CELEX: 62016CA0135
Language: en
Date: 2018-07-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-135/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Scheme for the support of renewable electricity sources and energy-intensive users — Decision (EU) 2015/1585 — Validity in the light of Article 107 TFEU — Admissibility — Failure by the applicants in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment)

17.9.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 328/4
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
      (Case C-135/16) (1)
      
      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Scheme for the support of renewable electricity sources and energy-intensive users - Decision (EU) 2015/1585 - Validity in the light of Article 107 TFEU - Admissibility - Failure by the applicants in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment))
      (2018/C 328/04)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicants: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH
      
         Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), by decision of 23 February 2016, is inadmissible.
      
         (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.