Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

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

Pays/Territoire
Royaume-Uni
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Aoû 10, 2011
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
High Court
Siège de la cour
London
Juge
Lindblom
Numéro de référence
[2011] EWHC 1873
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Énergie, Questions juridiques
Mot clé
Énergie renouvelable Conservation de l'énergie/production de l'énergie Échange de droits d'émission Responsabilité/indemnisation
Résumé
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that the Authority had erred because the Replacement Power Purchase Agreement (RPPA) (which amounted to an NFFO) was no longer in force and of effect at the relevant time.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.
Texte intégral
COU-159575.pdf