CELEX: 62015TN0047
Language: en
Date: 2015-02-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-47/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Germany v Commission

20.4.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 127/31
            
         Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-47/15)
   (2015/C 127/43)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, K. Petersen and T. Lübbig, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul, in accordance with Article 264 TFEU, the Commission Decision of 25 November 2014 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2014) 8786 final;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law: Manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the facts
               The European Commission misunderstood the underlying facts, namely the functioning of the Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, in particular the financial flows system under that law. In addition, the Commission misunderstood the role ‘of the State’ as legislator and as body with responsibility for supervisory authorities and incorrectly deduced a situation of control therefrom.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law: No ‘favouring’ through the special compensation scheme
               The European Commission erred in law in applying Article 107(1) TFEU by accepting, contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice, that energy-intensive users had been favoured.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law: No granting of the alleged favouring by the State or through State resources
               The European Commission also erred in law in applying Article 107(1) TFEU in this respect when it accepted that public authorities had control over the assets of the various private companies participating in the regime of the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources.