The State of Play in Vattenfall v. Germany II: Leaving the German public in the dark
Two years after Vattenfall brought Germany to international arbitration for a second time (Vattenfall II), the German public is still left out in the dark.
This briefing note reviews the background to the case on Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power and outlines its current state of play. A commentary follows on the transparency provisions applicable to arbitrations at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), and discusses how some ICSID tribunals have dealt with matters of transparency and confidentiality. Finally, it argues for the release of decisions, orders, and submissions by the parties to the public, noting that there is nothing in the ICSID Rules that would disallow this type of transparency.
You might also be interested in
The Proposed Multilateral Framework on Investment Facilitation
This paper examines the proposed multilateral framework on investment facilitation and how it relates to existing trade and investment agreements.
Investment Facilitation: History and the latest developments in the structured discussions
This negotiating brief was prepared for the January 28, 2020 seminar in Geneva on the Joint Statement Initiative on Investment Facilitation.
The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? Background to the new dispute Vattenfall v. Germany (II)
The Swedish energy company Vattenfall has now followed through on its threat to bring an international arbitration claim against Germany in relation to that country's recent decision to phase out nuclear power. Damages claimed by Vattenfall could exceed €700 million.
Background paper on Vattenfall v. Germany arbitration
This paper provides background on an investment dispute between the Swedish energy utility Vattenfall and the Government of Germany pursuant to the Energy Charter Treaty.