Actualités

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…

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)

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 …