EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-47/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Germany v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0047

62015TN0047

February 2, 2015
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/31

(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.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia