The Federal Administrative Court confirms unlawfulness of nuclear power moratorium. Political primacy is only valid in the bounds of justice

With its decision on December 20^th, the Federal Administrative Court (BVwerfG) came to the legally valid conclusion that after the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident, the supervision court order related to the law on nuclear installation by the Hessian Ministry for the Environment, in order to stop operating nuclear power plants Biblis A and B for 3 months or rather not to put in operation again, was unlawful (BVwerfG 7 B 18.13 und 7 B 19.13). Beforehand, the Hessian Administrative Court (Hess. VGH) had already pronounced its judgement on February 27^th 2013. The supervising orders were part of the so-called nuclear power moratorium. They were issued after the resolution of the federal government, at demand of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) towards their nearby countries, and were identically executed by the supervisory authority of the other site-countries. Besides Biblis in Hesse, nuclear power plants in Neckarwestheim I and Philippsburg 1, Baden-Wurttemberg, Isar 1 in Bavaria, Unterweser in Lower Saxony, as well as Brunsbuettel in Schleswig-Holstein, were affected. However only RWE took legal action and was now affirmed - after the Hessian VGH verdict- by the highest German administrative court: The nuclear power moratorium - the first step to withdrawal of nuclear power in Germany - was unlawful. The decision taken by the BVerwG - as well as the one by the Hessian VGH - indicates a juridical clear and precise argumentation. The partially polemic and unobjective critic, which the VHG-verdict experienced, did not disguise, just as little as the political conflict concerning the withdrawal from nuclear energy, the view of federal judges, regarding the decision-relevant questions nor did they influence their reply. The political primacy finds its limits in the bounds of justice. Existing rights do not become thus a paper waste because there is a fundamental decision. This takes effectiveness for procedural laws, as well as for basic lawfully protected legal positions. (orig.)