Post sponsored by NewzEngine.com

MIL OSI Translation. Region: Germany / Deutschland –

Source: Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety The constitutional complaint of the energy supply company Vattenfall against the amendment of the Atomic Energy Act is permissible and well founded. That was decided by the Federal Constitutional Court.

Today the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) passed its ruling on the constitutional complaint of the energy supply company Vattenfall against paragraph 7f paragraph 1 and 2, paragraph 7g paragraph 2 sentence 1 of the Atomic Energy Act (AtG ) announced. It decided that Vattenfall’s constitutional complaint is admissible and well-founded. Federal Environment Minister Svenja Schulze: “The Federal Government naturally respects the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court. We will thoroughly analyze the judgment and quickly bring a legal regulation in motion that meets the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court. It is clear that today’s ruling does not affect the nuclear phase-out by 2022, which was largely confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2016. It is about a marginal area: Regulations for certain possible compensation claims of the nuclear power plant operators. ”With the 16th AtG amendment, the legislature aimed to implement the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of December 6, 2016. Paragraph 7f paragraph 1 and 2, paragraph 7g paragraph 2 sentence 1 AtG regulate a compensation claim for the license holders of the nuclear power plants Brunsbüttel, Krümmel and Mülheim-Kärlich, insofar as the electricity quantities allocated to these nuclear power plants in 2002 until the end of December 31, 2022 despite serious efforts not be transferred to another nuclear power plant. The BVerfG ruled that Vattenfall’s constitutional complaint is admissible and well founded. The 16th AtG amendment had not come into effect, as neither of the two requirements for entry into force provided by the amendment itself had been met. On the one hand, the letter (“Comfort Letter”) sent by the EU Commission in this regard, in which it had stated that an examination under state aid law was not required, was merely a non-binding opinion which, contrary to the opinion of the Federal Government, met the conditions of On the other hand, the BVerfG has determined that the law is not material enough to remedy the existing constitutional deficits. In particular, the above-mentioned duty of effort is too vague. It is true that the claim for compensation can in principle be linked to the condition that the applicant tries to utilize the amount of electricity that is still available. For this, however, the relevant regulation must provide for conditions that enable the applicant to clearly see the conditions under which such a transfer must take place.

11/12/2020 | Press release No. 202/20 | Nuclear safety

Further information

MIL OSI

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should the grammar and / or sentence structure not be perfect.

MIL Translation OSI