Commission Decision of 14 October 2011 on the request by the United Kingdom to accept Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (notified under document C(2011) 7228) (Only the English text is authentic) (2011/692/EU)

Versions

1. 2011-10-14

Cited by

• Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) 12 November 2025 Judgment · Grade B

  According to the arbitration agreement, the task with which the arbitration tribunal was entrusted consisted in determining, on the basis of negotiations which took place between the applicant and Metlen, an electricity supply tariff corresponding to the specific characteristics of Metlen and covering at least the costs borne by the applicant. In addition, the arbitration tribunal had to take account of the legislative framework specified by the parties to the agreement, namely RAE Decision No 692/2011 establishing the [b]asic [p]rinciples for [p]ricing of [e]lectricity to [high-voltage] [c]us

• Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) 12 November 2025 Judgment · Grade B

  Similarly, the applicant submits that the Commission fails to explain which characteristics of the Greek electricity market constitute clear and objective parameters. According to the applicant, the Commission fails to provide any complex economic analysis or assessment that led it to conclude with certainty that the tariff set was the consequence of the parameters fixed by the arbitration. It claims that, in view of the disagreement of the parties to the arbitration agreement on the fundamental principles of arbitration, the tariff fixed by the arbitration award cannot be considered to be the

• Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) 12 November 2025 Judgment · Grade B

  By its Decision No 346/2012, the RAE stated that, in the event of a tariff increase, the maximum increase was 10%. Thus, according to that decision, the Greek legislature wanted, in an initial phase, to liberalise the applicant’s tariffs gradually by protecting high-voltage customers from the applicant’s undeniably dominant position, which could have led to abrupt pricing changes. The RAE also found that the Greek legislature had made no reference to the A‑150 tariff but that, in practice, that tariff had been used as a reference, because it had been applicable to high-voltage customers until

• Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) 12 November 2025 Judgment · Grade B

  In its recommendations in paragraph 20 of its Decision No 346/2012, the RAE suggested avoiding any reference to older regulated tariffs (such as, for example, the A‑150 tariff for high-voltage customers) and establishing new relevant parameters for any new tariff proposed. Thus, it suggested that the applicant engage in meaningful dialogue with those customers, finding that the applicant had not done so in accordance with the principles set out in its Decision No 692/2011.

• Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) 12 November 2025 Judgment · Grade B

  Secondly, the applicant may not claim that, in its written pleadings, the Commission acknowledged that it had never examined the report in question submitted to it by the applicant, as that is not apparent from the paragraphs to which it refers. Moreover, the Court finds that that report, annexed by the applicant to its written pleadings, is subsequent to the conclusion of the arbitration agreement and that it calls into question the fundamental pricing principles as reflected in RAE Decision No 692/2011. However, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 136 above, facts subsequent

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  After the applicant sent the draft electricity supply contract to the Rythmistiki Archi Energeias (Greek Energy Regulator, Greece; the RAE), it adopted Decision No 692/2011 (FEK B’ 2529/7.11.2011) on the basic principles for electricity pricing in Greece. That decision was subsequently incorporated into the Greek Electricity Supply Code (FEK B’ 832/9.4.2013).

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  According to the applicant, in essence, neither paragraph 42 of the second contested decision nor the arbitration agreement or Decisions No 692/2011 and No 798/2011 of the RAE specify clear and objective parameters limiting the arbitrators’ discretion, or information making it possible to determine either the characteristics of the intervener’s consumption, including the method for calculating the supply costs borne by it as far as those characteristics are concerned, or its costs and high and low tariff hours, and even less so a calculation of all the elements constituting the total actual co

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  The intervener states, in essence, that the arbitration agreement is the result of the applicant’s free will, following lengthy negotiations with the intervener, and was approved by the applicant’s legal department, Board of Directors and general meeting, and therefore its complaints are incorrect and contrary to the general principle of law that none may rely to their advantage on their own omission or illegality (nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans). It states that that agreement contains clear and objective parameters which reasonably define the scope of the arbitration tribunal’s p

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  In the second place, with regard to the pricing method, Decision No 692/2011 of the RAE merely states, inter alia, that prices must reflect actual electricity supply costs … and cover the cost of production as it appears on the wholesale market …, the cost of marketing and customer management activities … and a reasonable profit. With regard to large customers, including medium and high-voltage customers, such as the intervener, there is the option to offer tailored tariffs, which are adapted to their characteristics and to the services offered and agreed between the supplier and the customer.

