rendelet egyes preambulum rendelkezéseiből és 10 cikkéből következően, a rendelet 5. cikkében foglalt és ennek részleteit tartalmazó rendelet mellékletét képező szabályokat (iránymutatásokat), a piaci szereplők hátrányos megkülönböztetéstől mentes és átlátható feltételek melletti, a szállítási hálózathoz való hozzáférését deklaráló alapelvi jellegű szabályokat a szabályozó hatóságoknak működésük során érvényesíteniük kell. Mivel az EK rendelet a kapacitásallokációs mechanizmusok és szűk keresztmetszetek kezelése körében a hálózathoz hozzáférni kívánó felhasználók érdekében meghatározott védelmi intézkedésnek minősülnek, vagyis számukra jogokat biztosíthatnak, figyelemmel a Tele2 Telecommunication ítélet, C-426/05 [EU:C:2008:110] 34. pontjára is, ezért az Európai Bíróság álláspontja szerint az EK rendelet 5. cikkére figyelemmel alapján az E.ON Trade Földgáz Zrt.-t úgy kell tekinteni, mint amelynek jogait potenciálisan érinti a szabályozó hatóság határozata. Így, jóllehet főszabály szerint a nemzeti jog feladata a jogalany kereshetőségi jogának és eljáráshoz fűződő érdekének meghatározása, az uniós jog az egyenértékűség és a tényleges érvényesülés tiszteletben tartásán kívül megköveteli, hogy a nemzeti szabályozás következtében ne sérüljön a hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jog, ahogyan azt az Európai Unió Alapjogi Chartájának 47. cikke biztosítja, s ahogyan ezt az Európai Unió Bírósága is rögzítette a Mono Car Styling ítélet, C-12/08, [EU:C: 2009:466], 49. pontjában is.
