Civil Law and Cooperative Energy Project Governance Litigation in Europe

1. Introduction

Cooperative energy projects are increasingly used in Europe for:

community-owned solar farms;

wind-energy cooperatives;

local energy communities;

citizen renewable-energy projects;

cooperative district-heating projects;

community battery-storage projects;

jointly owned microgrids;

energy-efficiency projects;

cooperative electricity generation and supply.

The basic model is that members collectively participate in the ownership, financing, management or economic benefits of an energy project.

A governance dispute can arise when members, directors, municipalities, investors, regulators or project partners disagree about:

voting rights;

membership;

board appointments;

profit distribution;

capital contributions;

admission or expulsion of members;

project financing;

sale of the project;

amendment of cooperative statutes;

procurement;

renewable-energy subsidies;

management conflicts;

conflicts of interest;

minority-member protection;

dissolution;

transfer of cooperative shares.

European law does not create one uniform law of energy cooperatives. The legal analysis usually combines national cooperative/company law, civil law, energy regulation, EU internal-market law, State-aid law, public procurement law and EU renewable-energy legislation.

2. Meaning of a Cooperative Energy Project

A cooperative energy project generally involves:

Members

→ contribute capital / participate in governance

→ Cooperative entity

→ owns or controls an energy project

→ Energy activity

→ generates, supplies, stores or distributes energy

→ Economic/community benefits

→ distributed or used according to the cooperative's rules.

Examples include:

200 residents jointly owning a solar installation;

farmers jointly owning wind turbines;

a municipality participating in a renewable-energy cooperative;

citizens jointly operating a local energy-storage facility.

3. Legal Structure

A cooperative energy project may be established as:

a national cooperative society;

a European Cooperative Society (SCE);

a limited-liability cooperative;

a company owned by a cooperative;

a cooperative combined with a project company/SPV;

a partnership or association combined with a commercial entity.

The precise legal structure determines:

voting;

liability;

capital;

distribution of profits;

transfer of interests;

board powers;

member rights.

4. Cooperative Governance

Governance normally involves:

General meeting

Responsible for major decisions such as:

election/removal of directors;

amendments to statutes;

approval of accounts;

mergers;

dissolution;

major investments.

Board of directors

Usually responsible for:

project management;

contracts;

financing;

employment;

regulatory compliance;

operational decisions.

Members

Depending on national cooperative law, members may have rights concerning:

voting;

information;

dividends or surplus;

participation;

inspection;

challenges to resolutions.

5. One Member, One Vote

A distinctive cooperative principle is often:

One member, one vote.

However, the precise rule depends on national cooperative law and the cooperative's constitution.

Disputes may arise where:

municipalities hold substantial capital;

institutional investors contribute large amounts;

founding members receive special rights;

different classes of membership exist.

A conflict can therefore arise between:

capital contribution

and

democratic governance.

6. Voting-Rights Disputes

A member may challenge:

exclusion from a meeting;

denial of voting rights;

improper proxy voting;

unequal voting arrangements;

invalid resolutions;

voting by conflicted directors.

The court may examine:

cooperative statutes;

national cooperative legislation;

applicable EU law;

notice requirements;

quorum;

voting majority;

conflicts of interest;

procedural fairness.

7. Board of Directors

Directors of an energy cooperative may owe duties concerning:

loyalty;

care;

proper purpose;

compliance with statutes;

financial management;

avoidance of conflicts;

protection of cooperative assets.

Potential litigation includes:

derivative claims;

removal of directors;

damages for breach of duty;

invalidation of transactions;

challenges to board resolutions.

8. Conflict of Interest

Suppose the cooperative's director owns a company that receives a €2 million construction contract from the cooperative.

Potential issues include:

disclosure;

abstention;

related-party transactions;

unfair pricing;

breach of fiduciary/cooperative duties.

The consequences depend upon national company/cooperative law and the cooperative's constitution.

9. Member Admission and Expulsion

Energy cooperatives may need rules concerning:

who can become a member;

geographical connection;

minimum capital;

energy-consumer status;

withdrawal;

expulsion.

Expulsion disputes can arise where the cooperative alleges:

non-payment;

breach of statutes;

fraudulent conduct;

conflict with cooperative objectives.

A member may challenge an expulsion where:

procedural requirements were not followed;

the reason was inadequate;

the decision was discriminatory;

the board exceeded its powers.

