Abstract

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment in the so-called Ostsee-Pipeline-Anbindungsleitung (OPAL) case on 15 July 2021 dismissed Germany’s appeal on the previous European Union (EU) General Court’s decision, which focused on the need for considering national interests of EU Member States and the interests of the Union itself in the decisions by the EU institutions in energy sector to acknowledge the solidarity principle provided in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This decision found a significant interest among academicians and legal practitioners and raised numerous discussions, since it is still not clear what are the exact criteria on application of this principle, especially in relation to such ambiguous energy notions as ‘security of supply’. The presence of the geopolitical context and direct impact of the decision on the volumes of Russian gas transported via the Nord Stream pipeline also makes this case extremely complex and raises some additional questions regarding the impact on external gas supply to the EU. Moreover, the statement of the Advocate General on the applicability of the solidarity principle to all the other objectives of EU energy policy (not limiting to the scope of security of gas supply), which was also supported by the Court, brings many additional aspects to be considered with regards to the impact of the OPAL case on EU energy sector. Therefore, this case note article undertakes a critical analysis of the recent ECJ judgment and Advocate General’s opinion to identify some gaps that are still not clarified and to estimate the possible outcomes of the judgment on the future of EU energy sector development.

中文翻译：

---

案例 C-848/19 P：德国诉波兰及其对欧盟能源部门的结果：关于欧洲法院在 OPAL 案中判决的扩展案例说明 2021 年 7 月 15 日法院（大审判庭）判决，C-848/ 19 P，德国诉波兰，ECLI:EU:C:2021:598

摘要

欧洲法院 (ECJ) 于 2021 年 7 月 15 日在所谓的 Ostsee-Pipeline-Anbindungsleitung (OPAL) 案中的判决驳回了德国对先前欧盟 (EU) 普通法院判决的上诉，该判决侧重于考虑国家欧盟成员国的利益和欧盟自身的利益在欧盟能源部门机构的决定中承认《欧盟运作条约》中规定的团结原则。这一决定引起了学者和法律从业者的极大兴趣，并引发了许多讨论，因为目前尚不清楚应用这一原则的确切标准是什么，特别是与“供应安全”等模糊的能源概念有关。地缘政治背景的存在以及该决定对通过北溪管道输送的俄罗斯天然气量的直接影响也使这一案例变得极为复杂，并引发了一些关于对欧盟外部天然气供应影响的额外问题。此外，总检察长关于团结原则适用于欧盟能源政策的所有其他目标（不限于天然气供应安全范围）的声明也得到了法院的支持，为考虑 OPAL 案对欧盟能源部门的影响。所以，