Advocate General Bot considers that the EU Renewables Directive breaches EU freedom of movement rules



In his Opinion dated 28 January, in Case C-573/12 Ålands Vindkraft AB v. Energimyndigheten (Swedish Energy Agency), Advocate-General Bot expressed the view that the Swedish national renewable energy support scheme complies with the Renewables Directive, but that Article 3(3) of the Directive is invalid because it is in breach of the Treaty principle of the free movement of goods to the extent that it permits a Member State to deny or restrict access to its national support regime to producers whose plants are situated in other Member States.

The Advocate General's Opinion does not bind the European Court of Justice, which will give judgment on this issue at a later date.

Article 3 of the Renewables Directive 2009/28 provides that Member States must meet the minimum renewable energy targets set out in the Directive.  Member States may apply support measures for renewable generation, and may also enter into cooperation mechanisms with other Member States.  Member States may decide to what extent they will support renewable energy generated in other Member States.  Swedish law provides for green certificates for nationally-generated renewable energy, in compliance with the Renewables Directive.  Since 2011, Swedish green certificates have also been available for renewable energy generated in countries that have an agreement with Sweden.  The only such agreement (and the only one in Europe) is the agreement with Norway.  Under the Directive, renewable generation from other Member States that does not fall within a cooperation mechanism does not count towards the binding national target.

Ålands Vindkraft, which operates a wind farm in Finland, applied for Swedish green certificates, and was refused on the grounds that green certificates were available only for wind farms based in Sweden.  Ålands Vindkraft appealed to the court, which referred a series of questions to the European Court of Justice.  Advocate General Bot expressed the view that while the Renewables Directive permits national-only support mechanisms, Article 34 TFEU (which takes precedence over the Directive) prohibits national rules that exclude producers whose plants are situated in other Member States.  In particular, he expressed the opinion that Article 3(3) of the Renewables Directive is invalid to the extent that it permits Member States to deny or restrict access to their support regimes to renewable energy from sources situated in other Member States. 

Advocate General Bot also proposed that, if the European Court of Justice follows his Opinion in its judgment, it should defer the effects of its judgment for a period of two years, to permit Member States to make the necessary amendments to the Directive. 

If the Court follows the Opinion, its judgment will potentially have far-reaching consequences for national renewables subsidy mechanisms in the EU.  One important political question is whether Member States would be prepared to support the generation of renewable energy in other Member States.  

Bird & Bird acted for the Swedish Energy Agency in this case




Kristina Forsbacka

Senior European Counsel

Call me on: +46 (0)8 506 320 00