10. Cooperative Energy Communities

EU renewable-energy law increasingly recognizes renewable energy communities.

Under the Renewable Energy Directive framework, renewable-energy communities can participate in activities such as:

renewable-energy production;

consumption;

storage;

supply;

sharing of renewable energy.

The governance concept is important because these structures are intended to allow participation by citizens, SMEs and local authorities under defined conditions.

11. Citizen Energy Communities

The electricity-market framework also recognizes citizen energy communities.

These may participate in:

electricity generation;

distribution;

supply;

consumption;

aggregation;

storage;

energy services.

Thus, modern cooperative-energy litigation can involve both traditional cooperative law and EU energy-community regulation.

12. Energy Project Agreements

A cooperative energy project may involve many contracts:

land lease;

turbine supply;

solar-panel supply;

EPC agreement;

operation and maintenance agreement;

grid connection agreement;

power-purchase agreement;

financing agreement;

insurance;

shareholder/member agreement.

A governance dispute can therefore develop into a multi-contract civil dispute.

13. Financing Disputes

Members may contribute capital through:

membership shares;

loans;

subordinated debt;

bonds;

project finance.

Disputes can concern:

capital calls;

repayment;

dilution;

interest;

guarantees;

priority;

insolvency.

A cooperative must comply with both its constitutional documents and applicable mandatory financial rules.

14. Renewable-Energy Subsidies

Many cooperative energy projects depend upon:

feed-in tariffs;

premiums;

grants;

tax incentives;

renewable-energy certificates;

investment support.

Changes to these schemes can materially affect the project's economics.

This has produced significant European litigation.

15. Case Law — 1. PreussenElektra

Case C-379/98, PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG (2001)

This is a foundational European renewable-energy case.

Facts

German legislation required electricity suppliers to purchase electricity generated from renewable sources at minimum prices.

Issue

Whether the support mechanism constituted State aid and whether it was compatible with EU free-movement rules.

Principle

The CJEU held that the statutory purchasing obligation did not constitute State aid merely because it was imposed by legislation, because the mechanism did not involve State resources in the relevant sense.

Importance for cooperative energy projects

The case demonstrates that renewable-energy support structures can be compatible with EU law even where they impose financial obligations on market participants.

Governance relevance

Cooperative projects frequently depend upon support mechanisms. The legal characterization of those mechanisms can determine project economics.

16. Case Law — 2. Germany v Commission

Case C-405/16 P, Germany v Commission (2019)

This case concerned the German Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG).

Principle

The CJEU held that the renewable-energy support mechanism at issue did not involve State resources in the manner required for classification as State aid.

The judgment reversed the General Court's earlier approach in T-47/15.

Importance

This case is important for understanding the distinction between:

State regulation;

private financial flows;

State resources;

State aid.

Cooperative-energy relevance

A community energy cooperative may receive benefits through a statutory support scheme without the arrangement necessarily being State aid in the Article 107 TFEU sense.

17. Case Law — 3. FVE Holýšov I

Case C-850/19 P, FVE Holýšov I and Others v Commission (2021)

Subject

The litigation concerned Czech renewable-energy support schemes.

Issues

Among the issues were:

State aid;

renewable-energy support;

amendments to support arrangements;

legitimate expectations.

Principle

The case demonstrates that beneficiaries of renewable-energy support cannot automatically assume that an existing support regime is legally immutable.

Cooperative-energy relevance

A cooperative relying upon a feed-in tariff or similar support mechanism should carefully examine:

statutory guarantees;

contractual rights;

legitimate expectations;

modification powers of the State.

18. Case Law — 4. Achema and Lifosa v Commission

Case T-300/19, Achema and Lifosa v Commission (2021)

Subject

The case concerned a Lithuanian scheme supporting electricity generated from renewable sources.

Issues

The General Court considered:

compatibility of renewable-energy operating aid;

Article 107(3)(c) TFEU;

environmental and energy State-aid guidelines;

procedural rights.

Importance

The case illustrates the regulatory framework surrounding renewable-energy support.

Cooperative relevance

If a cooperative project receives operating support, changes to the support system may be challenged or assessed under EU State-aid rules.

19. Case Law — 5. Solar Electric and Others v Commission

Case T-678/20, Solar Electric and Others v Commission (2021)

Facts

The dispute concerned a French renewable-energy support mechanism involving an obligation to purchase electricity at a price above market value.

