Energia Group Holdings (ROI) DAC & ors v The Commission for Regulation of Utilities GR Windfarms 1 Ltd & ors v Commission for Regulation of Utilities (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicants are a number of renewable-energy market participants that either own and operate wind farms or act as intermediaries for renewable generators within the Single Electricity Market on the island of Ireland. The Respondent/Appellant (“Company B”) is the statutory regulator of that market. In March 2022 the Single Electricity Market Committee adopted a “Decision Paper on Dispatch, Redispatch and Compensation” intended to implement Article 13(7) of Regulation (EU) 2019/943.

The Applicants commenced judicial-review proceedings contending that the Decision failed to comply with Article 13(7) because, among other things, it deferred compensation for curtailment, separated different heads of compensation, excluded certain generators, and differentiated between units commissioned before and after 4 July 2019. The High Court quashed the Decision. Company B appealed to the Supreme Court, which, after an oral hearing on 12–13 December 2024, decided to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) on questions of interpretation and effect of Article 13(7).

Legal Issues Presented

1. The correct interpretation of Article 13(7) of Regulation (EU) 2019/943, including whether it obliges system operators to provide full “indifference” compensation to redispatched generators and how the phrases “unjustifiably low” or “unjustifiably high” compensation are to be assessed.
2. Whether Article 13(7) is sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to possess direct effect in national law.
3. If Article 13(7) lacks direct effect, whether it can nevertheless be invoked before national courts to challenge domestic measures and what remedies must be available.
4. Whether specific features of the Decision—such as deferring compensation, excluding non-day-ahead participants, paying compensation to suppliers instead of generators, differentiating between priority-dispatch and non-priority-dispatch units, and disregarding payments under Corporate Power Purchase Agreements—are compatible with Article 13(7).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• Article 13(7) requires generators to be made whole; compensation must cover all lost revenue, including foregone financial support, so that generators are indifferent to redispatch.
• The provision has direct effect despite containing undefined concepts because it sets a mandatory result and the Member State’s discretion is sufficiently delimited (citing, among others, Case C-205/20 NE).
• Even absent direct effect, national implementation measures must stay within the parameters of the Regulation; domestic courts may review and, if necessary, annul measures that exceed that margin (relying on cases such as Eridania and Meta Platforms Ireland).
• Denying a judicial remedy would contravene the obligation under Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter to provide effective judicial protection.

Respondent/Appellant's Arguments (Company B)

• Although the Regulation is directly applicable, Article 13(7) lacks direct effect because the phrase “unjustifiably low or unjustifiably high” vests a wide discretion in Member States, rendering the provision insufficiently clear and unconditional (relying on Case C-573/17 Popławski II).
• Where a Regulation provision lacks direct effect, national courts cannot disapply conflicting domestic measures; enforcement lies with the European Commission under Article 258 TFEU.
• The Decision’s approach—deferring certain payments, limiting compensation to day-ahead participants, and distinguishing between units commissioned before or after 4 July 2019—is a permissible policy choice within the discretion afforded by Article 13(7).
• Payments due under Corporate Power Purchase Agreements constitute private contractual support outside the scope of “financial support” in Article 13(7)(b) and therefore need not be included in compensation.

Attorney General’s Submissions

• Supports Company B’s position that Article 13(7) lacks direct effect and, if indirect interpretation is impossible, no domestic remedy is available; any non-compliance must be addressed legislatively or through infringement proceedings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that the parties’ dispute encompasses both the substantive meaning of Article 13(7) and its legal status within the Irish legal order. The Court found that:

• The correct interpretation of Article 13(7)—particularly the scope of compensation and the meaning of “unjustifiably low or unjustifiably high”—is genuinely open to doubt.
• The existence (or absence) of direct effect may depend on that interpretation and directly influences the availability of remedies before national courts.
• Conflicting strands of CJEU authority (such as Popławski II versus the line of cases beginning with Eridania) render the legal position insufficiently clear for the Supreme Court to resolve the issue autonomously.
• The matters are of systemic importance to the functioning of the Single Electricity Market and involve significant financial consequences for renewable-energy generators.

Against that backdrop, the Court concluded that a reference to the CJEU was necessary to obtain authoritative guidance. It therefore formulated a series of questions addressing interpretation, direct effect, the scope of permissible national measures, and the specific features of the 2022 Decision.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: The Supreme Court referred multiple questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU.

Immediate Effect: The appeal is stayed pending the CJEU’s ruling. The legality of the 2022 Decision remains unresolved.

Broader Implications: The forthcoming CJEU judgment will determine (1) whether Article 13(7) is directly effective, (2) the extent of compensation owed to redispatched renewable generators, and (3) the scope of national regulatory discretion. No new domestic precedent is set until the CJEU provides its answers.