The EU Court of Justice interprets the concept of intervention through state resources and finds that the offset of additional costs arising from the obligation to purchase green electricity constituted state intervention (Vent de Colère)

Article published on StateAidHub:, republished in e-Competitions with the courtesy of the author. The original title of this article appears below the e-Competitions title. Authors are welcome to write an alternative article on this case/text, provided they have no relationships with a party or related third party. Article will need e-Competitions Board approval before publication.

The Non-Equivalence of the Various Methods of Supporting Green Electricity* Introduction Ever since the judgment of the Court of Justice in 2001 on PreussenElektra [case C-379/98], Member States have been grappling with the question of how to support electricity from renewable resources [green electricity] without granting State aid. In PreussenElektra the Court found that there was no transfer of state resources and no State aid, because the German government imposed an obligation on electricity distributors to buy green electricity without establishing a mechanism that would have allowed it to exercise control over the resources that flowed between users, distributors and producers of electricity. By contrast, in its judgment on Essent in 2008 [case C-206/06], the Court of Justice

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.