Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62015TN0737

Case T-737/15: Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products v Commission

OJ C 59, 15.2.2016, pp. 42–43 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

15.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/42

Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products v Commission

(Case T-737/15)

(2016/C 059/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and K. Dingemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, European Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and the limitation of energy-intensive users, C(2014) 8786 final;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law: No State resources

The applicant submits that the defendant erred in taking the view that the exception in favour of energy-intensive users laid down in the EEG-Act 2012 involved the use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The EEG-surcharge is paid only by private persons and the resources collected also cannot be attributed to the State because of the absence of permanent control and the associated impossibility of actual access for the authorities.

2.

Second plea in law: Absence of selectivity

The applicant asserts that the special compensation rule (Besondere Ausgleichsregelung, ‘the BesAR’) is not selective — as required by Article 107(1) TFEU –, but constitutes an exception which is logical and inherent in the regulatory system of the EEG-Act.

3.

Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

In that regard, it is claimed that the defendant established, with respect to the applicant, a legitimate expectation because it failed to examine, in the light of the law on aid, the EEG-Act — of which it was aware — for more than ten years. In addition, the defendant refrained from making recoveries of comparable aid in other Member States.
Top