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

Law’s Empire of Austerity

The neoliberal free market has been 'constitutionalised' through law in Europe and elsewhere as a way to prevent challenges to financial and corporate power. The new technocracy put in place poses a serious danger to  democracy and freedom.

Socialising Losses, Privatising Gains

Dutch investment treaties (BITs) are frequently used by foreign companies to sue governments in the North and South for policies that might harm their future profits. 75% of these cases were brought by mailbox companies with no real economic substance in the Netherlands, making use of the vast web of Dutch BITs and the rights and protection given to foreign investors.

Licensed to Grab

The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause present in many trade treaties give investors far-reaching protection, curtailing governments’ ability to regulate for progressive agrarian and agricultural policies and reinforcing the notion of land as a commodity.

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.