The contested decision expanded Gazprom’s ability to use the OPAL gas pipeline, an onshore extension of the Nord Stream pipeline, with the exemption from the rules of competition (from 50 percent of capacity to nearly 100 percent). It consequently allowed Gazprom to ship more gas to the European Union market by using the Nord Stream pipeline at its full capacity. As a result, Gazprom could increase its use of Nord Stream 1, bypassing other gas pipelines carrying gas via Poland and Ukraine.

In December 2016, the Polish Government appealed against the Commission’s decision to the General Court of the European Union, invoking the breach of the principle of energy solidarity and Gas Directive 2009/73. The Government also claimed that the contested decision undermined the security of gas supplies for Poland and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe and negatively affected competition. Furthermore, Poland argued that the decision breached the principle of energy solidarity, energy security and the rules of competition.

In the dispute with the Commission, Poland was supported by Lithuania and Latvia, whereas the Commission was backed by Germany.

The General Court of the European Union shared the position of the Polish Government and considered that the contested decision was made in breach of the principle of energy solidarity. In the Court’s view, the Commission did not analyse the medium-term effects, especially on Poland’s energy policy, of redirecting a part of the natural gas, previously transported via the Yamal and Brotherhood pipelines, to be shipped via the Nord Stream 1/OPAL pipeline.

In the opinion of the Polish Government, the Court’s judgement will have a significant impact on competition on the gas market and on the EU’s energy security.

The judgement is not final. The Commission has the right to lodge an appeal with the Court of Justice within two months of the judgement’s notification.

 

MFA Press Office

Photo Tymon Markowski / MFA