Issue

Whether the measure constituted State aid and whether the Commission had properly dealt with a complaint.

Importance

The case demonstrates the importance of State-aid scrutiny of renewable-energy purchasing arrangements.

Cooperative-energy relevance

A community energy cooperative selling electricity under a support mechanism may be affected by the legal characterization and compatibility of that mechanism.

20. Case Law — 6. Fallimento Esperia and GSE

Case C-558/22, Fallimento Esperia and GSE (2024)

This is a significant renewable-energy case.

Subject

Italy operated a system involving tradable green certificates for renewable electricity.

Issues

The CJEU considered:

renewable-energy support;

certificates;

free movement of goods;

State aid;

national support mechanisms.

Importance

The judgment demonstrates that renewable-energy support systems must be examined against several areas of EU law simultaneously.

Cooperative relevance

A cooperative renewable-energy producer may operate within certificate or support systems that generate disputes involving both national regulation and EU internal-market rules.

21. Case Law — 7. GSE v Erg Eolica Ginestra

Case C-148/23, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici v Erg Eolica Ginestra and Others (2024)

Subject

The case concerned changes to a renewable-energy support scheme in Italy.

Issues

The CJEU considered:

Directive 2009/28/EC;

renewable-energy promotion;

legal certainty;

legitimate expectations;

changes to support arrangements;

contractual participation in the support system.

Importance

This is particularly relevant where a renewable-energy project has made long-term investment decisions based on a statutory support framework.

Cooperative relevance

A cooperative can potentially face substantial financial consequences if government changes support conditions after members have invested capital.

22. Case Law — 8. Energia Group and Others

Case C-36/25, Energia Group and Others

This case was pending before the CJEU as of September 2026, with an Advocate General's Opinion delivered on 16 April 2026.

The proceedings involve Irish energy companies and wind-farm entities, including a community wind-farm company.

Importance

The case concerns the interaction between:

energy regulation;

EU fundamental rights;

non-discrimination;

national regulatory measures.

Because the case remains pending, it should not be treated as a final CJEU precedent.

It is nevertheless an important current example of how renewable-energy project operators can challenge regulatory measures before national courts with questions referred to the CJEU.

23. Case Law — 9. Sambre & Biesme

Joined Cases C-383/21 and C-384/21, Sambre & Biesme SCRL and Commune de Farciennes v Société wallonne du logement (2022)

This is particularly valuable for cooperative governance.

Facts

Sambre & Biesme was a public-service entity organized as a limited-liability cooperative.

The dispute concerned its relationship with an inter-municipal cooperative, IGRETEC.

The question included whether participating public authorities exercised sufficient joint control over the cooperative.

Principle

The CJEU emphasized that a contracting authority's participation in the decision-making bodies of the controlled legal person is important when establishing the required form of joint control.

A mere overlap of individuals or indirect participation was not necessarily enough.

Governance significance

The case provides a strong European principle:

Formal participation in ownership is not necessarily equivalent to effective participation in governance.

This is highly relevant to cooperative energy projects involving:

municipalities;

citizen members;

public authorities;

cooperative shareholders.

24. Case Law — 10. Dijkstra and Others v Friesland

Joined Cases C-319/93, C-40/94 and C-224/94, Dijkstra and Others v Friesland (Frico Domo) Coöperatie and Others (1995)

This is a particularly useful cooperative-law authority.

Subject

The disputes concerned dairy cooperatives and charges associated with withdrawal or expulsion.

Importance

The case demonstrates that cooperative membership rules can have economic consequences that interact with European competition law.

Cooperative-energy relevance

Energy cooperatives may similarly establish:

withdrawal charges;

exit payments;

redemption rules;

membership restrictions.

Such provisions should be examined against applicable national cooperative law and EU competition principles.

25. Case Law — 11. European Parliament v Council — European Cooperative Society

Case C-436/03, European Parliament v Council (2006)

Subject

The case concerned the legal basis of the regulation establishing the European Cooperative Society (SCE).

Importance

Although the case was institutional rather than a member dispute, it is important because it confirms the EU legislative framework for the European cooperative form.

Energy-project relevance

An energy cooperative operating across Member States may potentially use the SCE structure, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

26. Cooperative Governance vs Energy Regulation

A useful distinction is:

A single dispute can involve both columns.

