27 March 2026
Publication series – 3 of 80 Insights
The Flensburg Regional Court (Case No. 6 O 49/24) has ruled on the interpretation of a contractual provision regarding the calculation of lump-sum damages for falling short of a guaranteed technical availability of wind turbines. The wind farm operator demanded further compensation from the manufacturer and maintenance contractor, in addition to an amount already calculated according to the EEG feed-in tariff, as part of the settlement of the availability guarantee. This was because the wind farm operator was of the view that the loss of earnings should be calculated on the basis of the higher market price for electricity during the relevant period.
The court dismissed the claim ruling that the decisive factor was not the market price, but the feed-in tariff set under the EEG. The court considered it decisive that the contractual compensation provision of the availability guarantee, as lump-sum damages, was embedded within an overall regulatory framework limiting liability and could therefore not be interpreted as a claim to the full realisation of any potential market profit.
The decision is convincing. Within the framework of the availability guarantee, the parties establish a simplified, flat-rate method for calculating damages in the event of loss of revenue if the guaranteed availability is not achieved. Comprehensive compensation for the loss of revenue had not been agreed. Against this background, it seems logical to base the calculation not on the fluctuating electricity market price, but on the EEG remuneration determined by law. A market-price-based approach would have significantly expanded the agreed liability model in economic terms and would have meant complete compensation for lost revenue. The wind farm operator was not unduly disadvantaged by this interpretation, as it probably calculated the economic viability of the purchase and operation of the wind turbines on the basis of the guaranteed EEG feed-in tariff rather than a potentially higher market price.
In essence, the judgement reinforces the importance of a balanced, systematic interpretation of contracts in relation to technical availability guarantees in the energy sector. It also clarifies that developments in the energy industry towards direct marketing and a market premium model cannot be retroactively applied to older contracts. In practice, this means that maintenance and service contracts should explicitly specify the reference value for claims for compensation for loss of earnings to avoid disputes on whether the EEG feed-in tariff, market value or some other reference price should be used.
The general question of the validity of availability guarantees in service and maintenance contracts for wind turbines was considered by the Hamburg Regional Court in 2025, please read the following article here.
10 March 2026
by Dr. Markus Böhme, LL.M. (Nottingham), Dr. Christian Ertel
18 February 2026
11 February 2026
by Dr. Janina Pochhammer, Dr. Niels L. Lange, LL.M. (Stellenbosch)
14 January 2026
19 December 2025
15 December 2025
2 December 2025
by Multiple authors
28 November 2025
by Multiple authors
26 November 2025
12 November 2025
21 November 2025
by Dr. Markus Böhme, LL.M. (Nottingham), Johannes Schaadt-Wambach, LL.M. (Prag)
22 October 2025
by Multiple authors
23 September 2025
25 September 2025
by Multiple authors
18 September 2025
by Multiple authors
15 September 2025
8 September 2025
8 September 2025
by Dr. Michael Brüggemann, Johannes Schaadt-Wambach, LL.M. (Prag)
18 August 2025
by Johannes Schaadt-Wambach, LL.M. (Prag), Dr. Markus Böhme, LL.M. (Nottingham)
18 August 2025
by Multiple authors
31 July 2025
11 July 2025
by Multiple authors
17 June 2025
by Multiple authors
8 May 2025
by Multiple authors
17 April 2025
by Multiple authors
10 April 2025
by Multiple authors
10 April 2025
26 March 2025
26 March 2025
by Dr. Markus Böhme, LL.M. (Nottingham), Dr. Christian Ertel
26 February 2025
by Multiple authors
6 February 2025
by Multiple authors
11 December 2024
28 November 2024
by Dr. Christian Ertel, Dr. Markus Böhme, LL.M. (Nottingham)
11 November 2024
by Multiple authors
18 September 2024
by Dr. Christian Ertel, Dr. Markus Böhme, LL.M. (Nottingham)
10 September 2024
18 July 2024
by Dr. Patrick Vincent Zurheide, LL.M. (Aberdeen), Dr. Julia Wulff
11 July 2024
27 May 2024
21 February 2024
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
26 January 2024
6 November 2023
by Dr. Niels L. Lange, LL.M. (Stellenbosch), Dr. Janina Pochhammer
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
3 November 2023
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
1 September 2023
by Dr. Paul Voigt, Lic. en Derecho, CIPP/E, Alexander Schmalenberger, LL.B.
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
16 August 2023
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
6 July 2023
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
12 April 2023
by Multiple authors
27 January 2023
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
12 July 2022
by Dr. Paul Voigt, Lic. en Derecho, CIPP/E, Dr. Markus Böhme, LL.M. (Nottingham)
Q&A series: Energy & Infrastructure
10 June 2022
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
5 May 2022
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
27 April 2022
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
15 March 2022
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
14 February 2022
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
11 January 2022
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
2 December 2021
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
21 September 2021
by Olav Nemling
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
18 August 2021
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
12 July 2021
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
8 June 2021
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
25 May 2021
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
6 April 2021
Power Play: Renewable Energy Update
23 March 2021