Case T-274/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Lech-Stahlwerke 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, price of energy, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2014223EN.01002701.xml










14.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/27





Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Lech-Stahlwerke v Commission
(Case T-274/14)
2014/C 223/32
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH (Meitingen, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision 2014/C 37/07 of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU in relation to the support for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and from mine gas in accordance with the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources) in the version of 25 October 2008, as amended by Article 5 of the law of 20 December 2012, and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, in so far as the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users such as the applicant is classified as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and provisionally declared incompatible with the internal market in that decision.










—


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 three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU — no State aid






—


The applicant claims that the support mechanism of the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (hereinafter referred to as EEG) as a whole and particularly the special compensation regime for energy-intensive users did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there is no direct or indirect transfer of State resources. The support is financed solely from private resources, the financing flows of which are not controlled by any State authority.














2.


Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU — no selective favouring of energy-intensive users






—


The applicant also claims that the special compensation regime does not selectively favour energy-intensive users. First, the users did not receive any benefit which they would not have received under normal market conditions because, under those circumstances, EEG operators have to sell their electricity at market prices and there is already no EEG-surcharge. Secondly, the special compensation regime applies within the energy-intensive users, which are affected solely by the threatened loss of international competitiveness due to the EEG-surcharge, to all manufacturing sectors in a non-discriminatory way.














3.


Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU — in any event, compatibility with the internal market






—


However, even if the special compensation regime were to constitute aid, it is, in any event, clearly compatible with the internal market in accordance with the State aid rules of Article 107(3)(b) and (c) with regard to the objective, which is in the Community’s interest, of environmental and climate protection whilst guaranteeing a sustainable and stable European economy.