CELEX: 62014TN0291
Language: en
Date: 2014-05-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-291/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014  — egeplast international v Commission

14.7.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 223/42
            
         Action brought on 2 May 2014 — egeplast international v Commission
   (Case T-291/14)
   2014/C 223/45
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: egeplast international GmbH (Greven, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul European Commission Decision C(2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 on State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               No favouring within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant claims that the special compensation regime of the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) does not favour the applicant within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, but merely reduces a charge severely affecting the applicant’s competitiveness, which was imposed on the applicant only as a result of the introduction of the EEG-surcharge. It serves partially to compensate for a disadvantage and not to provide an advantage.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               No selectivity
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant also claims that the special compensation regime is not selective because it is not limited to certain users or branches of production. Also in practice, the range of users which benefited from the compensation regime is just as diverse. The regime is fully compatible with the 2012 EEG and allows for a system of charges that is coherent with the EEG system.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               No State resources or resources imputable to the State
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant further submits that the EEG-surcharge revenues are not State resources or resources imputable to the State. The EEG-surcharge serves to fulfil the transmission system operators’ (hereinafter referred to as TSOs) entitlement under civil law against the electricity suppliers for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by them in the marketing of electricity. The amount of the surcharge is determined by the TSOs without any State involvement. The powers conferred upon the Bundesnetzagentur (federal network agency) served only to review the proper determination of the amount of the surcharge by the TSOs. They did not, however, obtain for the Bundesnetzagentur any permanent control or power of disposal over the revenue from the surcharge.
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               No distortion of competition and effect on trade
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant claims in that regard that it follows from the non-State nature of the surcharge revenue that reductions of the EEG-surcharge did not constitute a waiver of State revenue. There is, further, no waiver here because any loss of revenue of the surcharge account was counter-financed from private resources in the form of a higher surcharge amount for non-privileged end-consumers.