News

In a decision dated 9. 12. 2020, the BGH granted a tenant a temporary right of retention under Section 242 BGB for operating costs claimed by the landlord. Insofar and as long as the landlord does not allow the tenant to inspect the accounting documents contrary to § 259 para. 1 BGB, to which in addition to the invoices also the payment receipts are to be counted, the tenant can just not check the activity of the landlord. This also applies irrespective of whether the landlord accounts according to the outflow principle or according to the performance principle or whether he uses one or the other accounting method for the different types of operating costs, according to the Federal Court of Justice. An interest going beyond the general interest of the tenant in the review of the #Operating costs statement is not required here. (BGH, Dec. of 9.12.2020 - Az.: VIII ZR 118/19)

The National Hydrogen Strategy (NWS) has identified as a measure to promote the production of green hydrogen, in particular, the increased designation of areas suitable for the offshore production of hydrogen or PtX can be used, the necessary infrastructure and possibilities for additional tenders for renewable energy generation are defined. On the 4th. The Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) published the draft of the Area Development Plan 2020 and the drafts of the environmental reports (North Sea and Baltic Sea) within the framework of the Strategic Environmental Assessment on 1 September 2020. This update includes "other energy production areas" as defined in § 5 para. 2a WindSeeG.

Das LG Wuppertal hat mit Urteil vom 23. Juni 2020 die Klage eines Übertragungsnetzbetreibers auf Zahlung der EEG-Umlage abgewiesen und damit erstmals über die Übergangsregelung der Scheibenpacht nach § 104 Abs. 4 EEG - hier insbesondere zur räumlichen Nähe und zur Betreibereigenschaft - entschieden. Die Voarussetzungen einer Scheibenpacht seien erfüllt, da das Kriterium der tatsächlichen Herrschaft und der eigenverantwortlichen Bestimmung der Arbeitsweise nicht uneingeschränkt übertragen werden könne. Zudem sei der Entscheidung des BFH vom 20.04.2004 zur räumlichen Nähe bei einer Entfernung von 4,5 Kilometern zwischen der Stromerzeugungsanlage und der Verbrauchseinrichtung nicht entgegen. Der BFH habe diese Entfernung von 4,5 Kilometern nicht als Maximalradius erklärt. § 12b Abs. 5 StromStV sei vorliegend nicht bindend. (LG Wuppertal, Urteil vom 23.06.2020 - Az.: 5 O 490/19)

According to § 41 para. 3 S. 1 EnWG, energy suppliers are obliged to inform their customers about contract changes and price increases in a transparent and comprehensible manner. The customer must be given a complete and true picture, so that the customer is put in a position to consider whether he wantsto exercise his special right of termination. Even if not expressly covered by the wording, according to the OLG Cologne, the individual price components according to the general terms and conditions, such as e. g. the price of the goods or services, must be stated in the contract. For example, the EEG levy, grid charges and the electricity tax must be listed and it must be shown on which increase of which component the price adjustment is based. (OLG Cologne, Dec. of 26.06.2020 - Az.: 6 U 304/19)

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…