Supreme Court clarifies limits of Competition Authority competence in dispute resolution between electricity market participants.
Pursuant to the Electricity Market Act (EMA) and Natural Gas Act (NGA) market participants may file a complaint against the act or omission of another market participant that is in breach of the EMA or the NGA. However, neither the EMA nor the NGA clarify what concrete claims may be filed with the Competition Authority and what are the limits of competence of the Competition Authority in the relevant dispute resolution. The Supreme Court passed a ruling on the latter on 19 November 2012, case No. 3 3 1 43-12 - What are the limits of the Competition Authority’s competence in dispute resolution between market participants? Below we provide an overview of some of the most relevant conclusions of the Supreme Court decision:
- The Competition Authority is not authorised, on resolving a complaint filed by one market participant, to declare unlawful the acts of another market participant in the conclusion of its judgment as the Competition Authority enjoys no such authority under the EMA. Therefore, under the EMA in force and on satisfaction of a claim, the Competition Authority is only authorised to issue an enforcement order on the occasion of a confirmed breach of the EMA by a market participant. According to the Supreme Court, upon satisfaction of the claim the Competition Authority cannot issue administrative decisions with any other content.
- Pursuant to the EMA only one market participant may file a complaint against the act or omission of another market participant. Therefore, the Competition Authority examining the complaint should first identify the complainant as well as the person against whose act or omission the complaint was made and their status as a market participant. If one of the parties in the dispute does not qualify as a market participant under the EMA, the Competition Authority cannot review the complaint in accordance with EMA subparagraph 99 (2).
- In exceptional circumstances, in order to file a complaint with the Competition Authority it might suffice that the party filing the complaint qualified as a market participant at the time of the incident causing the dispute. Namely, EMA subparagraph 95 (1) includes authorisation for application of such measures which may guarantee protection of rights of persons in a situation where a person does not constitute a market participant at the time of filing the complaint and during relevant dispute resolution (e.g. elimination and remedy of consequences of the breach).
- The Competition Authority does not hold competence to resolve any disputes between market participants but only disputes which concern breach of obligations under the EMA.
In conclusion, the case constitutes an important judgment which for the first time brings much needed clarity as regards the limits of the Competition Authority’s competence in dispute resolution between market participants under the EMA. Since the NGA includes similar regulation to the EMA on dispute resolution between market participants, the Supreme Court positions are also relevant and applicable in the context of the NGA. |
| |
 |
Kaupo Lepasepp
Partner
SORAINEN Estonia
Pärnu mnt 15
10141 Tallinn
|
|
|
 |
Kaspar Endrikson
Associate
|
|
|
You have received this e-mail with SORAINEN newsflash because you are in the SORAINEN database.
If you are not interested in receiving SORAINEN newsflash in the future, please reply by clicking here.
Please note that SORAINEN newsflash is compiled for general information purposes only, free of obligation and free of legal responsibility and liability. It does not cover all laws or reflect all changes in legislation, nor are the explanations provided exhaustive. Therefore, we recommend that you contact SORAINEN or other legal advisor for further information. Electronic versions of SORAINEN newsflashes and can be subscribed to on the SORAINEN website.
© SORAINEN 2012
All rights reserved |
