Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(State aid – Polish electricity market – Capacity mechanism – Decision not to raise any objections – Aid scheme – Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU – Concept of doubts – Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 – Serious difficulties – Article 107(3)(c) TFEU – Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 – Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure – Procedural rights of the interested parties – Obligation to state reasons)
European Commission, represented by K. Herrmann and P. Němečková, acting as Agents,
PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A., established in Warsaw (Poland), represented by A. Ryan and A. Klosok, Solicitors, and by T. Janssens and K. Bojarojć-Bartnicka, lawyers,
Enel X Polska z o.o., established in Warsaw, represented by V. Cannizzaro, S. Ventura and L. Caroli, lawyers,
Enspirion sp. z o.o., established in Gdańsk (Poland), represented by A. Czech, lawyer,
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2023] ECHR 69
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.