Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:40:46.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PreussenElektra AG v. Schleswag AG

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Dominik Thieme  and
Beate Rudolf
Dominik Thieme
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf
Beate Rudolf
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf/Tulane Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

European Communitysubsidiesfree movement of goodseconomic incentives for renewable energyUN Convention on Climate Change
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 96 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 225 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In a procedure under Article 234 (previously 177} of the Treaty Establishing The European Community, Mar. 25,1957, 298 UNTS 11, as amended by Treaty of Amsterdam, Oct. 2, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) 1, reprinted in 37 ILM 56 (1998) [hereinafter EC Treaty].

2 Gesetz fiber die Einspeisung von Strom aus erneuerbaren Energien in das öffendiche Netz (Stromeinspeisungsgesetz, StrEG) [Law on feeding electricity from renewable energy sources into the public grid], v. 7.12.1990 (BGB1.1 S.2633), as amended by Gesetz zur Neuregelung des Energiewirtschaftsrechts [New law for the energy industry], v. 24.4.1998 (BGB1.1 S.730).

3 EC Treaty, supra note 1, Arts. 28, 87 (previously Arts. 30, 92).

4 Case C-379/98, PreussenElektraAGv. SchleswagAG (Mar. 13, 2001). See the Web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), <http://www.curia.eu.int/en/index.htm>, for its recentjudgments and the opinions of the advocate general. Article 28 provides: “Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between the Member States.” Article 87(1) provides:

Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.

Although we refer to articles of the EC Treaty as currendy numbered, in the instant case the ECJ and also, on occasion, the advocate general use the previous numbers.

5 Certain limits apply. Renewable energy sources, as listed in Sectionl of the amended Electricity Law, include: hydraulic, wind, and solar energy; gas from waste dumps and sewage treatment plants; and biomass.

6 This regime has since been superseded by the Gesetz für den Vorrang Erneuerbarer Energien (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz, EEG), v. 29.3.2000 (BGB1.1S. 305), which sets up (Section 3) a purchase-obligation system similar to the Electricity Law, but provides (Section 11) for a compensation rule on the national level pertaining to all network operators. The same issues are raised.

7 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9,1992, S. Treaty Doc. No. 102–38 (1992), 1771 UNTS 108, reprinted in 31 ILM 849 (1992) [hereinafter Climate Change Convention].

8 In accepting the inquiry from the Landgericht Kiel, the ECJ determined that PreussenElektra’s being Schleswag’s principal shareholder did not render the dispute between them illusory. Judgment, supra note 4, para. 46.

9 Id., paras. 54, 56; Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs (Oct. 26, 2000), para. 112, Judgment, supra note 4 [hereinafter Jacobs>Opinion].

10 Judgment, supra note 4, para. 58. See, e.g., Case 82/77, Openbaar Ministrie of the Netherlands v. Van Tiggele, 1978 ECR 25, paras. 24–25; Joined Cases C-72/91 & C-73/91, Sloman Neptun v. Bodo Ziesmer, 1993 ECR1–887, para. 19;Joined Cases C-52/97, C-53/97, & C-54/97, Viscido v. Ente Poste Italiane, 1998 ECR 1–2629, para. 13; Case C-200/97, Ecotrade v. AFS, 1998 ECR 1–7907, para. 35; Case C-295/97, Piaggio v. Ifitalia, 1999 ECR 1–3735, para. 35.

11 Judgment, supra note 4, para. 58.

12 Id., paras. 59–60.

13 Id., paras. 61–62. For similar reasoning, see Sloman Neptun, para. 21, and Ecotrade, para. 36.

14 Judgment, supra note 4, paras. 63–65. See, in particular, Case C-2/91, Meng, 1993 ECR 1–5751, para. 14.

15 Case 8/74, Procurer du Roi v. Dassonville, 1974 ECR 837, para. 5.

16 Judgment, supra note 4, para. 69.

17 Id., paras. 70–71. To the same effect, see Case 72/83, Campus Oil v. Ministry for Industry & Energy, Ireland, 1984 ECR 2727, para. 16, and Case C-21/88, Du Pont de Nemours Italiana, 1990 ECR 1–889, para. 11.

