The High Court of Cassation and Justice dealt with the issue of the regularisation of the number of green certificates in a dispute concerning ANRE’s refusal to do so.
Following its analysis, the High Court of Cassation and Justice concluded that the regularisation of the number of green certificates between those received and those due can only concern the differences resulting from over- or under-granting of green certificates during the periods in which the producer held valid accreditation. Thus, if there is a period in which the producer does not hold a valid accreditation, he may not claim regularisation for that period as well.
In a dispute brought against ANRE, a company sought the annulment of certain ANRE directions and of all subsequent acts and that ANRE be ordered to issue a decision to regularise the number of green certificates for two wind power plants.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice holds that the two wind power plants have been accredited to benefit from the Green Certificates promotion scheme until 02.09.2028.
The Court held that the applicant was initially granted a 2-year accreditation, followed by a period of interruption. Finally, following legislative changes, ANRE issued an accreditation decision for a period of 13 years.
The essential point is that the certificates in respect of which regularisation was sought related precisely to the period for which the applicant was not accredited.
Following its analysis, the High Court of Cassation and Justice concludes that the regularisation of the number of green certificates between those received and those due can only concern differences resulting from errors in the over- or under-granting of green certificates during periods when the producer held a valid accreditation.
Thus, if there is a period during which the producer is not in possession of a valid accreditation, he may not request regularisation for that period as well.
Otherwise, by issuing an adjustment decision for the uncredited period, the 15-year period referred to in Article 3 (2) (a) of Law no. 220/2008 would have been exceeded.
(link)
