Case C-470/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — AS Veejaam, OÜ Espo v AS Elering (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Renewable energy subsidy — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Incentive effect of aid applied for after work has started on the project concerned — Article 108(3) TFEU — Obligation to notify — Consequences of breach of the obligation to notify)
Date: 2022-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, investment project, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2023054EN.01000401.xml










13.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/4






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — AS Veejaam, OÜ Espo v AS Elering
(Case C-470/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Renewable energy subsidy - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Incentive effect of aid applied for after work has started on the project concerned - Article 108(3) TFEU - Obligation to notify - Consequences of breach of the obligation to notify)
(2023/C 54/04)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: AS Veejaam, OÜ Espo

Defendant: AS Elering

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation establishing a renewable energy support scheme allowing an applicant for aid to obtain payment of that aid even if the application was submitted after work had started on the project concerned.










2.


The Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020
must be interpreted as meaning that State aid may have an incentive effect where the investment made by an economic operator in order to comply with a change to the terms of environmental approval, that approval being necessary for the operator’s activity, would probably not have been made without payment of the aid concerned.










3.


Article 1(b) and (c) of 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
must be interpreted as meaning that an existing aid scheme, the compatibility of which with the internal market has been established by a European Commission decision, must be classified as ‘new aid’, within the meaning of Article 1(c) of that regulation, where that scheme is applied beyond the date which the Member State concerned had indicated to the Commission, in the context of the procedure for the assessment of the aid closed by that decision, as the date on which the scheme would cease to be applied.










4.


Article 108(3) TFEU
must be interpreted as not precluding the granting of an application made by an economic operator for payment of State aid, implemented in breach of the obligation to notify laid down in that provision, first, in relation to the period prior to the Commission decision establishing that that aid was compatible with the internal market and, secondly, when that operator applied for the aid at a time when that aid was unlawful, since the aid had not been notified to the Commission, whereas the investment to which the aid was linked was made at a time when that scheme was lawful, since it had been found to be compatible with the internal market by a Commission decision, provided that, in both situations, the beneficiary of the aid pays the interest on any sums received, in respect of the period in which the aid is considered unlawful.






(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.