EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0109
Case T-109/15: Action brought on 2 March 2015 — Saint-Gobain Isover G+H and Others v Commission
Case T-109/15: Action brought on 2 March 2015 — Saint-Gobain Isover G+H and Others v Commission
Case T-109/15: Action brought on 2 March 2015 — Saint-Gobain Isover G+H and Others v Commission
OJ C 138, 27.4.2015, p. 64–65
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 02/03/2015
- Date lodged:
- 02/03/2015
- Author:
- General Court
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- German
- Type of procedure:
- Action for annulment
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
27.4.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 138/64 |
Action brought on 2 March 2015 — Saint-Gobain Isover G+H and Others v Commission
(Case T-109/15)
(2015/C 138/83)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicants: Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany), Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (Stolberg, Germany), Saint-Gobain Oberland AG (Bad Wurzach, Germany) and Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Herzogenrath, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and H. Janssen, Rechtsanwälte)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision of 25 November 2014 in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2014) 8786 final; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU The applicants submit that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge is not aid, since State resources were neither granted nor renounced. The reduction of the EEG-surcharge is also not made selectively. In addition, it does not distort competition and also does not affect trade in the internal market. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU Should — contrary to what the applicants submit — aid exist, the applicants take the view that the defendant was in any event not entitled to require recovery pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU. This is because the reduction of the EEG-surcharge does not constitute new aid, since the previous rules in respect of it, which were identical in content in fundamental aspects, had already been approved by the defendant in 2002. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU The applicants also submit that the decision infringes Article 107(3) TFEU and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In this respect, the defendant should not have assessed the facts examined by it on the basis of its Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020, which were published only on 28 June 2014. Instead, it should have applied the guidelines published in 2008. Taking the 2008 standard as a basis, the defendant would not have been entitled to reach a conclusion other than that the alleged aid was compatible with the internal market. |
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU Lastly, the applicants submit that, by adopting the contested decision in a procedure concerning new aid, the defendant infringed the principle of legal certainty and Article 108(1) TFEU. As the defendant had approved the rules preceding the EEG 2012, it should have taken a decision in a procedure concerning existing aid and not in a procedure concerning new aid. |
