- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-189/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Spenner GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Transitional system of free allocation of allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 9 — Determining the historical activity level — Significant change in the capacity of an installation that took place before the baseline period — Determining the relevant baseline period)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0189
62019CA0189
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 240/20
(Case C-189/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Transitional system of free allocation of allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 9 - Determining the historical activity level - Significant change in the capacity of an installation that took place before the baseline period - Determining the relevant baseline period)
(2020/C 240/26)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Spenner GmbH & Co. KG
Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 9(9) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to significant capacity extensions of an incumbent installation that took place before the baseline period determined in accordance with Article 9(1) of that decision.
2.Article 9(1) of Decision 2011/278 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the competent national authority itself to determine the relevant baseline period for the purposes of assessing the historical activity levels of an installation.
Language of the case: German.
(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.