Posts Tagged T-47/15
Ach no! CJEU distinguishes rather than extinguishes its Preussen Elektra case-law in Germany v EC. State aid for renewable energy.
Update May 2019. The General Court’s judgment upon appeal was annulled by the CJEU in Case C-405/16 P at the end of March. In essence, as TaylorWessing point out, although the German State controlled the implementation of the EEG surcharge, it did not control the sums generated, so that the existence of State aid is ruled out.
The rather long judgment in T-47/15 Germany v Commission is neatly summarised by the CJEU here. I have reported before on both the State Aid and the free movement implications of the Court’s seminal findings in Preussen Elektra. In current case, the Court essentially upholds the EC’s finding of the more recent German regime amounting to illegal State aid and incompatibility with the Internal Market – in contrast with its earlier findings in Preussen Elektra.
Disappointingly, Preussen Elektra was distinguished rather than its merits called into question. Rather like Advocate-General Bot I stubbornly insist that Preussen Elektra is bad case-law and I continue to call upon the Court to scrap its findings in same.
Article 34 TFEU, Article 36 TFEU, Ålands Vindkraft, Bot AG, C-405/16 P, C-405/16P, Case C-204/12, Case C-573/12, Cases C-204/12 through to C-208/12, Certificate of origin, CJEU, COJ, Directive 2001/77, Directive 2009/28, Domestic regulatory autonomy, ECJ, ECLI:EU:T:2016:281, Electricity, Essent, EU, European Court of Justice, Feed-in, Feed-in Tariffs, Flemish region, Free movement of goods, Germany V Commission, Green certificates, Integration principle, Mandatory requirements, non-product-related production processes and -methods, nPr-PPMs, Preussen Elektra, production processes and -methods, Quantitative restrictions to Trade, Renewable energy, Rule of Reason, State aid, T-47/15, TFEU, Trade and environment, Vindkraft
- Local authority B v X: Brussels IIa and (Northern) Cypriot territory. 25/05/2020
- Choice of court and lis alibi pendens in Generali Italia v Pelagic Fisheries. Article 31’s anti-torpedo mechanism further put to the test. 22/05/2020
- GFH Capital v Haigh. Enforcement of DIFC judgment puts spotlight on international commercial courts. 22/05/2020
- AB v EM. Recognising Sharia decisions in England. 20/05/2020
- Bao v Qu; Tian (No 2). A reminder of the principles of enforcement and the common law in Australia. 20/05/2020
Also of noteMy Tweets