Nuclear Phase-Out put to the test

Background to the new dispute Vattenfall v. Germany (II)

8 October 2013
Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder & Rhea Tamara Hoffmann

Swedish energy company Vattenfall filed request for arbitration at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), after Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear energy.

In May 2012 the Swedish energy company Vattenfall filed a request for arbitration against Germany at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), housed at the World Bank in Washington, D.C., because of Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear energy.

Vattenfall relies on its rights under the Energy Charter Treaty, an international trade and investment agreement in the energy sector.

This treaty, like many international investment agreements, grants foreign investors the right to bypass the domestic courts of the host country and to directly file a complaint to an ad hoc international tribunal to challenge proposed government regulations. Vattenfall claims over €3,7 billion in compensation in response to the closure of the nuclear power plants Krümmel and Brunsbüttel.

This article sets out to assist interested members of the public and policy-makers to better understand this particular case and the investment law and policy it relies on. We will first provide the background on the conflict (including the first 2009–2011 Vattenfall v. Germany arbitration) and the central elements of international investment law that Vattenfall is likely to call into play.

We also provide a comparison with the domestic legal situation by looking into the pending review of the constitutionality of the nuclear phase-out. Finally, we briefly address a number of fundamental issues and needs for reform that come to the fore in the relationship between international investment protection law (including arbitration) and public policy-making.

October 2013
In: The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? [PDF, 340KB]
8 pages

Recent publications from Trade & Investment

Trading away Democracy

The Investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in the far-reaching economic integration agreement between Canada and the European Union prevents governments from acting in the public interest.

The case of Newmont Mining vs Indonesia

The case of Newmont Mining vs Indonesia is a powerful example of how investment agreements are used by companies to get exemptions from government regulations and legislation, undermining democracy and development.

Big Corporations, the Bali Package and Beyond

This sequel to the “Tailored for Sharks” report delves deeper into the role the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its legal system play in the corporate architecture that benefits and protects interests of Transnational Corporations (TNCs); details concrete examples of TNCs behind trade disputes; and presents the post-Bali corporate roadmap. 

Land grabbing under the Cover of Law

The BRICS are following the pattern traditionally adopted by Northern countries of enclosing and exploiting land, both nationally and abroad, to benefit capital and global agro-industrialisation. They are also using law and diplomacy, notably Bilateral Investment Agreements, in order to facilitate access to foreign land, and foster their own economic interests.