Vattenfall, the Swedish energy group, have not only commenced, as reported before, investment treaty arbitration against the Federal Republic of Germany under the Energy Charter to pursue damages suffered as a result of Germany’s nuclear energy opt-out. In addition, Vattenfall has now joined the German nuclear operators in bringing a constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) and challenging the respective legislation before the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht).
Today’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung carries a short article of mine on the subject (“Schutz von Investoren -Warum klagt Vattenfall vor einem internationalen Schiedsgericht gegen den Atomausstieg?”- paywalled) This dual-track strategy is available to Vattenfall, as they are the only non-German operator of nuclear power plants in the country. The strategy allows Vattenfall to hedge its bets. My assumption also is that Vattenfall looks to exploit different standards applicable in the two fora for damages. What I would like to explore in more detail in a further post, and get your input on, is the question whether, and if so, to what extent the outcomes of the two procedures are independent of each other or are interrelated.
Interested to read this as someone with an interest in the ECT. Not being a regular reader of the Frankfurter Allgemeine I did not see your piece. Do you have a copy you would be willing and able to email?