

 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
 
 
 
PRESS RELEASE No 77/25 
Luxembourg, 26 June 2025 
Judgments of the Court in Joined Cases C-464/23 P, C-465/23 P, C-467/23 P, C-468/23 P and C-470/23 P | 
EVH and Others v Commission and in Cases C-466/23 P | Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland, 
C-469/23 P | eins energie in sachsen, C-484/23 P | Mainova and C-485/23 P | enercity v Commission 
The Court of Justice confirms, as previously done so by the General Court, 
the Commission’s approval of the acquisition of certain E.ON generation 
assets by RWE 
In March 2018, the German energy companies RWE and E.ON, which are active in several European countries, 
announced that they wanted to engage in a complex asset swap by means of three concentration operations. 
By the first concentration operation, RWE wished to acquire sole or joint control over certain generation assets of 
E.ON. The second concentration operation consisted in the acquisition by E.ON of the sole control over the 
distribution and retail energy business, as well as certain generation assets of Innogy, a subsidiary of RWE. As for the 
third concentration operation, it concerned the acquisition of 16.67% of E.ON’s shares by RWE. 
The first and second concentration operations were reviewed and authorised by the European Commission, 
1
 while 
the third concentration operation was reviewed and authorised by the Federal Competition Authority, Germany. 
Eleven German municipal authorities challenged the two Commission approval decisions before the General Court 
of the European Union. 
By judgments of 17 May 2023, the General Court dismissed the actions challenging the approval of the first 
operation (acquisition of generation assets of E.ON by RWE), some on the substance and others on grounds of 
inadmissibility. 
2
 The General Court observed that an asset swap between independent undertakings did not 
constitute a ‘single concentration.’ It also held that the Commission had not made any manifest errors in its 
assessment of the compatibility of that first concentration with EU competition law. 
Next, by judgments of 20 December 2023, the General Court dismissed the actions of the municipal authorities 
challenging the approval of the second concentration operation (acquisition of the distribution and retail energy 
business as well as certain generation assets of Innogy by E.ON). 
3
 The General Court again confirmed that an asset 
swap between independent undertakings did not constitute a ‘single concentration.’ Nor had the Commission made 
any manifest errors in its assessment of the compatibility of that second concentration with EU competition law. 
Nine of the 11 municipal authorities brought appeals before the Court of Justice against the judgments of the 
General Court of 17 May 
4
 and 20 December 2023. 
5
 
By its judgment in EVH and Others, the Court of Justice dismisses five of the nine appeals brought against the 
judgments of the General Court of 17 May 2023, delivered on the substance, and thus confirms, as did the 
General Court, the Commission’s approval of the first concentration operation (acquisition of generation 
assets of E.ON by RWE). The Court of Justice confirms, in particular, that an asset swap between independent 
undertakings does not constitute a ‘single concentration.’ 

      
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
By contrast, by its four other judgments delivered today, the Court of Justice sets aside four judgments of the 
General Court of 17 May 2023 by which the General Court had dismissed the respective actions as inadmissible on 
the ground that the municipal authorities in question were not individually concerned by the Commission’s approval 
of the first operation (acquisition of generation assets of E.ON by RWE). The Court of Justice notes that those 
municipal authorities had put forward certain arguments relating to the allegedly substantial effect on their market 
position following that operation. However, according to the Court of Justice, the General Court failed to fulfil its 
obligation to state reasons by not providing any statement of reasons, not even a brief one, to make it possible to 
understand whether those arguments were examined and, if so, why they were considered to be incapable of 
establishing such an effect. 
However, giving final judgment itself in the four disputes in question, the Court of Justice finds, after 
examining those arguments, that the four municipal authorities have not established that their market position was 
substantially affected by the operation concerned. Consequently, they have not established that they are 
individually concerned by the relevant Commission decision. The Court of Justice therefore dismisses, as the 
General Court did, the four actions as inadmissible. 
The appeals brought against the judgments of the General Court of 20 December 2023 concerning the 
Commission’s approval of the second concentration operation (the acquisition of the distribution and retail energy 
business as well as certain generation assets of Innogy by E.ON) are pending before the Court of Justice. 
 
