This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0750
Case T-750/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission
Case T-750/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission
Case T-750/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission
OJ C 59, 15.2.2016, p. 47–48
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
15.2.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 59/47 |
Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission
(Case T-750/15)
(2016/C 059/54)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicants: Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH (Zeitz, Germany), RWE Power AG (Essen, Germany), Vattenfall Europe Mining AG (Cottbus, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein, K. Dingemann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul Commission Decision C(2014) 5081 final of 23 July 2014 in the case State aid SA. 38632 (2014/N) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — EEG 2014 — Reform of the Renewable Energy Law, in so far as it classified the regime for existing installations relating to self-sufficiency in Article 61(3) and (4) of the EEG 2014 as State aid and declared it in the second indent of point 5 (p. 75) to be compatible with the internal market only until 31 December 2017; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging a lack of selective favouring of certain undertakings By their first plea in law, the applicants claim that the contested decision wrongly defines the regime for existing installations relating to self-sufficiency in electricity (Art. 61(3) and (4) EEG 2014) as selective measures and therefore as State aid. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging a lack of State resources By their second plea in law, the applicants claim that the support for renewable energy financed by the EEG-surcharge is not received from State funds, but rather from private funds. Neither the collection nor the use of the EEG-surcharge takes place under the control of the State, as is required by the case-law. Moreover, the regime at issue is not a burden on the State treasury, since the entire amount of the EEG-surcharge is not reduced by the fact that the provision of self-sufficiency by means of existing installations is exempt from surcharges. |