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  In the third place, with regard to the applicable criteria in order to resolve the dispute between the applicant and the intervener, Decision No 798/2011 of the RAE also does not provide sufficiently clear and precise indications to that end. That decision states, first, that the purpose of the option to conduct negotiations between [high-voltage] customers and, in particular, a customer with [the intervener’s] electricity consumption profile, which represents approximately 5% of the total consumption of the interconnected system, and the main supplier, namely [the applicant], is to explore an

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  In that regard, in view of the possibility of adjusting the supply tariff, inter alia, on the basis of the customer’s consumption profile, the structure of the Greek energy market, the applicant’s dominant position and the applicant’s balance sheet for 2011, the arbitration tribunal considers that account should be taken not only of its supply costs but also of its income generated as a producer (paragraphs 127 and 128 of the arbitration award). It states that those supply costs and that income are set out in that balance sheet as separate expenditure (costs) from the activities of supplying e

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  According to the arbitration tribunal, the marginal price of the system does not represent the applicant’s actual costs. As a vertically integrated undertaking, its actual costs are to be established on an annual rather than an hourly basis, taking into account the variable and fixed total costs of all of the power plants available to it, plus the costs of purchases made by it from third parties through the DAS system, plus the costs incurred by energy suppliers outside that system, in accordance with the applicable rules (paragraph 129 of the arbitration award). In that regard, it rejects the

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  With regard to the tariff proposed by the intervener, based on the variable and fixed costs of all the applicant’s lignite-fired power stations, the arbitration tribunal points out, first, that, in accordance with Decision No 692/2011 of the RAE, such a tariff must reflect the sum of the production costs, the costs of managing the supply and a reasonable profit margin (paragraphs 141 to 145 of the arbitration award) and, secondly, that it corresponds to the C tariff described by the expert Mr K., which reflects the minimum long-term cost for each consumer and which, according to that expert, i

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  In that regard, the arbitration tribunal rejects the applicant’s reasoning seeking to challenge that assessment since the tariff it proposes is incompatible with Decisions No 692/2011 and No 798/2011 of the RAE in so far as it implies that the total costs are allocated equally among all consumers with the result that each consumer is charged the same price for each hour of the day. That horizontal distribution tariff would result in considerably higher prices for households and other consumers who do not have a typical consumption profile, thus those at peak load (paragraphs 156 to 163 and 169

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  According to the dissenting opinion in the arbitration award, first, in essence, the majority opinion acknowledges that the marginal price of the system as such does not reflect the applicant’s actual costs and is not used solely for the purpose of determining those costs, but that time-weighted price is also a means of pricing the volume of energy supplied to the applicant by third parties. The method proposed by the applicant would allocate the cost of supply to consumers which is based exactly on the characteristics of the system, on the basis of the amount of energy consumed by each consum

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  Furthermore, the dissenting opinion in the arbitration award criticises the reasoning relating to the pricing method, inter alia, as being incompatible with the requirements of the arbitration agreement and Decision No 692/2011 of the RAE (paragraphs 235 to 249 of that award). In particular, the global reference to the variable and fixed costs of the least expensive generation capacity creates a distorted picture of the applicant’s costs since the combination of fixed and variable costs of power plants varies according to the number of hours of operation. Thus, the reference to lignite-based e

• Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B

  In the present case, only the pricing criteria for the supply of electricity to high-voltage customers and not the precise amount of tariffs are laid down in the applicable Greek legislation, namely, inter alia, in the context of the basic principles for electricity pricing in Greece, established in Decision No 692/2011 of the RAE (see paragraph 8 above). With regard to the determination of the amount of the applicable tariffs in accordance with those principles, Article 37 of Law No 4001/2011 provides only for the possibility for the contracting parties to have recourse to permanent arbitrati