Municipal 
authority 
Actions before 
the General 
Court 
concerning the 
first 
concentration 
operation 
Appeals before 
the Court of 
Justice against 
the judgments of 
the General Court 
relating to the 
first 
concentration 
operation 
Actions before 
the General 
Court 
concerning the 
second 
concentration 
operation 
Appeals before 
the Court of 
Justice against 
the judgments of 
the General Court 
relating to the 
second 
concentration 
operation 
EVH T-312/20 C-464/23 P T-53/21 C-171/24 P 
Stadtwerke Leipzig T-313/20 C-465/23 P T-55/21 C-172/24 P 
Stadtwerke Hameln 
Weserbergland 
T-314/20 C-466/23 P T-58/21 C-174/24 P 
TEAG T-315/20 C-467/23 P T-56/21 C-173/24 P 
Naturstrom T-316/20 -- T-60/21 -- 
EnergieVerbund 
Dresden  
T-317/20 C-468/23 P T-61/21 C-176/24 P 
eins energie in 
sachsen  
T-318/20 C-469/23 P T-59/21 C-175/24 P 
GGEW T-319/20 C-470/23 P T-62/21 C-177/24 P 

      
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
Stay Connected! 
Mainova T-320/20 C-484/23 P T-64/21 C-178/24 P 
enercity T-321/20 C-485/23 P T-65/21 C-179/24 P 
Stadtwerke 
Frankfurt am Main  
T-322/20 -- T-63/21 -- 
 
NOTE: An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or 
order of the General Court. In principle, the appeal does not have suspensive effect. If the appeal is admissible and 
well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court. Where the state of the proceedings 
so permits, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the case. Otherwise, it refers the case back to the 
General Court, which is bound by the decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal. 
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice. 
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgments (C-464/23 P, C-466/23 P, C-469/23 P, C-484/23 P 
and C-485/23 P) is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery. 
Press contact: Jacques René Zammit ✆  (+352) 4303 3355. 
 
 
 
 
1
 Decision  C(2019)  1711  final  of 26 February 2019  declaring  a  concentration  compatible  with  the  internal  market  and  the  EEA  Agreement  (Case 
M.8871 – RWE/E.ON Assets) and Decision C(2019) 6530 final of 17 September 2019 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market 
and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8870 – E.ON/Innogy); see also Commission press releases IP/19/1432 and IP/19/5582. 
2
 Judgments of 17 May 2023, EVH v Commission, T-312/20, Stadtwerke Leipzig v Commission, T-313/20, Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland v Commission, 
T-314/20, TEAG v Commission, T-315/20, Naturstrom v Commission, T-316/20, EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission, T-317/20, eins energie in sachsen v 
Commission, T-318/20, GGEW v Commission, T-319/20, Mainova v Commission, T-320/20, enercity v Commission, T-321/20 and Stadtwerke Frankfurt  am 
Main v Commission, T-322/20; see also press releases Nos 81/23 and 82/23. 
3
 Judgments  of  20  December  2023 EVH v Commission, T-53/21, Stadtwerke Leipzig v Commission, T-55/21, TEAG v Commission, T-56/21, Stadtwerke 
Hameln Weserbergland v Commission, T-58/21, eins energie in sachsen v Commission, T-59/21, Naturstrom v Commission, T-60/21, EnergieVerbund Dresden 
v Commission, T-61/21, GGEW v Commission, T-62/21, Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main v Commission, T-63/21, Mainova v Commission, T-64/21, and enercity 
v Commission, T-65/21; see also press release No 197/23. 
4
 See the municipal authorities listed at the beginning of the press release. For an overview of the cases, see the table above. 
5
 See the table above. 

EU Court Upholds RWE-E.ON Asset Swap Approvals

The Court of Justice of the European Union has delivered judgments in several cases concerning the approval of asset swaps between German energy companies RWE and E.ON. The court upheld the European Commission's decisions regarding the acquisition of E.ON's generation assets by RWE, affirming that these transactions do not constitute a 'single concentration' under EU competition law.

 In March 2018, RWE and E.ON announced a complex asset swap involving three concentration operations. The first operation involved RWE acquiring control over certain generation assets of E.ON, while the second operation saw E.ON gaining control over the distribution and retail energy business of Innogy, a subsidiary of RWE. The third operation involved RWE acquiring a stake in E.ON. The first two operations were approved by the European Commission, while the third was authorized by the German Federal Competition Authority.

 Following the approvals, eleven German municipal authorities challenged the Commission's decisions in the General Court of the European Union. The General Court dismissed these challenges, stating that the asset swaps did not constitute a single concentration and that the Commission had not erred in its assessments.

 Subsequently, nine of the municipal authorities appealed to the Court of Justice. The Court dismissed five of these appeals, confirming the General Court's ruling on the first concentration operation. However, it set aside four judgments from the General Court that had dismissed actions as inadmissible, noting that the General Court failed to adequately address the municipal authorities' arguments regarding the impact on their market positions.

 Ultimately, the Court of Justice found that the municipal authorities did not demonstrate a substantial effect on their market positions due to the asset swap, leading to the dismissal of their actions as inadmissible. Appeals regarding the second concentration operation are still pending.



EU Court Upholds RWE-E.ON Asset Swap Approvals

The Court of Justice of the EU has confirmed the European Commission's approval of RWE's acquisition of E.ON's generation assets, dismissing appeals from several German municipal authorities.