14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/60

(Case T-319/15)

(2015/C 302/75)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Edelstahlwerke GmbH (Witten, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and S. Altenschmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, Commission Decision C(2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 on the State aid scheme SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany, Support for renewable electricity and cap on the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

The applicant claims that the cap on the EEG-surcharge does not constitute aid, since public funds were neither granted nor waived. The cap on the EEG-surcharge is also not selective. Furthermore, it does not distort competition and does not adversely affect trade within the internal market.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU

Even if, contrary to the view of the applicant, the cap does constitute aid, the applicant claims that, in any event, the defendant cannot order restitution pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU because the cap on the EEG-surcharge is not new aid. It is not new since the defendant had already, in 2002, approved the earlier legislation, the terms of which were identical as far as the main aspects are concerned.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU

The applicant also claims that the decision infringes Article 107(3) TFEU and the principle of legitimate expectations. The defendant, it submits, was not entitled to examine the facts of the case on the basis of its guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy for the period 2014-2020, which were not published until 28 June 2014. Rather, it should have applied the guidelines that had been published in 2008. On the basis of the 2008 criteria, the defendant could not have come to any conclusion other than that the alleged aid was compatible with the internal market.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and of the principle of legal certainty

Lastly, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed the principle of legal certainty and Article 108(1) TFEU in so far as it adopted the contested decision in a proceeding concerning new aid. Since the defendant had approved the earlier legislation relating to EEG 2012, it ought to have taken a decision in a proceeding concerning existing aid, and not in a proceeding concerning new aid.