18 Cf. Case C-120/78, Rewe v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, 1979 ECR 649, para. 8 (“Cassis de Dijon”), and Case C-302/86, Commission v. Denmark, 1988 ECR 1–4607, para. 9 (“Danish Bottles”).

19 Judgment, supra note 4, para. 72.

20 The Climate Change Convention was ratified on behalf of the EC by Council Decision 94/69/EC of 15 December 1993, 1994 O.J. (L 33) 11. Also relevant are Council Resolution 98/C 198/01 of 8 June 1998 on Renewable Sources of Energy, 1998 O.J. (C 198) 1, and Decision No. 646/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2000 Adopting a Multiannual Program for the Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources in the Community—Altener II, 2000 O.J. (L 79) 1.

21 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.2, Dec. 10, 1997, reprinted in 37 ILM 22 (1998). The protocol was signed by the EC and its member states on Apr. 29, 1998.

22 Judgment, supra note 4, para. 76. Article 6 reads, in relevant part: “Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities . . . .”

23 Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996, 1997 O.J. (L 27) 20.

24 Id. In Article 8(3) the directive provides: “A Member State may require the system operator, when dispatching generating installations, to give priority to generating installations using renewable energy sources or waste or producing combined heat and power.”

25 Judgment, supra note 4, paras. 78–79. See Directive 2000/C311 E/22of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Promotion of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources in the Internal Electricity Market, 2000 O.J. (C 311 E) 320, which sets forth the position that die implementation in each member state of a system of certificates of origin for electricity produced from renewable sources, capable of mutual recognition, was essential in order to make trade in that type of electricity both reliable and possible in practice.

26 Contrary to the Jacobs Opinion, supra note 9, paras. 222, 227, 236, presenting doubts concerning the proportionality of the measure.

27 For an overview see, for example, Whish, Richard, Recent Developments in Community Competition Law 1998/99, 25 Eur. L. Rev. 219 (2000)Google Scholar. On the element of state-induced aid, see Ross, Malcolm, State Aids and National Courts: Definitions and Other Problems—A Case of Premature Emancipation? 37 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 401 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 See, e.g., Salje, Peter, Die Vereinbarkeit des Stromeinspeisungsgesetzes mil dem EG-Vertrag, 1998 Recht Der Inter-Nationalen Wirtschaft 186 Google Scholar; Burger, Ilka & Senger, Falk, Das neue Gesetzfiir den Vorrang Emeuerbarer Energien und seine verfassungs-und europarechtliche Problematik, 2000 Umwelt-Und Planungsrecht 215 Google Scholar (discussing new German law on renewable energies).

29 Cf Krieglstein, Felix, Renewable Energy Schemes and EC State Aid Provisions, 2001 Eur. Envtl. L. Rev. 51 Google Scholar.

30 Case C-120/78, Rewe v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, 1979 ECR 649, para. 8, cited in Jacobs Opinion, supra note 9, para. 216.

31 Case C-302/86, Commission v. Denmark, 1988 ECR 1–4607, para. 9 (“Danish Botdes”).

32 Case C-2/90, Commission v. Belgium, 1992 ECR 1–4431, para. 34 (“Walloon Waste”), discussed in Jacobs Opinion, supra note 9, paras. 222–26.

33 Case C-389/96, Aher-Waggon v. Germany, 1998 ECR 1–4473, discussed mjacobs Opinion, supra note 9, para. 227.

34 The exceptions are “grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; [and] the protection of industrial and commercial property.” EC Treaty, supra note 1, Art. 30 (previously Art. 36).

35 Judgment, supra note 4, para. 78 & operative para. 2.

36 Id., para.75.