This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0738
Case T-738/15: Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Aurubis and Others v Commission
Case T-738/15: Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Aurubis and Others v Commission
Case T-738/15: Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Aurubis and Others v Commission
OJ C 59, 15.2.2016, p. 43–44
(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 59/43 |
Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Aurubis and Others v Commission
(Case T-738/15)
(2016/C 059/50)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicants: Aurubis AG (Hamburg, Germany), Aurubis Stolberg GmbH & Co. KG (Stolberg, Germany), Covestro Deutschland AG (Leverkusen, Germany), Dow Olefinverbund GmbH (Schkopau, Germany), Rheinkalk GmbH (Wülfrath, Germany), Siltronic AG (Munich, Germany), Vestolit GmbH (Marl, Germany) and Wacker Chemie AG (Munich) (represented by: C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
annul Article 3(1) of the contested decision
|
|
— |
annul Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the contested decision in so far as the Commission orders the recovery of the aid, and |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By means of the present action, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 (notified under document C(2014) 8786 final) on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (1).
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 claim that the BesAR is not State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, not least because of the lack of a transfer of State resources. In addition, it gives energy-intensive users no selective economic advantage. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108 TFEU The applicants claim that, by ordering (partial) recovery, the Commission infringed Article 108 TFEU because the EEG-Act 2012 should have been classified, if at all, only as existing aid and not as new, unlawfully established aid. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law: Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations In that regard, it is claimed that the recovery of the aid allegedly granted unlawfully infringes the applicants’ legitimate expectations as to the lawfulness of the national legislation, which were established in particular by the Commission decision on the EEG-Act 2000. |
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure Within the context of the fourth plea in law, the applicants complain that the Commission did not propose any appropriate measures to the Federal Republic of Germany before the initiation of the formal investigation procedure. |