EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/22

(Case T-263/14)

2014/C 223/27

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH (Grevenbroich, Germany), Aluminium Norf GmbH (Neuss, Germany) and Trimet Aluminium SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and C. Johann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul, in accordance with Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2013) 4424 final;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law: Absence of State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

By their first plea, the applicants claim that the Commission wrongly assumes a use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU in the context of the financing flows provided for under the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG).

—The Commission wrongly concluded that the financing flows provided for under the EEG took place with the aid of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

—The EEG-surcharge is paid only by private parties. The resources collected cannot be attributed to the State. The required permanent State control and the related actual access possibility of the authorities are lacking both with regard to the EEG-surcharge itself and with regard to its reduction in favour of energy-intensive users.

—In any event, the surcharge reduction for energy-intensive users does not result in a waiver of revenue which the State could normally have expected to receive. The reduction is financed solely from private resources, namely by a higher surcharge amount for every kilowatt-hour of electricity supplied to non-privileged end-consumers. The so-called special compensation regime of the EEG therefore does not affect the amount of the total revenue from the EEG-surcharge, but solely the internal distribution of charges.

2.Second plea in law: Absence of a selective advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU

By their second plea, the applicants claim that the so-called special compensation regime of the EEG — contrary to the view taken by the Commission — does not provide for any selective advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU. The differentiation between energy-intensive and non-energy-intensive consumers has its roots in the logic of the EEG-surcharge system and is for this reason a priori not selective.