This study attempts to answer whether the current national legal regulations provide the energy market regulator, the President of the Energy Regulatory Office, with a sufficient basis for permissible ex officio changes to the terms of the concession granted to
operators. Conclusions from the linguistic and systemic interpretation of the analysed legal provisions are unequivocal. Neither does a purposive interpretation lead to opposite conclusions. The result of the interpretation shows that the analysed legal provisions
do not create the right of the ERO President to make changes to the concession ex officio. On the one hand, they define the competence of the authority, and on the other hand, the forms of its action. However, it cannot be assumed that they also include provisions which strictly define what circumstances constitute a premise for making changes to a concession. Complementarity cannot, in fact, mean that on the basis of the provisions on jurisdiction, the power to issue a decision is granted outside these cases. A number of other arguments cited in the body of this paper also speak against equipping the ERO President with the power to amend the concession ex officio outside the cases directly specified in the Act. The attempt to demonstrate the presented research theses was possible through the use of basic methodological and research instruments (using the dogmatic-legal method, the legal-comparative method, and additionally also the historical method and the analysis of case-law).
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.