On 18. 06. 2020 the Bundestag passed the Building Energy Act (GEG) on the energy requirements for buildings (BT Drs. 19/16 716 and BT Drs. 19/20 148). The Federal Council is due to approve on 3. 07. 2020 . The GEG combines the Energy Saving Act with the Energy Saving Ordinance and the Renewable Energy Heat Act and links requirements on energy efficiency and the use of renewable energies. For the future development of urban energy concepts, the innovation clause in § 103 GEG and the neighborhood solution contained in § 107 GEG contain a neighborhood approach, which must be made fruitful for other areas of the energy economy. § 107 GEG clarifies that an efficient and sustainable heat supply of buildings can also be implemented by means of neighbourhood solutions. According to the innovation clause, not every single building has to meet the energy requirements if the balance sheet in the neighborhood is correct.

With Art. 8 of the Bundestagsdrucksache 19/20 148 the Bundestag on Thursday, 20. In June 2020, the government decided to remove the long-awaited solar lid. With the simple deletion of § 49 para. 5 and para. 6 EEG 2017, production for solar plants will now also continue with an installed power of less than 750 kWp after reaching an installed total power of 52 GW.. The decision was made without the votes of FDP and AFD. For example, the decision on the draft standardisation of energy saving legislation for buildings implemented the much too long delayed amendment of the EEG and the commitment of the 2030 Climate Protection Programme of September 2019. ( BT-Drs. 19/20 148 of 17. 06. 2020)

On 23rd of April, the BGH heard a review of the ruling of the OLG Frankfurt am Main of 21st March 2019. The main hearing will take place on 3rd March 2019. OLG Frankfurt had affirmed that district heating utilities had infringed the UWG because they had informed their customers in a customer’s letter of a change in the price adjustment clauses. In the opinion of OLG Frankfurt a. M. was not allowed to change unilaterally the price adjustment clauses on the basis of AVBFernwärmeV and the customer’s letter was therefore misleading. The BGH annulled this ruling of the OLG Frankfurt and ruled that there was no infringement of the UWG. The district heating provider did not mislead its customers by giving false facts, but merely expressed its legal view, which was admissible. However, the BGH did not clarify the actual question of whether district heating utilities are entitled to unilaterally change their price adjustment clauses by means of public announce…

In its judgment of 22 January 2020, BFH decided, in the context of the assessment of performance relationships in the course of the construction of a bioenergy park, that the retroactive effect of an invoice adjustment in the event of deduction of input VAT applies irrespective of whether the adjustment has an effect to the advantage or disadvantage of the beneficiary. The planning, delivery and installation of the own demand supply as well as the energy drainage were owed. Cancellation of an invoice together with the issuance of a new invoice replacing it may also have such retroactive effect. An invoice is also "incorrect"; within the meaning of § 31 para. 5 sentence 1 letter. b VATDV (Value Added Tax Implementing Regulation) if it has been completely reversed and the value added tax paid has been repaid in agreement with all parties involved. (BFH, Dec. of 22.01.2020 - Case No.: XI R 10/17)

The Higher Regional Court of Rostock (OLG Rostock) ruled in a judgment of 5 July 1994. March 2019 on the nullity of a district heating supply contract on the basis of § 1 GWB i. V. m. § 134 BGB, which has been living between the heat supplier and the customer for several years. The Court of First Instance is of the opinion that, although supplying large customers with district heating or through heat contracting, it is a common product market. However, since in the specific case there was no impediment to the market, a nullity of the heat supply contract was not to be assumed. In addition, a ten-year contract term in view of the possible maturity agreement according to § 32 para. 1 AVBFernwärmeV does not contradict § 1 GWB, even in combination with a minimum purchase quantity. (OLG Rostock, Dec.. of. 5.3.2020 - Case No. : 16 U 1/18)

With its decision of 07. 04. 2020, the BGH has clarified the scope of the transfer entitlement of the new concessionaire vis-à-vis the previous operator of the general supply network pursuant to § 46 para. 2 sentence 2 of the EnWG. According to this, high-voltage and high-pressure pipelines in the municipal area are also part of the local distribution network if the system cannot be disregarded without the new concessionaire no longer being able to fulfill its supply tasks as the former system operator did, and the pipeline system has a more than insignificant role in local supply. The right of transfer is not limited to installations to which customers are directly connected. (BGH, UrtDec. of. 7. April 2020 - Case No.: EnZR 75/18)