CJEU Case C-391/23 / Judgment

Braila Winds SRL v DGRFP București - Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii București and Others
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Ninth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
16/10/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2025:799
  • CJEU Case C-391/23 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 191(2) TFEU – EU policy on the environment – Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 – EU climate-neutrality objective – Directive (EU) 2019/944 – Common rules for the internal market for electricity – National legislation imposing an income tax on producers of electricity from renewable sources – Exemption for producers of electricity from fossil fuels and biomass

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU

      must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes on producers of electricity from renewable sources a tax on the income from the sale of their electricity above a certain price fixed by that legislation.

    2. Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’)

      must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes on producers of electricity from renewable sources a tax on the income from the sale of their electricity above a certain price fixed by that legislation, but which exempts from that tax producers of electricity from fossil fuels.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    37. As regards, in the second place, the second question, which concerns the interpretation of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and Article 17 of the Charter, it is apparent from the order for reference that, in the context of that question, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings gives rise to indirect discrimination, contrary to Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, in so far as it concerns persons, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who are part of a group whose parent company has its seat in another Member State. In particular, the referring court states that that legislation could have the effect of deterring that group from continuing to carry on activities relating to the production of electricity from renewable sources in the territory of Romania.

    ...

    43. Third and lastly, as regards Article 17 of the Charter, which enshrines the right to property, it should be recalled that, under Article 51(1) thereof, the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law. In order to determine whether a national measure involves ‘implementing Union law’ within the meaning of Article 51(1), it is necessary to determine, inter alia, whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is intended to implement a provision of EU law; the nature of the legislation at issue and whether it pursues objectives other than those covered by EU law, even if it is capable of indirectly affecting EU law; and also whether there are specific rules of EU law on the matter or rules which are capable of affecting it (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 May 2022, BPC Lux 2 and Others, C‑83/20, EU:C:2022:346, paragraphs 25 to 27 and the case-law cited).

    44. However, in the present case, there is nothing in the order for reference to suggest that the case in the main proceedings concerns national legislation implementing EU law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter. It follows that the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of Article 17 of the Charter.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)