It seems rather improbable that parties to the IETA agreement don’t make choice as regards the jurisdiction applicable to the contract in respect of the sale of emission greenhouse gas allowances. This is because the IETA Master Agreement (ETMA v. 3.0) is governed by and is to be construed in accordance with English law unless otherwise expressly provided for in the Part 1 of the Schedule 2 (Elections) to the Master Agreement (clause 14.7).

But there are also trades where other contract documentation is applied, and this documentation sometimes is restricted to, for instance, two pages only (without any master agreement). It is also theoretically possible (and sometimes occurs in practice) that there is no documentation at all – only transfer in the registry (the agreement is concluded orally and not confirmed in writing).

The question may arise in the said situations as to the law applicable to the contract.

The Regulation No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) is helpful in these ambiguities and the findings on jurisdiction are the first problems, which are to be resolved in any legal analysis relating to such contract.

The Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection, which were adopted in 2008 (OJ C 82, 1.4.2008, p.1. – hereafter the Environmental State Aid Guidelines) are not adapted yet to a climate-energy legislative package, in particular to the Directive 2003/87/EC (as amended by the Directive 2009/29/EC).

Some of the foreseen by the Directive 2009/29/EC State aid measures are not covered by the existing Guidelines and thus the interpretation of these measures on the basis of State aid rules can raise several questions.