27. Invalid Cooperative Resolution

A member may challenge a general-meeting resolution if:

notice was defective;

quorum was absent;

voting rules were violated;

the resolution exceeded corporate powers;

conflict of interest affected the vote;

statutory rights were disregarded.

Possible remedies depend on national law:

annulment;

declaration of invalidity;

damages;

injunction;

restoration of the previous position.

28. Minority Member Protection

Suppose a cooperative has:

1,000 citizen members;

3 institutional members;

1 municipality.

The institutional members may contribute most of the capital.

A dispute can arise concerning whether capital should determine voting power.

The court must examine:

cooperative statutes;

national cooperative law;

applicable EU rules;

member agreements.

The cooperative principle does not necessarily mean that every cooperative in every Member State must have exactly the same voting structure.

29. Municipal Participation

Municipalities frequently participate in community energy projects.

They may:

contribute land;

contribute capital;

hold membership interests;

purchase electricity;

provide infrastructure;

appoint representatives.

Their participation creates additional questions concerning:

public procurement;

State aid;

public-law duties;

conflict of interest;

democratic accountability.

Sambre & Biesme is particularly useful where public authorities participate in cooperative structures.

30. Cooperative Control

Control can arise through:

voting rights;

board representation;

veto rights;

reserved matters;

contractual rights.

However, legal ownership alone may not demonstrate effective control.

This is especially important where an energy cooperative is used to satisfy community-participation requirements.

31. Joint Control

Where several municipalities or public bodies jointly own a cooperative, the legal question can be:

Do they actually exercise joint control over the entity?

Sambre & Biesme shows the importance of actual representation in decision-making structures in the public-procurement context.

32. Member Information Rights

Members may seek access to:

financial statements;

project accounts;

power-purchase agreements;

subsidy arrangements;

board minutes;

related-party transactions;

management reports.

The extent of access is normally determined by national cooperative law and the constitution.

Confidentiality and commercial secrecy may limit disclosure.

33. Profit Distribution

A cooperative energy project may generate revenue from:

electricity sales;

renewable certificates;

subsidies;

capacity payments;

ancillary services;

energy-sharing arrangements.

Disputes may concern whether profits should be:

distributed to members;

reinvested;

used for community projects;

retained as reserves.

The governing statutes and mandatory cooperative law are central.

34. Withdrawal of Members

A member may wish to leave after:

a subsidy is reduced;

electricity prices fall;

project costs increase;

the cooperative changes its strategy.

The cooperative may argue that withdrawal is subject to:

notice;

minimum membership period;

valuation rules;

exit charges.

Dijkstra provides useful cooperative-law background for disputes involving withdrawal-related financial consequences.

35. Expulsion

Expulsion is more serious than ordinary withdrawal.

Potential grounds include:

failure to pay;

misuse of cooperative resources;

fraud;

serious breach of statutes;

conduct damaging the project.

Procedural fairness is important.

The member may challenge:

lack of notice;

absence of hearing;

improper decision-maker;

disproportionate sanction;

discriminatory treatment.

36. Renewable-Energy Support and Legitimate Expectations

Long-term energy projects require major capital investment.

A cooperative may invest millions based upon:

“20-year renewable-energy support.”

If the government later changes the scheme, the cooperative may argue:

legitimate expectations;

legal certainty;

contractual rights;

property/economic interests.

However, European case law does not establish an absolute right to preservation of every regulatory subsidy.

GSE v Erg Eolica Ginestra is particularly important for understanding this tension.

37. State Aid

A cooperative may receive:

public grants;

preferential loans;

tax benefits;

guaranteed prices;

public land at favourable rates.

These measures can potentially constitute State aid under Article 107 TFEU.

The analysis generally considers:

State resources;

imputability;

economic advantage;

selectivity;

effect on competition and trade.

But PreussenElektra and Germany v Commission demonstrate why the State-resources element must be carefully examined.

38. Public Procurement

A municipality may want to award a contract directly to an energy cooperative.

Questions may arise concerning:

tender requirements;

in-house arrangements;

joint control;

public-public cooperation.

Sambre & Biesme provides an important framework for analyzing joint control and cooperative entities in the public sector.

39. Energy Community Governance

Modern energy communities often seek to combine:

local participation

with

commercial operation.

