I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Joined Cases C-105/18 to C-113/18) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Polluter pays principle - Directive 2000/60/EC - Article 9(1) - Recovery of the costs of water services - Common rules for the internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 3(1) - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 107(1) TFEU - State aid - Tax on the use of inland waters for the production of electricity - Tax imposed only on hydroelectricity producers operating on inter-communities river basins)
(2020/C 10/08)
Language of the case: Spanish
Applicants: Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA) (C-105/18), Energía de Galicia (Engasa) SA (C-106/18), Duerocanto SL (C-107/18), Corporación Acciona Hidráulica (Acciona) SLU (C-108/18), Associació de Productors i Usuaris d’Energia Elèctrica (C-109/18), José Manuel Burgos Pérez, María del Amor Guinea Bueno (C-110/18), Endesa Generación SA (C-111/18), Asociación de Empresas de Energías Renovables (APPA) (C-112/18), Parc del Segre SA, Electra Irache SL, Genhidro Generación Hidroeléctrica SL, Hicenor SL, Hidroeléctrica Carrascosa SL, Hidroeléctrica del Carrión SL, Hidroeléctrica del Pisuerga SL, Hidroeléctrica Santa Marta SL, Hyanor SL, Promotora del Rec dels Quatre Pobles SA (C-113/18)
Defendant: Administración General del Estado
Interveners: Iberdrola Generación SAU, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico SA
1.Article 191(2) TFEU and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy must be interpreted as not precluding a tax on the use of inland waters for the production of electricity, such as the tax at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to those public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of hydroelectricity producers.
2.The principle of non-discrimination, as provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding a tax, such as the tax on the use of inland waters for the production of electricity at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community.
3.Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the tax on the use of inland waters for the production of electricity, at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, is not payable, first, by hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing a single autonomous community and, secondly, by producers of electricity from sources other than water, does not constitute State aid, within the meaning of that provision, in favour of those producers provided that the latter are not, in the light of the relevant reference framework and the objective pursued by that tax, in a comparable situation to that of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community subject to that tax, which it is for the national court to determine.
* Language of the case: Spanish.
(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.