# C_2015127EN.01003101.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/31

---

Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-47/15)

(2015/C 127/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, K. Petersen and T. Lübbig, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in accordance with Article 264 TFEU, the Commission Decision of 25 November 2014 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2014) 8786 final; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in accordance with Article 264 TFEU, the Commission Decision of 25 November 2014 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2014) 8786 final;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law: Manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the facts
  The European Commission misunderstood the underlying facts, namely the functioning of the Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, in particular the financial flows system under that law. In addition, the Commission misunderstood the role ‘of the State’ as legislator and as body with responsibility for supervisory authorities and incorrectly deduced a situation of control therefrom. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: Manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the facts

The European Commission misunderstood the underlying facts, namely the functioning of the Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, in particular the financial flows system under that law. In addition, the Commission misunderstood the role ‘of the State’ as legislator and as body with responsibility for supervisory authorities and incorrectly deduced a situation of control therefrom.

| 2. | Second plea in law: No ‘favouring’ through the special compensation scheme
  The European Commission erred in law in applying Article 107(1) TFEU by accepting, contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice, that energy-intensive users had been favoured. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: No ‘favouring’ through the special compensation scheme

The European Commission erred in law in applying Article 107(1) TFEU by accepting, contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice, that energy-intensive users had been favoured.

| 3. | Third plea in law: No granting of the alleged favouring by the State or through State resources
  The European Commission also erred in law in applying Article 107(1) TFEU in this respect when it accepted that public authorities had control over the assets of the various private companies participating in the regime of the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: No granting of the alleged favouring by the State or through State resources

The European Commission also erred in law in applying Article 107(1) TFEU in this respect when it accepted that public authorities had control over the assets of the various private companies participating in the regime of the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources.

---