# C_2016059EN.01004701.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

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

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)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

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; |
| --- | --- |

—

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

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 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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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.

---