EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/61

(Case T-318/14)

2014/C 223/63

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: M. Geipel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in cases SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), in so far as it concerns the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

—order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law: No aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU

—The applicant claims that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG), constitutes a modification of a civil law compensation mechanism. No advantage through State resources or State-controlled resources is granted.

2.Second plea in law: In any event, no new aid

—The applicant also claims that the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users does not constitute new aid for the purposes of Article 108 TFEU because the financing mechanism for the support of renewable energies in the Federal Republic of Germany has, in the past, been classified by the European Commission as compatible with the law on State aid and has not been substantially modified thus far.

3.Third plea in law: Infringement of fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality

—The applicant submits in that regard that the European Commission did not exercise, or incorrectly exercised, the discretion available to it because it (i) did not take into account the considerable adverse effects for the users concerned, which are associated with the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, and (ii) initiated the investigation procedure at a time when it was not yet necessary.

4.Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

—The applicant claims that, by its decision, the European Commission infringed the legitimate expectations of the users concerned because the financing mechanism for the support of renewable energies in the Federal Republic of Germany has, in the past, been classified by the European Commission as compatible with the law on State aid and has not been substantially modified since.

5.Fifth plea in law: Misuse of powers

—Lastly, the applicant claims that, by its decision, the European Commission misused the powers conferred on it by unduly reducing the margin of discretion conferred upon the Federal Republic of Germany under primary and secondary law as regards the manner in which support for renewable energies is organised.