Actualités

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)

By decision of 11. 02. 2020 the BGH specifies the requirements for a citizen energy company according to § 3 No. 15 EEG, which participates in an invitation to tender, in the sense that the majority of voting rights for district-based members must also be accompanied by a corresponding actual possibility of exerting influence on the company and participating in decisions of the general meeting. However, the requirements for a public energy company are not fulfilled if the social contract does not provide for majority decisions or if the social contract of a limited partnership withdraws fundamental transactions from the decision of the shareholders and assigns them exclusively to a company of the complementary company. ( BGH, Dec. from 11. 02. 2020 - Az. : EnVR 101/18)

In a decision of 11 March 2020, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court (OLG) commented on whether the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) is obliged to examine the legality of the licensing authority's immission-related decision in the context of the tender to determine the financial support for onshore wind energy plants. The court came to the conclusion that in the case of § 36f para. 2 p. 1 EEG 2017, it depends solely on the actual approval situation, i. e. depends on whether the competent licensing authority has granted a modification permit under immission control law. This applies accordingly to the existence of an approval for modification. For this reason, in the specific case, the contract was to be rejected in the invitation to tender, as a modification permit already existed and it was irrelevant to the BNetzA whether a new BImSch permit should have been issued by the permitting authority ( OLG Düsseldorf, Declaration of 11. 03. 2020 - Ref: 3 Kart …

In its ruling of January 28, 2020, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) specified the requirements for a complaint of nullity of a concession agreement in the context of the right of the supply network to transfer the rights to the new concessionaire. It must be shown that, given the overall circumstances of the case, it is at least possible that the award of the concession was based on the erroneous tender or the erroneous evaluation of the tenders. The concession contract shall not be considered null and void if the party whose rights have been infringed has had sufficient opportunity to defend its right to a selection decision before the conclusion of the concession contract but has not exercised that right. It must always be checked during the concession procedure whether there is discrimination and a direct complaint must be lodged against it ( BGH, Judgment. v. 28. 01. 2020 - Ref: EnZR 116/18)

In the dispute about the district heating network in Stuttgart, the OLG Stuttgart ruled on 26. On 3 March 2020, the Federal State Capital, as the owner of the land, decided that the district heating network which had been laid on its land did not become the property of the City of Hamburg. Rather, the district heating transport system would remain the fictitious property of the operator EnBW. Nor, in the absence of a corresponding termination clause, does the contract of use concluded between the parties impose any obligation on EnBW to transfer ownership of the district heating network to the Land capital. The court only granted the Stuttgart company's auxiliary request that it, as the owner of the land, could demand the removal of the heat supply facilities after the concession contract had expired.

On 18. 02. 2020, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) took a position on the question of whether interest on the EEG levy is to be paid when reporting insufficient quantities of electricity compared to the actual electricity supply. According to the judgment, an electricity supply undertaking infringes the notification obligation i. S. d. § 60 paragraph 4 sentence 2 EEG 2014 pursuant to § 74 sentence 1 EEG 2014 not only if it does not report any electricity supplied at all, but also if it notifies the transmission system operator of a lower quantity of electricity than that actually supplied to final consumers. By introducing maturity interest, the legislator wanted to prevent financing gaps arising for transmission system operators and to ensure that electricity supply companies do not gain an advantage from late payment and thus gain competitive advantages over compliant electricity supply companies ( BGH, Judgment. v. 18. 02. 2020 - Ref: XIII ZR 10/19)