Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBUSCHLE, Dirk
dc.contributor.authorTALUS, Kim
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-31T10:38:28Z
dc.date.available2020-03-31T10:38:28Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationOil, gas & energy law intelligence, 2019, Vol. 17, No. 5, OnlineOnlyen
dc.identifier.issn1875-418X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/66735
dc.descriptionFirst published online: November 2019en
dc.description.abstractWith its judgment of 10 September 2019, the General Court (the “Court”) annulled an earlier 2 Commission decision to modify the exemption regime for the OPAL pipeline. The Court based its judgment on the principle of energy solidarity introduced by Article 194(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”). The ruling goes against the old adage that only small cases make great law, as the OPAL pipeline exemption has been a major bone of contention in EU energy policy for many years. Given the role and history of legal principles in European Union (“EU”) law, the judgment may have far reaching impact on the interpretation and application of the rules of EU energy law. This article will focus on one aspect of the OPAL case: the principle of energy solidarity.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherMaris BVen
dc.relation.ispartofOil, gas & energy law intelligenceen
dc.relation.ispartofseries[Florence School of Regulation]en
dc.relation.ispartofseries[Energy Union Law]en
dc.relation.urihttps://www.ogel.org/article.asp?key=3849
dc.titleOne for all and all for one? : the general court ruling in the OPAL caseen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.volume17en
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
dc.identifier.issue5en


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record