Case T-134/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014  — Germany v Commission
Date: 2014-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2014142EN.01004002.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/40





Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Germany v Commission
(Case T-134/14)
2014/C 142/53
Language of the case: German

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in accordance with Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2013) 4424 final;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: Infringement of Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and of Article 108(2) TFEU
The applicant submits here that the defendant initiated the formal investigation procedure without satisfying its special duty of care to clarify the facts completely. Had the Commission carefully clarified the facts, there would have been no reason to open the formal investigation procedure.










2.


Second plea in law: Manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the facts
By the second plea, the applicant submits that the 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.










3.


Third plea in law: No favouring of energy-intensive users through the special compensation scheme
The applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in applying Article 107(1) TFEU by accepting, contrary to the case-law of the General Court, that energy-intensive users had been favoured.










4.


Fourth plea in law: No favouring through State resources
The applicant submits here that the 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.










5.


Fifth plea in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Articles 30 and 110 TFEU
By the fifth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed the principle of a proper administrative procedure and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations by reviewing the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources in accordance with Articles 30 and 110 TFEU, although the method by which that law functions has been known to it for over ten years. The Commission also errs in law in applying Articles 30 and 110 TFEU because there is neither any taxation within the meaning of those provisions nor any discriminatory situation.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).