Judgment of the General Court Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition of 2 February 2022, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission Engagements de Gazprom, T-616/18

• Date: 02 February 2022
• Year: 2022

16

surrender, to have such an influence. Such evidence can be supplemented, as appropriate, by

information provided by the issuing judicial authority.

In that respect, as regards, first, an EAW issued for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence or

detention order, the executing judicial authority must take account of the information relating to the

composition of the panel of judges who heard the criminal case or any other circumstance relevant to

the assessment of the independence and impartiality of that panel. It is not sufficient, in order to

refuse surrender, that one or more judges who participated in those proceedings were appointed on

application of a body such as the KRS. The person concerne d must, in addition, provide information

relating to, inter alia, the procedure for the appointment of the judges concerned and their possible

secondment, which would lead to a finding that the composition of that panel of judges was such as

to affect that person’s fundamental right to a fair trial. Furthermore, account must be taken of the fact

that it may be possible, for the person concerned, to request the recusal of the members of the panel

of judges for breach of his or her fundamental right to a fair trial, the fact that that person may

exercise that option as well as the outcome of the request for recusal.

Second, where an EAW has been issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, the

executing judicial authority must take account of the information relating to the personal situation of

the person concerned, the nature of the offence for which that person is prosecuted, the factual

context surrounding that EAW or any other circumstance relevant to the assessment of the

independence and impartiality of the panel of judges likely to be called upon to hear the proceedings

in respect of that person. Such information may also relate to statements made by public authorities

which could have an influence on the specific case. By contrast, the fact that the identity of the judges

who will be called upon eventually to hear the case of the person concerned is not known at the time

of the decision on surrender or, when their identity is known, that those judges were appointed on

application of a body such as the KRS is not sufficient to refuse that surrender.

V. COMPETITION

1. PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTING COMPETITION RULES

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 2 February

2022, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Engagements de

Gazprom), T-616/18

Competition – Abuse of a dominant position – Gas markets of central and eastern Europe – Decision to

make binding the individual commitments proposed by an undertaking – Article 9 of Regulation (EC)

No1/2003 – Whether the commitments are adequate in the light of the competition concerns initially

identified in the statement of objections – Commission decision not to require commitments in relation to

some of the initial concerns – Principle of sound administration – Transparency – Obligation to state

reasons – Energy-policy objectives of the European Union – Principle of ene rgy solidarity – Misuse of

powers

Between 2011 and 2015, the European Commission took several measures in order to investigate the

functioning of the gas markets in central and eastern Europe. In that context, it launched an

investigation into Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC (together, ‘Gazprom’) in relation to the