CELEX: 62015TN0743
Language: en
Date: 2015-12-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-743/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Vinnolit v Commission

15.2.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 59/44
            
         Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Vinnolit v Commission
   (Case T-743/15)
   (2016/C 059/51)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: M. Geipel, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users), in particular the finding, in Articles 1 and 3, that the special compensation rule (‘Besondere Ausgleichsregelung’) under the EEG-Act 2012 has the classification of State aid and that it is incompatible with the internal market and the obligation referred to in Articles 2, 6 and 7 relating to the partial recovery of benefits granted in 2013 and 2014 from the recipient users;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law: No aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU
               The applicant claims that the cap of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG), constitutes a modification of a civil law compensation mechanism. No advantage through State resources or State-controlled resources is granted.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law: In any event, no new aid
               The applicant also claims that the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users does not constitute new aid for the purposes of Article 108 TFEU because the financing mechanism for the support of renewable energies in the Federal Republic of Germany has, in the past, been classified by the Commission as compatible with the law on State aid and has not been substantially modified thus far.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant submits in that regard that, by its decision, the Commission infringed the legitimate expectations of the users concerned because the financing mechanism for the support of renewable energies in the Federal Republic of Germany has, in the past, been classified by the Commission as compatible with the law on State aid and has not been substantially modified since.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law: Lack of powers of the defendant
               Lastly, the applicant claims that, by its decision, the Commission misused the powers conferred on it by unduly reducing the margin of discretion conferred upon the Federal Republic of Germany under primary and secondary law as regards the manner in which support for renewable energies is organised.