Case T-279/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Sabic Polyolefine v Commission
Date: 2014-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electricity supply, energy consumption, infringement of EU law, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2014223EN.01003001.xml










14.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/30





Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Sabic Polyolefine v Commission
(Case T-279/14)
2014/C 223/35
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sabic Polyolefine GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F. Wesche, L. Petersen and T. Woltering, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: Infringement of Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU due to erroneous classification of the special compensation regime






—


The applicant claims that the opening decision infringes Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) did not constitute an allocation of State resources and the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users did not constitute a waiver of State resources.










—


The applicant states, in this context, that the Commission based its examination on new delimiting parameters which are incompatible with the principles of previous case-law. In particular, the Commission completely waived the criterion of the specific power of disposal of State authorities, which according to settled case-law is necessary for the classification as State resources, and deemed it to be sufficient for the State legislature to affect cash flows between private parties and for the compliance by the private parties with the legal requirements to be monitored by regulatory authorities.










—


In addition, the Commission is bound by its decision by which it did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources, and therefore erred in law by classifying the 2012 EEG as a new, unlawfully implemented aid scheme.










—


In addition, the Commission did not adequately examine and therefore also did not realise that the exceptions for energy-intensive users are justified according to the aim, nature and scheme of the 2012 EEG and therefore did not constitute a selective advantage.














2.


Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation No 659/1999 due to failure to propose appropriate measures






—


The applicant submits in that regard that, when examining the 2012 EEG, the Commission should in any event have applied the procedure for existing aid in accordance with Article 108(1) TFEU and Articles 17-19 of Regulation No 659/1999 and should have proposed appropriate measures to Germany before opening the formal investigation procedure instead of exposing market participants to considerable economic risks due to the classification of the 2012 EEG as new, non-notified aid.














3.


Third plea in law: Infringement of the right to be heard






—


The applicant argues also that the Commission should have consulted it in any event before adopting a decision with such serious legal effects.














4.


Fourth plea in law: Insufficient reasoning






—


Lastly, the applicant claims that the opening decision is vitiated by a lack of reasoning in the essential passages.










(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.