nordstream. cocoo 3pint submission to ECJ

INTERVENTION SUBMISSION

IN SUPPORT OF ENSURING FAIR COMPETITION AND CONSUMER WELFARE UNDER EU LAW

1. INTRODUCTION

As a charity lawyer representing [Charity Organization Name], which advocates for fair energy access, market transparency, and consumer welfare, I submit this intervention to highlight:

  1. The anti-competitive risks posed by vertical integration without proper regulatory oversight.
  2. The consumer harms arising from restricted competition and the lack of diversified energy supply.
  3. The importance of Member State compliance with EU energy directives and the proper transposition of the relevant rules.

This submission seeks to reinforce the need for effective enforcement of EU competition and energy law to safeguard the internal energy market and protect consumers.

2. LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The European Commission’s decision applies Directive 2009/73/EC, as amended by Directive 2019/692, to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

  • Unbundling Requirements: Pipelines connecting EU Member States with third countries must ensure transmission system operators (TSOs) are independent of gas production and supply.
  • Third-Party Access (TPA): Transmission infrastructure must be available to multiple suppliers under transparent, non-discriminatory terms.

Failure to comply with these rules can result in market foreclosure, limiting competition and harming consumers.

3. LEGAL ARGUMENTS

A. Ensuring Compliance with the Principle of Competition

The intervention supports the European Commission’s decision on the grounds that vertical integration in the gas market poses serious risks to competition.

  1. Legal Basis:
    • Article 102 TFEU prohibits the abuse of dominant market positions.
    • In Case C-553/12 P (DEI), the CJEU emphasized that preferential access to key infrastructure, such as pipelines, distorts competition and grants undue market advantages.
  2. Competitive Harm:
    • Foreclosure of Competitors: Vertical integration of Gazprom’s production and transmission operations restricts third-party access, preventing alternative suppliers from entering the market.
    • Barrier to Entry: Without unbundling, smaller gas producers face insurmountable barriers, as demonstrated in cases involving other energy monopolies (e.g., Case T-793/19, Tirreno Power).
  3. Counterfactual Analysis:
    In a market without the Commission’s decision, Gazprom’s sole control over Nord Stream 2 would lead to:

    • Higher energy prices for EU consumers due to reduced competition.
    • Increased dependency on a single supplier, compromising energy security.

B. Protecting Consumer Welfare Under EU Law

The intervention stresses that ensuring competition directly benefits EU consumers by:

  1. Lowering Prices: Competitive markets force suppliers to offer better pricing, as seen in the liberalization of EU electricity markets.
  2. Improving Energy Security: Diversified suppliers reduce the risks associated with overreliance on a single energy source.
  3. EU Consumer Protection Law: Article 169 TFEU mandates high consumer protection standards, including fair pricing and market choice.

Supporting Data:

  • A 2023 report by the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) highlighted that unbundling practices contributed to a 7% reduction in wholesale energy prices.
  • The lack of competition in monopolized energy markets has historically resulted in price increases of up to 15% for end consumers.

C. Member State Compliance with EU Law

The harms to competition and consumers could have been mitigated or prevented if Member States had properly transposed the relevant EU directives into national law.

  1. Failure to Transpose:
    • Delays or inadequate transposition of Directive 2019/692 created legal uncertainty, allowing projects like Nord Stream 2 to advance without immediate compliance.
    • In Case C-718/18 (Germany), the CJEU reaffirmed that Member States are obliged to ensure effective transposition and implementation of EU competition and energy laws.
  2. Legal Remedy:
    • Under Article 258 TFEU, the European Commission can initiate infringement proceedings against Member States that fail to transpose EU directives properly.
    • The Nord Stream 2 case illustrates the need for stricter oversight to ensure timely and effective transposition of EU energy laws.
  3. Call-In Powers:
    • Member States with call-in powers (e.g., Germany, Austria) should exercise their authority to review below-threshold mergers or acquisitions that threaten market competition.

4. PRECEDENT AND COUNTERFACTUAL SUPPORT

Drawing from established case law:

  1. Case C-553/12 P (DEI): Demonstrates how preferential infrastructure access distorts competition.
    • Application: Gazprom’s control over Nord Stream 2, without unbundling, would create similar anti-competitive effects.
  2. Case T-793/19 (Tirreno Power): Reinforces the importance of EU-level regulatory oversight to prevent market foreclosure.
  3. Counterfactual Analysis:
    • Scenario Without Unbundling: Gazprom’s market dominance would restrict third-party suppliers, reduce competition, and harm consumer welfare.
    • Scenario With Unbundling: Transparent, non-discriminatory access promotes competition, lowers prices, and strengthens energy security.

5. RELIEF REQUESTED

On behalf of [Charity Organization Name], we respectfully submit the following:

  1. Support for the European Commission’s Decision:
    • The decision is consistent with EU competition principles, as it prevents abuse of dominant positions and ensures a competitive energy market.
  2. Request for Member State Compliance:
    • Urge Member States to accelerate the transposition and enforcement of EU directives to prevent further harm to competition and consumers.
  3. Enhanced Monitoring of Stealth Mergers:
    • Recommend that national competition authorities exercise their call-in powers to review below-threshold mergers that may adversely affect market competition.
  4. Implementation of Safeguards:
    • Request the Commission to impose stricter compliance measures on future projects to ensure unbundling and third-party access.

6. CONCLUSION

The Commission’s decision to enforce unbundling on Nord Stream 2 aligns with established EU competition law and consumer protection principles. Failure to implement these measures would lead to significant competitive harm, energy insecurity, and increased costs for EU consumers.

We respectfully submit this intervention to safeguard fair competition, promote market transparency, and protect the interests of European consumers.

Signed:
[Lawyer’s Full Name]
[Title/Organization]
[Contact Information

Leave a Reply