This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CA0031
Case C-31/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Elektrorazpredelenie Yug’ EAD v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/72/EC — Internal market in electricity — Article 2(3) to (6) — Concepts of electricity transmission system and electricity distribution system — Distinguishing criteria — Voltage — Ownership of installations — Article 17(1)(a) — Independent transmission operator — Articles 24 and 26 — Distribution system operator — Article 32(1) — Free third-party access — Access to medium-voltage electricity — Interconnection points between transmission and distribution systems — Discretion of the Member States)
Case C-31/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Elektrorazpredelenie Yug’ EAD v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/72/EC — Internal market in electricity — Article 2(3) to (6) — Concepts of electricity transmission system and electricity distribution system — Distinguishing criteria — Voltage — Ownership of installations — Article 17(1)(a) — Independent transmission operator — Articles 24 and 26 — Distribution system operator — Article 32(1) — Free third-party access — Access to medium-voltage electricity — Interconnection points between transmission and distribution systems — Discretion of the Member States)
Case C-31/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Elektrorazpredelenie Yug’ EAD v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/72/EC — Internal market in electricity — Article 2(3) to (6) — Concepts of electricity transmission system and electricity distribution system — Distinguishing criteria — Voltage — Ownership of installations — Article 17(1)(a) — Independent transmission operator — Articles 24 and 26 — Distribution system operator — Article 32(1) — Free third-party access — Access to medium-voltage electricity — Interconnection points between transmission and distribution systems — Discretion of the Member States)
IO C 423, 16.12.2019, pp. 5–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.12.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 423/5 |
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Elektrorazpredelenie Yug’ EAD v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)
(Case C-31/18) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/72/EC - Internal market in electricity - Article 2(3) to (6) - Concepts of electricity transmission system and electricity distribution system - Distinguishing criteria - Voltage - Ownership of installations - Article 17(1)(a) - Independent transmission operator - Articles 24 and 26 - Distribution system operator - Article 32(1) - Free third-party access - Access to medium-voltage electricity - Interconnection points between transmission and distribution systems - Discretion of the Member States)
(2019/C 423/06)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Administrativen sad Sofia-grad
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant:‘Elektrorazpredelenie Yug’ EAD
Defendant: Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)
Other party:‘BMF Port Burgas’ EAD
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 2(3) and (5) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as:
|
|
2. |
Directive 2009/72, in particular Article 2(3) to (6) and Article 32(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a user connected to the electricity network at a medium-voltage plant must not necessarily be considered to be a customer of the electricity distribution system operator holding an exclusive licence for electricity distribution for the area concerned, irrespective of the contractual relations between that user and the electricity transmission system operator, since such a user may be considered to be a customer of the electricity transmission system when it is connected to a medium-voltage plant forming part of an electrical substation whose activity of transforming the voltage to enable the transition from high to medium voltage falls within the remit of the activities of that system — which is a matter for the referring court to determine. |