Textile Company Lodges Constitutional Complaint Against Renewables Surcharge

The textile company Textilveredlung Drechsel, Selb, has lodged a constitutional complaint against the renewables surcharge (EEG surcharge), the trade association Gesamtverband texil + mode (t+m) informed. Recently the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had dismissed a law suit brought by Textilveredlung Drechsel against its electricity supplier regarding the EEG surcharge.

Textilveredlung Selb, which was supported by t+m, had alleged unconstitutionality of the EEG surcharge, arguing it was an unlawful special levy (Sonderabgabe) that increased energy costs to the detriment of small and middle-sized (textile) companies.

BGH, however, did not consider the EEG surcharge a special levy (Sonderabgabe) for which strict rules have to be observed to comply with the articles on the constitutional financial system pursuant to the German Constitution (Grundgesetz). BGH argued that the surcharge was not collected by the state (which, however, prescribes the EEG surcharge system in detail), but by the electricity suppliers. It therefore considered the surcharge to be a statutory price stipulation (“gesetzliche Preisregelung”), for which the rules developed by the courts for special levies were not applicable, not even mutatis mutants. Parliament also did not exceed its competences when choosing to regulate the EEG surcharge in the form of a statutory price stipulation, BGH held.

t+m criticised BGH, saying the EEG surcharge had the same effect as a levy as the amount “was set by law” and the electricity suppliers (who have to pay the surcharge to the transmission system operators) had to pass the surcharge on to consumers as this was the only way for them to be refunded. t+m expects the Federal Constitutional Court to decide the matter in 2015 at the earliest.

Strictly speaking the EEG surcharge is calculated and collected by the transmission operators. In establishing the annual surcharge they do, however, have to follow very strict and detailed requirements laid down in the Equalisation Scheme Ordinance (AusglMechV) and the Equalisation Scheme Execution Ordinance (AusglMechAV).

Source: Gesamtverband texil + mode

Related posts:

• BGH: EEG Surcharge Not Unconstitutional
• German Renewables Surcharge Increases by 19% to 6.24 ct/kWh in 2014
• OLG Hamm Dismisses EEG Surcharge Case But Grants Leave to Appeal
• Stuttgart Court Does Not Stay Lawsuit Against EEG Surcharge to Submit Case to Federal Constitutional Court
• LG Bochum Dismisses Law Suit by Textile Company against EEG Surcharge
• Renewable Surcharge for 2013 Rises by Almost 47% to 5.277 ct/kWh
• Law Suits Against EEG Surcharge Make Headlines
• Increase of Surcharge Due to Grid Fee Exemptions for Energy-intensive Companies?
• Middle-sized Textile Companies to Challenge EEG Surcharge – Vowalon Stops Payment
• Handelsblatt: Another Considerable Rise of EEG Surcharge on the Horizon
• EEG Surcharge Forecast 2013: Increase to Between 3.66 and 4.74 ct/kWh
• 2012 EEG Surcharge Increases Slightly to 3.592 ct/kWh
• Oettinger: German EEG Surcharge Moving Towards 6 ct/kWh
• Speculation about Rising EEG Reallocation in 2012
• EEG Surcharge for 2011 Too High?
• 72% Increase in EEG Renewable Energy Reallocation Charges for 2011