This creates tension between:

democratic governance;

investor expectations;

professional management;

community benefit.

A well-drafted constitution should therefore clearly define:

voting;

board powers;

reserved decisions;

conflicts;

member admission;

exit;

profit distribution.

40. Power-Purchase Agreements

A cooperative energy project may enter into a long-term PPA.

Disputes can concern:

price;

volume;

renewable certificates;

force majeure;

change in law;

curtailment;

termination.

A governance dispute may arise if the board signs a PPA without proper member approval.

The validity of the contract may then depend upon:

board authority;

cooperative statutes;

third-party good faith;

national company/cooperative law.

41. Land and Planning

Renewable-energy cooperatives often require:

land leases;

easements;

access rights;

grid corridors.

Civil disputes may concern:

rent;

termination;

easements;

restoration;

environmental obligations.

These matters are generally governed primarily by national property and contract law.

42. Grid Connection

A cooperative project may be unable to operate because grid capacity is unavailable.

Disputes can involve:

connection costs;

queue position;

delays;

technical standards;

network reinforcement;

curtailment.

Such disputes may combine:

contract law;

energy regulation;

administrative law.

43. Construction and EPC Contracts

An energy cooperative may contract with an EPC contractor.

Common disputes include:

delay;

defective equipment;

performance guarantees;

construction cost overruns;

liquidated damages;

grid-connection delays.

If the board entered the EPC contract without proper authorization, there may also be an internal governance dispute.

44. Director Liability

Directors may face personal liability under national law where they:

act outside their authority;

breach statutory duties;

misuse cooperative funds;

engage in undisclosed conflicts;

act fraudulently;

cause loss through serious misconduct.

However, ordinary commercial failure does not automatically establish director liability.

45. Insolvency

Energy cooperatives can become insolvent because of:

falling electricity prices;

subsidy reductions;

construction cost increases;

excessive debt;

grid delays.

Insolvency creates conflicts between:

members;

creditors;

lenders;

suppliers;

directors;

project companies.

Member equity generally cannot automatically be treated as ordinary debt.

46. Dispute Resolution

Cooperative energy statutes may provide:

internal mediation;

member appeal;

arbitration;

ordinary courts.

Large project contracts may separately contain:

ICC arbitration;

institutional arbitration;

ad hoc arbitration.

A dispute over the validity of a general-meeting resolution may be governed by different procedural rules from a dispute under the EPC contract.

47. Applicable Law

Cross-border cooperative projects require attention to:

Rome I

For contractual obligations.

Brussels I Recast

For civil and commercial jurisdiction.

National cooperative/company law

For:

internal governance;

directors;

membership;

corporate resolutions.

EU energy law

For:

electricity markets;

renewable energy;

energy communities.

Thus, the applicable legal framework may be multi-layered.

48. Major Litigation Categories

1. Membership disputes

Admission, withdrawal and expulsion.

2. Voting disputes

Voting rights and meeting resolutions.

3. Board disputes

Appointment, removal and authority.

4. Financing disputes

Capital calls and loans.

5. Subsidy disputes

Renewable-energy support.

6. Procurement disputes

Direct awards and public cooperation.

7. Energy-market disputes

Grid, supply and market participation.

8. Contract disputes

EPC, PPA and O&M contracts.

9. Property disputes

Land and easements.

10. Insolvency disputes

Member and creditor claims.

49. Case-Law Summary

50. Direct vs Analogous Authorities

It is important not to overstate the case law.

More directly relevant

Dijkstra — cooperative membership and withdrawal.

Sambre & Biesme — cooperative governance, representation and joint control.

PreussenElektra — renewable-energy support.

Germany v Commission — renewable-energy support/state resources.

FVE Holýšov I — renewable-energy support.

GSE v Erg Eolica Ginestra — renewable support and legal certainty.

Fallimento Esperia and GSE — renewable certificates/support.

More structural/background authority

European Parliament v Council — European Cooperative Society framework.

Achema and Lifosa — State-aid assessment of renewable-energy support.

Solar Electric — renewable-energy State-aid issues.

There is not yet a large body of CJEU judgments specifically dealing with internal governance disputes of citizen-owned renewable-energy cooperatives. National cooperative and company courts therefore remain particularly important.

