The Kalkar II Nuclear Power Plant Case
Germany Federal Constitutional Court
81 BVerfGE 310 (1990)
- Written by Tom Squier, JD
Facts
Germany’s Federal Nuclear Energy Act included regulations on the licensing procedures for the production of nuclear reactors. Part of that act specified that the states could administer the regulations created by the federal government through state administrative agencies. A nuclear reactor had been in production in the municipality of Kalkar in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia (plaintiff) since the 1970s and had been meeting all prescribed licensing requirements. However, following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, North Rhine-Westphalia’s state technology minister issued an order to reassess the nuclear reactor’s safety plans before the reactor could be completely installed. The environmental minister for the federal government (defendant) issued an order declaring that the project could continue based on earlier findings that the project was in compliance with safety guidelines. The order went into detail about the previous findings and how safety concerns would still be met, in spite of the Chernobyl disaster. The state government appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court, arguing that the directive of the federal environmental minister was beyond his legal authority.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mahrenholz, Bӧckenfӧrde, Klein, Graßhof, Kruis, Franßen, Kirchhof, Winter, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.