# C_2018166EN.01003301.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/33

---

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Grange Backup Power v Commission

(Case T-110/18)

(2018/C 166/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grange Backup Power Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7789 final of 24 November 2017 on the Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44464 (2017/N)) implemented by Ireland; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7789 final of 24 November 2017 on the Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44464 (2017/N)) implemented by Ireland;

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7794 final of 24 November 2017 on the Northern Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44465 (2017/N)) implemented by the United Kingdom; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7794 final of 24 November 2017 on the Northern Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44465 (2017/N)) implemented by the United Kingdom; and

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

—

order the Commission 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 one plea in law, based on the failure of the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) notwithstanding the doubts raised as to the compatibility of the all-island capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) with the state aid and internal market rules, thereby depriving the applicant of its procedural rights. This plea is divided into four branches:

1

| — | the first branch refers to the existence of serious difficulties evidenced by the duration and circumstances of the procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

the first branch refers to the existence of serious difficulties evidenced by the duration and circumstances of the procedure;

| — | the second branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compliance of the financing mechanism of the capacity remuneration mechanism with the TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

the second branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compliance of the financing mechanism of the capacity remuneration mechanism with the TFEU;

| — | the third branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compatibility of the CRM with the internal market, in particular the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

the third branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compatibility of the CRM with the internal market, in particular the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020; (2)

2

| — | in the fourth branch of its plea the applicant alleges that the Commission should have had doubts in its assessment of the capacity remuneration mechanism resulting from the effects of the United Kingdom’s notification to leave the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the fourth branch of its plea the applicant alleges that the Commission should have had doubts in its assessment of the capacity remuneration mechanism resulting from the effects of the United Kingdom’s notification to leave the European Union.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

1

(2)  Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1).

2

---