Case T-694/14: Action brought on 22 September 2014 — EREF/Commission
Date: 2014-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, aid system, control of State aid, principle of proportionality, renewable energy








C_2014409EN.01005601.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/56





Action brought on 22 September 2014 — EREF/Commission
(Case T-694/14)
2014/C 409/77
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: U. Prall, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the provisions of the Communication of the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020, of 28 June 2014 (OJ C 200/1) relating to the compatibility assessment under Article 107(3)C of the Treaty in chapter 3.3.2. on the design of support schemes for renewable energy entitled ‘Operating aid for renewable energy sources’.










—


order the European Commission to pay all procedural costs, including the costs of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a lack of competence.






—


The Commission lacked the competence to adopt the Guidelines, as the European legislator has limited competence in the field of energy. Under Art. 194 TFEU, technology-neutral renewable energy support schemes cannot be imposed on the Member States as they impact their sovereign energy rights. The European Commission is not the EU legislator and cannot use guidelines to adopt ‘quasi legislation’ to go against the provisions of EU secondary law, i.e. the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons.






—


With the adoption of the Guidelines, the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons and thus an essential procedural requirement. Neither in the Guidelines themselves nor in the Impact Assessment sufficient justification for the policy choice of requiring all Member States in principle to adopt a technology-neutral competitive bidding system to support renewable energy can be found.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality.






—


The Commission with the Guidelines further infringes the principle of proportionality, as the Guidelines propose instruments not suitable for the declared objectives of promoting the EU’s renewable energy objectives while reducing distortive effects. Neither are those instruments proportionate, while they do create excessive burdens both on Member States almost all of which will have to reform their renewable energy support schemes, and on individuals, who will have to take on the additional administrative burden caused by the participation in the competitive bidding procedures.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a misuse of power.






—


The Guidelines constitute a misuse of power on behalf of the Commission. With the Guidelines the Commission seems to attempt to legislate in areas where the EU legislator is not competent, and suggests that measures intrinsically aiming at the harmonization of the support for renewable energy in the EU would be for the purposes of ensuring compatibility of certain State aid measures with the internal market.