- 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 T-217/17: Action brought on 3 April 2017 — FVE Holýšov I and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0217
62017TN0217
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
26.6.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 202/20
(Case T-217/17)
(2017/C 202/35)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) and 27 other applicants (represented by: A. Reuter, H. Wendt, C. Bürger, T. Christner, W. Schumacher, A. Compes and T. Herbold, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—to declare void the defendant’s Decision C(2016) 7827 final of 28 November 2016, State Aid SA.40171 (2015/NN) (1), concerning the promotion of electricity production from renewable energy sources in the Czech Republic; and
—order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging by its letter of July 2004 to the relevant industry associations the defendant has already decided that the Czech Republic’s RE promotion scheme does not constitute State aid, and Defendant is, as a matter of law, bound to this decision, which it has not revoked and is not allowed to revoke.
2.Second plea in law, alleging a violation of applicants’ legitimate expectations and certainty of law.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the relevant Czech promotion scheme does not constitute State aid.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision forces the Czech Republic to implement an overreaching review mechanism which violates the applicants' legitimate expectations in the reliability of the scheme.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on errors in fact in that it finds an obligation of the grid operators to pass on RE cost to power customers. There was no such obligation under Czech law.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates article 5 paragraph 1 of the EU Treaty (limitation of competences by the principle of conferral).
7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on manifest error of assessment.
(1) OJ C 69, 2017, p. 2