Eneco repays EUR 2.4 million over an uncorrected fat-finger order
ACM investigated whether Eneco Energy Trade breached Article 5 of REMIT with an order priced ten times too high during a gas balancing action on 7 March 2022, and with its conduct afterwards. It concluded the conduct may have been manipulation without establishing a breach, and declared binding commitments including repayment of EUR 2,363,471.
On this page
The decision
- Authority
- Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), Netherlands
- Published
- 3 August 2023
- Participants
- Eneco Energy Trade B.V.
- Commodity
- Gas
- Market
- Dutch wholesale gas market (ICE Endex TTF Next Hour products), during two GTS balancing actions
- Conduct period
- 7 March 2022, balancing actions at 08:21 and 09:21
- REMIT
- Article 5 (Market manipulation)
- Type of conduct
- Erroneous orders
- Penalty
- No fine. Commitments declared binding, with repayment of EUR 2,363,471 to GTS for passing on to other participants
- Status
- Commitments binding until 1 April 2024; no breach established; objection period six weeks
What ACM found
ACM's decision of 6 July 2023 concerns two gas balancing actions by Gasunie Transport Services (GTS) on 7 March 2022, at 08:21 and 09:21, in ICE Endex TTF Next Hour products. ACM records a tense market after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, low storage levels and cold weather. GTS bought with market orders carrying no price limit.
In the first action, ACM records, Eneco Energy Trade (EET) changed a 500 MWh offer from EUR 219 to EUR 2,450 per MWh at 08:21:31. EET said it intended EUR 245. GTS placed its order a second later and took every available offer, including EET's. The weighted average price was EUR 409.70; other transactions ranged from EUR 229 to EUR 650.
ACM found that other participants then posted offers at EUR 2,400-3,000. In the second balancing action GTS paid a weighted average of EUR 1,414.04, against EUR 192-326 for the rest of the day. EET itself offered at up to EUR 2,599. Several participants told ACM that the first action's price explained their high offers.
What the decision turned on
ICE Endex reported suspicious activity on 19 April 2022. ACM investigated false or misleading signals and artificial prices under Article 2(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of REMIT. It concluded that EET's conduct may have breached Article 5, but expressly did not establish a breach. The investigation ended with binding commitments rather than a fine.
ACM said an executed erroneous order, as a starting point, misleads the market. EET noticed its error immediately but neither alerted the venue nor issued a market message. Other participants could not know the price was mistaken. ACM considered that prompt communication could have changed their behaviour before the second action, although it would not have undone the first execution.
EET said it wrongly believed others had offered higher prices and that GTS could decline offers. It also said ICE Endex displayed no price warning. ICE Endex confirmed that its tool did not warn on an amendment made in this way. ACM found a gap in prevention and follow-up, rather than detection.
The outcome
ACM declared nine commitments binding under Article 12h of the Instellingswet, including notifying ICE Endex of typing errors, internal escalation, a changed bidding strategy and REMIT training. The decision ran until 1 April 2024 and allowed objections within six weeks. ACM retained powers to act against non-compliance with the commitments.
EET committed to repay EUR 2,363,471 to GTS for distribution to the affected system users. ACM calculated the benefit as gross profit with the error less gross profit without it. The repayment schedule gives EUR 1,079,426 for the first action and EUR 1,284,045 for the second; paragraph 68 prints a different second figure, but the schedule and total agree.
ACM preferred commitments because no facts showed intent, no price warning appeared, this was the first known case of its kind on the market, and commitments enabled structural measures, repayment and faster publication.
For a surveillance function
ACM's reasoning addresses prevention, detection and action after an error together. It emphasises promptly correcting the market signal, including escalation through the venue or an Urgent Market Message, and states that inadequate prevention or follow-up can increase the seriousness and blameworthiness of possible manipulation.
Sources
- ACM, Toezeggingsbesluit Eneco Energy Trade (openbare versie), 6 July 2023 (Decision, in Dutch)
- ACM, Eneco Energy Trade neemt maatregelen na onderzoek naar foutieve beursorder, 3 August 2023 (Press release, in Dutch)
- ACER, overview of REMIT sanction decisions (ACER register)
Sources read on 27 October 2026. This page restates what the authority published and adds no finding of its own. A decision under appeal is not final, and its status may have changed since: check the source before relying on it.