Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62015TN0750

    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.
    Top