51. Practical Legal Test

When analyzing a cooperative energy project dispute, use the following sequence:

Step 1 — Identify the entity

Is it:

cooperative;

company;

SCE;

association;

SPV?

Step 2 — Identify the claimant

Is the claimant:

member;

director;

cooperative;

investor;

municipality;

contractor;

regulator?

Step 3 — Identify the disputed decision

Is it:

board decision;

general-meeting resolution;

membership decision;

subsidy decision;

contractual decision?

Step 4 — Check authority

Did the decision-maker have legal authority?

Step 5 — Check procedure

Were:

notice;

quorum;

voting;

conflict rules

properly followed?

Step 6 — Examine EU law

Could the dispute involve:

renewable-energy law;

State aid;

procurement;

competition;

internal market?

Step 7 — Determine remedies

Possible remedies include:

annulment;

damages;

restitution;

injunction;

specific performance;

reinstatement;

judicial review.

52. Example

Facts

A community owns a solar cooperative.

There are 500 members.

The cooperative's board decides to sell the solar project to a private energy company for €20 million.

The statutes require approval of the general meeting for disposal of major assets.

The board nevertheless signs the sale agreement.

Possible claims

Members may argue:

the board exceeded its authority;

the resolution was invalid;

the transaction breached the cooperative statutes;

directors breached their duties.

The buyer may argue:

it relied on the apparent authority of the board;

the contract should remain binding.

The court must therefore examine:

cooperative law;

statutes;

board authority;

third-party protection;

good faith;

applicable property and contract rules.

53. Example: Government Subsidy Dispute

A cooperative builds a €50 million wind project based on a statutory support scheme.

Five years later, the government changes the subsidy.

The cooperative claims that the change destroys the economic basis of its investment.

The government argues that the subsidy was regulatory rather than permanently guaranteed.

The legal analysis should consider:

legislation;

support contracts;

legitimate expectations;

legal certainty;

EU renewable-energy law;

State-aid rules;

national constitutional/administrative principles.

GSE v Erg Eolica Ginestra is particularly useful for this type of analysis.

54. Example: Municipal Cooperative Governance

Five municipalities establish a cooperative energy entity.

One municipality owns only a small percentage but claims that it should have direct representation on the board.

The other members argue that its participation is too small.

The legal question becomes whether the applicable rules require:

direct representation;

joint control;

effective participation;

proportional representation.

Sambre & Biesme provides an important European reference for analyzing the relationship between ownership participation and actual decision-making control.

55. Important Exam Principles

Remember these principles:

Cooperative ownership does not eliminate ordinary contract law.

Membership rights depend heavily on national cooperative law and statutes.

Ownership and governance control are not always identical.

Renewable-energy subsidies are subject to EU legal constraints.

A statutory support mechanism is not automatically State aid.

Changes to renewable support can raise legal-certainty and legitimate-expectations questions.

Municipal participation can trigger public-procurement issues.

Board authority must be distinguished from member approval.

Energy-community regulation operates alongside national cooperative law.

Internal governance disputes and regulatory disputes may require different legal remedies.

56. Conclusion

Cooperative energy project governance litigation in Europe is a multi-layered field combining civil law, cooperative law, company law, energy regulation, EU internal-market rules, State-aid law and public procurement.

The most important disputes concern:

membership;

voting;

board representation;

conflicts of interest;

capital contributions;

withdrawal and expulsion;

project-sale decisions;

renewable-energy subsidies;

green certificates;

public participation;

procurement;

grid access;

project contracts;

insolvency.

The case law demonstrates two particularly important themes.

First, renewable-energy projects operate within a complex European regulatory framework. Cases such as PreussenElektra, Germany v Commission, FVE Holýšov I, Fallimento Esperia and GSE and GSE v Erg Eolica Ginestra show how renewable-energy support mechanisms interact with EU State-aid, internal-market, legal-certainty and renewable-energy rules.

Second, cooperative ownership does not automatically establish effective governance control. Sambre & Biesme is particularly important because the CJEU examined actual representation in the decision-making bodies of an inter-municipal cooperative. Dijkstra provides additional cooperative-law context concerning membership and withdrawal.

Accordingly, the correct legal approach is to examine the cooperative's constitution + national cooperative law + project contracts + EU energy legislation + procurement/State-aid rules + the specific remedy sought rather than treating a cooperative energy project as an ordinary commercial company.