Written by PBVPartners il November 18, 2024
In the litigation, Elettrogas Srl supported by the lawyer Germana Cassar; GSE SpA defended by lawyers Gianluigi Pellegrino and Antonio Pugliese.
The appellant appealed the sentence of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, third ter section, n. 13443 dated 14 December 2020 with which the appeal was rejected, supplemented by additional reasons, with which the GSE/P20140036629 provision of 21 March 2014 was challenged. With the contested provision, the self-protection cancellation of the recognition provision was ordered of the IAFR qualification, considering that «the intervention, having foreseen the use of non-newly built components for the replacement of the existing production group, does not comply with the requirements set out in point 9.1. of the third part of Annex A of the Ministerial Decree of 18 December 2008 for the recognition of the total renovation of the thermoelectric plant”.
GSE appeared in the present instance by filing a statement with which it requested the rejection of the appeal. With ordinance no. 1565 of 26 March 2021, the request for suspension of the contested sentence was rejected due to lack of fumus. In view of the hearing, the parties filed final briefs. With a note filed on 18 October 2024, GSE requested a decision on the case on the written documents. The appellant responded with a brief filed on October 2, 2024.
The appellant, holder of the single authorization granted pursuant to Article 12 of Legislative Decree 387/2003 by the province of Salerno for the execution of the total renovation works of the collection system and the energy valorization plant of the biogas generated from the landfill site in Montecorvino Pugliano, requested recognition of the qualification of renewable energy plant (IAFR), pursuant to art. 4, paragraph 1, of the Ministerial Decree of 18 December 2008 for the renovation project of the “Montecorvino Pugliano” plant and obtained it, as communicated by the GSE with a letter dated 30 January 2013. However, with a note dated 18 December 2013, the GSE communicated the start of the procedure aimed at canceling the IAFR qualification provision.
The Council of State in the jurisdictional, third section, definitively ruling on the appeal, as proposed in the epigraph, rejects it. Expenses compensated.
Professionals involved in the operation: Cassar Germana – FOR Piper; Pellegrino Gianluigi – Pellegrino Associated Law Firm;
Law firms: FOR Piper; Pellegrino Associated Law Firm;
Clients: Electrogas; Gse – Energy Services Manager;
What were the primary legal arguments presented by both Elettrogas and GSE in their respective appeals related to renewable energy qualifications?
Guest 1: Cassar Germana – FOR Piper
1. Could you please provide an overview of the key aspects of the case between Elettrogas Srl and GSE SpA that led to this appeal?
2. As the lawyer representing Elettrogas, how did you approach the challenge of proving that the intervention did comply with the requirements set out in the Ministerial Decree of 2008?
3. In your opinion, what role does the recognition of renewable energy sources play in the development and growth of the energy sector in Italy?
4. How do you feel about the final ruling of the Council of State in favor of Elettrogas? Does this decision set a precedent for future cases involving renewable energy projects?
Guest 2: Gianluigi Pellegrino – Pellegrino Associated Law Firm
1. As the lawyer representing GSE, what were your main arguments regarding the cancellation of the IAFR qualification provision for the Montecorvino Pugliano plant?
2. How do you think the energy sector will evolve with the increasing participation of renewable energy projects such as the one in question?
3. In your experience, what are some of the common challenges faced by parties involved in energy disputes like this one, and how can they be addressed more effectively?
4. Are there any potential implications of this case for other renewable energy projects currently underway or being planned in Italy?
