11.1.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/29

—

annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 November 2014 in the proceedings ‘State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users’ C(2014)8786 final, published in the Official Journal (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122), in so far as

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

1.

First plea in law: No advantage

The applicant claims that the special compensation rule does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since no advantage is granted to energy-intensive users by the cap on the EEG-surcharge.

2.

Second plea in law: No selectivity

The applicant also argues that the special compensation rule does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since the condition of selectivity is absent. Energy-intensive users were not favoured over other users who are in a comparable factual and legal situation. In addition, the cap on the EEG-surcharge is justified on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the rule.

3.

Third plea in law: No resources received from the State

In that regard, it is claimed that neither the nationwide compensation scheme nor the special compensation rule of the EEG-Act 2012 contained aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since there is no burden on State resources.

4.

Fourth plea in law: No restriction on competition

In this respect, the applicant states that the cap on the EEG-surcharge merely serves to compensate for a competitive disadvantage which electricity/energy-intensive users must bear in comparison with sectors of users in other countries owing to the payment of the EEG-surcharge.

5.

Fifth plea in law: Compatibility of the aid with the common market

The applicant claims that, if the cap on the EEG-surcharge were to be classified as aid, it would be compatible with the common market. The cap does not distort competition; rather, a competitive disadvantage for the users concerned is compensated for by this means.

6.

Sixth plea in law: No new aid

The applicant also claims that, if the Court classifies the special compensation rule as aid, it is existing aid, to which the procedure under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) is not applicable.

7.

Seventh plea in law: Infringement of the general legal principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty

The applicant submits in that regard that, by approving the EEG-Act 2000, the defendant created a legitimate expectation, which is infringed by the final decision.