The EU court decided not to consider the claim of the operator “Nord stream 2”, Nord Stream AG 2 AG who tried to overturn the actions of the new EU gas Directive in respect of the project. The court found that the operator “Nord stream 2” is not directly affected by the scope of the Directive, since it is possible to obtain a special exception from the German authorities. While last week the Federal network Agency of Germany (BNA) refused the Russian project in this possibility. While Nord Stream 2 has two months to appeal the decision of the European court, but lawyers believe that the chances of challenging small.The EU court of General jurisdiction at the pretrial stage rejected the claim of Nord Stream AG 2 about the appeal of the Directive, extending the rules of the Third energy package on gas pipelines coming into the EU from third countries and directly affecting the pipeline “Nord stream 2″.”The court stated that the claim of Nord Stream AG Nord Stream AG 2 against the Directive 2019/692 that extends internal market rules to pipelines from third countries are unacceptable”,— stated in the message of the court (.pdf).”2 Nord stream” is subject to the rules of the EU gas Directive, which entered into force on 23 may 2019. But Germany, in the territory of which the Russian gas pipeline under the Baltic sea and comes on land, may withdraw the project from the scope of the Directive, granting him an exception. At the end of 2019 in Germany, a law was passed which gave the right to such waiver, the pipelines put into operation until may 24, 2020. At that moment it seemed that it solves the problem of the “Nord stream”, because “Gazprom” planned to complete its construction before this deadline. But due to the fact that the United States has imposed sanctions against companies providing services for laying of pipe, the work had to be urgently stopped. At the time the project was 95%. 15 may it became known that the Federal network Agency of Germany (BNA) rejected the application 2 Nord Stream AG with a request to release the “Nord stream 2” from the rules in the gas Directive. Such an exception would free the German section of “Nord stream 2” from the obligation to give access to the pipeline to third parties, the division of activities and external regulation of tariffs.It significantly weakens the basis for financing the project. Nord Stream AG, as quoted by the court the position of the plaintiff, notes that the proliferation of directives will force the operator to revise the contract for the transport with “Gazprom export”. However, in the case of the first “Nord stream” will not be required, as BNA reported on may 20 that gave the project an exception from the action of the gas Directive for 20 years, starting from December 12, 2019.Have 2 Nord Stream AG has two months to challenge the decision of the Court of justice. 2 Nord Stream AG reported that they had taken note of the decision of the court of the European Union of General jurisdiction, noting that the decision concerns only procedural issues on admissibility of the lawsuit in court. “The court rejected our claim on the merits, in particular the argument that the amendments to the gas Directive are unlawful discrimination project “Nord stream 2″. Therefore, we insist on our demands. Now we analyze the decision,” the company said.Managing partner of the bar Association Pen & Paper Anton Us notice that the definition of the court of justice can theoretically be appealed to the appellate court of the same court, but in the vast majority of cases the appeal on the same grounds “most likely, considers the complaint inadmissible.” Thus, he believes that “Gazprom” practically has no grounds to challenge this decision. “The basis for refusal in consideration of the merits was made by paragraph 4 of article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU. It says that if a person wants the EU court considered the case on the annulment of a normative legal act of the EU, it must prove that the act in question directly affects his rights and obligations, which the European court of General jurisdiction in the present case did not see”,— says Mr. for Us.Tatiana Woodpecker
