- May 20, 2020 Ruling Chamber 7 has granted the release of the "Nord Stream", held in Germany, on the regulation for a period of 20 years starting from 12 December 2019, - told the agency.
Last Wednesday, a court of general jurisdiction of the European Union dismissed the claims of Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 AG companies in defiance of the EU decision on the distribution of the “gas directive”.
- The Supreme Court found that the directive does not directly affect the interests of Nord Stream AG 2 and Nord Stream AG, - say in court.
Recall that on the eve of the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the pipeline operator is trying to judicially withdraw the project because of the European “gas directive”, as well as appeal the refusal of the German Federal Network Agency to exclude the project from regulating the third energy package.
On May 15, all EU countries unanimously refused to support Gazprom, which requested that the Nord Stream 2 project be recognized as completed before the amendments to the EU laws came into force. After that, Gazprom could use only half the power of the pipe. The corporation invested about 10 billion euros in the construction of the gas pipeline.
Note that it was Germany that delayed the adoption of the “gas directive” for a year, starting in 2017. Amendments to the directive were adopted only in April last year.
According to Konstantin Simonov, Director General of the Background of National Energy Security, the release of the Nord Stream from the gas directive does not mean at all that the same thing will be done with respect to Nord Stream 2.
- When they launched Nord Stream 2, the European Commission began to think about what dirty tricks to take in connection with all this and would extend the effect of the Third Energy Package to pipes running through the water. That is, now the owner of the pipeline had the right to use only half of its capacity, - Simonov said in an interview with“ Evening Moscow ”.
According to Simonov, the first pipeline did not fall under the rules of the directive at all, and therefore, the regulator was asked to release him from it “just in case”. At the same time, the expert is sure that the refusal to remove the directive from “SP-2” will not ultimately affect his work, since “we need to wait for a more complex scheme to be considered,” and the pipe itself needs to be completed.