CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Communicated on 10 November 2020 Published on 30 November 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 75088/17 ENERGYWORKS CARTAGENA S.L. against Spain lodged on 16 October 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings that the applicant company had instituted to challenge Royal Decree 413/2014 and Order IET/1045/2014, which had been promulgated by the Spanish Government on June 2014 to develop Royal Decree-law 9/2013. These regulations introduced a new system for the remuneration of companies producing electricity from renewable resources, which had an impact on the revenues of the applicant company. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant company’s claim for annulment of Royal Decree 413/2014 and Order IET/1045/2014 by a judgment of 8 July 2016. The applicant company’s action for the annulment of proceedings was dismissed and its amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? In particular, did Royal Decree 413/2014 and Order IET/1045/2014 produce retroactive effects that entailed a deprivation of the applicant company’s possessions contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?