VZCZCXRO5530
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHAK #3015 3531053
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 191053Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY ANKARA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4739
INFO RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RHEBAAA/DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WASHDC
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0177

UNCLAS ANKARA 003015 
 
SIPDIS 
 
USDOE FOR CHARLES WASHINGTON 
USDOC FOR 4212/ITA/MAC/CPD/CRUSNAK 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ENRG EINV BEXP TU
SUBJECT: TURKISH OPPOSITION APPEALS TO COURT TO ANNUL THE NUCLEAR 
POWER LAW 
 
REF: ANKARA 2755 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED.  PLEASE HANDLE ACCORDINGLY. 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and 
Democratic Left Party (DSP) asked the Constitutional Court on 
December 6 to annul the recently passed Nuclear Power Law.  They 
assert that the law is unconstitutional because it usurps 
parliamentary authority, violates the "greater public good" by 
making the Turkish public bear some dismantling costs, and fails to 
set personnel qualifications.  CHP Deputy Faik Oztrak expects the 
court to halt the February 21 tender process, while GOT energy 
advisor Faruk Demir said these were old issues that already had been 
addressed.  The challenge may succeed because the law is vague, 
especially on the tender process.  It illustrates why the government 
wants to amend the constitution to remove "public good" legal 
standards that it says impede needed economic reforms.  End Summary. 
 
 
¶2. (SBU) The main opposition party CHP and DSP jointly asked the 
Constitutional Court on December 6 to annul the Nuclear Power Law 
passed on November 9 (reftel).  They challenge the constitutionality 
of articles 3, 7 and temporary article 1 of the law, which deal with 
the tender process and selection criteria; Treasury liabilities for 
the Decommissioning Account; and the definition of the 
qualifications of personnel, respectively. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The two parties argue that the law is unconstitutional 
because it circumvents the Legislature's regulatory power and leaves 
too many critical issues to the Government's discretion. For 
example, the Nuclear Power Law allows the Turkish Atomic Energy 
Agency (TAEK) to decide the principles for setting technical 
criteria.  It also does not define the criteria for selection of the 
contractor and plant location, licensing costs, 
infrastructure-related incentives, terms of fuel supply and 
production capacity. 
 
¶4. (SBU) They also object to the provision that requires the 
government to pay for dismantling cost overruns (the government's 
liability is limited to 25% of the amount accumulated in the 
Dismantling Account).  They claim this article does not serve the 
"greater public good," a constitutional requirement for all 
legislation.  Their third objection is to vague personnel 
qualifications set by the law, which the parties say violates the 
constitutional "principle of certainty." 
 
¶5. (SBU) The GOT and the opposition parties who filed the action 
gave predictably opposing analyses of how effective this court 
challenge might be.  CHP Deputy Faik Oztrak told us he expected the 
Constitutional Court to prevent the GOT from moving forward with the 
tender process on February 21, based on its mandate to protect the 
public good.  Oztrak added that CHP was particularly concerned about 
how investors would handle nuclear waste management, given the lack 
of guidance or expertise in Turkey on this issue.  However, Faruk 
Demir, an independent adviser to the Energy Minister, dismissed the 
action as purely political.  He said "the greater public good" 
argument was made by former President Sezer when he vetoed a prior 
version of the law, and the GOT addressed this when it amended the 
law in line with Sezer's veto. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Comment: This challenge may succeed because the government 
pushed the Nuclear Power Law through the parliament in just two days 
without amendment, and it remains vague on several issues, 
particularly on the tender process, which was a focus of opposition 
complaints when the law was debated in parliament.  This is one of 
several lawsuits that CHP has filed against the government, and 
illustrates why the government wants to amend the constitution to 
remove vague, "public good" legal standards that it says impede 
needed economic reforms. End Comment. 
 
Wilson