Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Infinis Plc Infinis (Re-Gen) Ltd, R (on the application of) v Gas & Electricity Markets Authority & Anor

País/Territorio
Reino Unido
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte superior
Fecha
Ago 10, 2011
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
High Court
Sede de la corte
London
Juez
Lindblom
Número de referencia
[2011] EWHC 1873
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Energía, Cuestiones jurídicas
Palabra clave
Energía renovable Conservación de energía/producción de energía Comercio de emisiones Responsabilidad/indemnización
Resumen
Infinis, the claimants, owned and operated two power stations supplying electricity to the National Grid. As electricity suppliers, they were required to enter into arrangements to generate electricity from non-fossil fuel sources. These arrangements allowed suppliers to obtain Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs), or, if their targets were not met, they would have to pay a charge. The Authority had held that the claimant’s power stations could not be accredited because, in its view, there was an existing Non-Fossil Fuel Order (NFFO) arrangement in place with the relevant power stations. Under the terms of the Renewable Obligations Order 2006 and Renewable Obligations Order 2009, this arrangement excluded them from accreditation and ROCs could therefore not be issued. Infinis applied for judicial review of the Gas & Electricity Markets Authority’s decision to refuse to accredit the two power stations, which had left them liable for certain charges. Infinis argued that the Authority had erred because the Replacement Power Purchase Agreement (RPPA) (which amounted to an NFFO) was no longer in force and of effect at the relevant time. The court agreed with Infinis that the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority’s decision not to accredit Infinis’ generating stations was unlawful. It followed that Infinis was denied a pecuniary benefit that it was entitled to by statute. The court set a rare precedent in not only finding that this constituted a breach of Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, but also that damages should be awarded due to the breach. The damages awarded were significant and amounted to over £3 million.
Texto completo
COU-159575.pdf