Introduction
On 17 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber) delivered its judgment in Joined Cases C-722/24 and C-756/24, arising from two requests for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — the Supreme Court (Senate) of Latvia — by decisions of 23 October 2024 and 31 October 2024 respectively.
The proceedings involve SIA Elektro bizness and the Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija (the Latvian public utilities regulatory commission) in Case C-722/24, and the same regulatory commission against SIA Jelgavas autobusu parks in Case C-756/24. The judgment carries the ECLI identifier ECLI:EU:C:2026:766.
The central legal questions referred to the Court concern the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU, published in the Official Journal at OJ 2019 L 158, p. 125. Specifically, the referring court sought guidance on point 41 of Article 2 and Article 7 of that directive.
Legal framework at issue
The judgment identifies Directive (EU) 2019/944 as the primary legislative instrument under examination. The directive establishes common rules for the internal market for electricity across the European Union.
Point 41 of Article 2 of the directive is central to the dispute. According to the judgment, the preliminary ruling requests concern the interpretation of the concepts of 'direct line', 'isolated generation site', and 'isolated customer' as defined or implied by that provision.
Article 7 of the directive, which sets out the conditions for authorising a 'direct line', is also squarely at issue. The judgment further references Article 9 of the directive, which concerns public service obligations imposed on electricity undertakings, as part of the broader interpretive context.
The factual and legal context involves the connection of a new customer to an electricity line linked to a producer, as well as questions concerning the maintenance of a back-up connection to the operator's distribution system — both of which raise significant questions about the scope and application of the directive's provisions.
Procedural background and composition of the Court
The two requests for a preliminary ruling were made under Article 267 TFEU, which empowers national courts to refer questions of EU law to the Court of Justice for a binding interpretation. The requests were received at the Court on 23 October 2024 and 31 October 2024 respectively.
The Third Chamber of the Court, which delivered the judgment, was composed of C. Lycourgos as President of the Chamber, together with Judges O. Spineanu-Matei, S. Rodin, N. Piçarra (acting as Rapporteur), and N. Fenger. The Advocate General was J. Kokott, who delivered her Opinion at the sitting on 12 February 2026. The Registrar was A. Calot Escobar.
Written observations were submitted on behalf of the Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija, represented by J. Miķelsons and A. Ozola. The Italian Government, represented by S. Fiorentino and L. Vignato, and the Austrian Government, represented by A. Posch, J. Schmoll, and P. Thalmann, also submitted observations. The European Commission participated through its agents O. Beynet, L. Ozola, and T. Scharf.
The participation of the Italian and Austrian Governments, alongside the European Commission, underlines the broader significance of the interpretive questions raised for the internal electricity market across multiple Member States.
Key interpretive questions
The judgment addresses the meaning and scope of the concept of a 'direct line' within the framework of Directive (EU) 2019/944. This concept, defined under point 41 of Article 2, is of practical importance for electricity producers and customers who seek to establish or use infrastructure that operates outside or alongside the regulated distribution network.
Closely related to the concept of a direct line are the notions of an 'isolated generation site' and an 'isolated customer', both of which are identified in the judgment as falling within the scope of the preliminary ruling questions. The precise boundaries of these concepts have direct consequences for how electricity undertakings may structure their supply arrangements and what regulatory authorisations they must obtain.
Article 7 of the directive, governing the conditions under which a direct line may be authorised, is examined in the context of a situation where a new customer seeks connection to an electricity line already linked to a producer. This raises questions about whether and under what conditions such a connection is permissible under EU law.
The requirement to maintain a back-up connection to the operator's distribution system is a further dimension of the case. This requirement touches on the relationship between direct line arrangements and the broader regulated network, including the public service obligations set out in Article 9 of the directive.
Significance for the internal electricity market
The judgment is significant for the development of EU energy law, particularly as Member States and market participants navigate the transition to more decentralised and renewable-based electricity systems. The clarification of concepts such as 'direct line', 'isolated generation site', and 'isolated customer' provides authoritative guidance for national regulatory authorities and courts.
The involvement of the Latvian regulatory commission as a party, and the references from the Latvian Supreme Court, illustrate how questions arising in smaller Member States can generate EU-wide legal clarity through the preliminary ruling mechanism.
The participation of the Italian and Austrian Governments as interveners reflects the cross-border relevance of the interpretive issues, suggesting that similar questions may arise or have arisen in other Member States under their respective implementations of Directive (EU) 2019/944.
The European Commission's involvement as an intervener further signals the institutional importance attached to a consistent and uniform interpretation of the directive's provisions across the internal electricity market.
Conclusion
The judgment of 17 September 2026 in Joined Cases C-722/24 and C-756/24 represents an important contribution to the body of EU case law on the internal market for electricity. By addressing the interpretation of point 41 of Article 2 and Article 7 of Directive (EU) 2019/944, the Court of Justice provides authoritative guidance on the concepts of 'direct line', 'isolated generation site', and 'isolated customer', as well as on the conditions governing the authorisation of direct lines and the maintenance of back-up connections to distribution systems.
National regulatory authorities, electricity undertakings, and legal practitioners operating in the energy sector should take note of this ruling when assessing the permissibility of direct line arrangements and the scope of public service obligations under the directive. The judgment is available in all official EU languages and has been published in the digital reports of cases with official status.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications