Arbitration court: Fennovoima unlawfully terminated the nuclear power project – Rosatom was nevertheless ordered to pay over 600 million

The ruling separates two issues: whether Fennovoima ended its contract lawfully, and which side ultimately owes money. The ICC arbitration tribunal found the termination unlawful. That finding did not erase Rosatom’s financial obligations under the contract or the tribunal’s calculation of the parties’ competing claims.

Fennovoima says Rosatom must return more than one billion euros in advance payments, with interest. After the claims were set against each other, Rosatom was ordered to pay Fennovoima €606 million plus interest. Fennovoima says it was not ordered to make any net payment to Rosatom.

The dispute is not fully over. Fennovoima says several parallel arbitrations between it and Rosatom companies remain active. The proceedings are private, so the article gives no further details about their claims or likely outcomes. The decision therefore provides a major financial result, but not a complete end to every legal dispute.

Commercial arbitration is a way for businesses to resolve contract disputes without asking a national court to decide them. The parties usually agree in advance to use arbitration, select an institution or procedure, and have one or more independent arbitrators issue a binding decision. It is widely used in international business.

A national court operates within a country’s public justice system, with judges appointed under national law and generally public hearings or records. Arbitration is usually private, and its procedure can be tailored to the contract and the parties’ international needs. The article notes that the Fennovoima proceedings are not public.

Here, the ICC arbitration tribunal assessed claims linked to the Hanhikivi project. Its decision addressed both the legality of termination and financial responsibilities. The article also says several other arbitrations continue, showing how one commercial relationship can produce multiple private disputes rather than one public court case.

The headline payment is €606 million, plus interest that continues to accumulate. Fennovoima says this is the amount Rosatom must pay after the parties’ competing claims were set against each other. Fennovoima also says it was not ordered to make any net payment to Rosatom.

The comparison begins with more than one billion euros in advance payments that Fennovoima had made. The tribunal ordered the plant supplier to return those payments with interest. Rosatom’s own claims were then included in the calculation. Subtracting or offsetting those claims produced the €606 million net amount.

Thus, €606 million is not the same as the gross advance-payment obligation. It is the reported balance after set-off, before considering the continuing interest in the final amount. The article does not give the precise gross value of Rosatom’s counterclaims or the final interest total.

A tribunal can find fault with the way a contract was ended while separately calculating money owed under the contract. These are different legal questions. An unlawful termination may create liability for the terminating party, but it does not automatically cancel every repayment, performance, or damages obligation owed by the other party.

In this case, the tribunal found Fennovoima’s termination unlawful. At the same time, it ordered the supplier to return more than one billion euros in advance payments with interest. Rosatom’s claims were then offset against Fennovoima’s claims. The reported result was a €606 million payment from Rosatom to Fennovoima.

The decision therefore reflects a balance of competing responsibilities, not a simple winner-takes-all judgment. Fennovoima says it was not required to pay Rosatom any net amount. Because several parallel arbitrations remain underway, additional disputes between the companies have not yet been resolved.

Fennovoima announced in May 2022 that it had ended its agreement with Raos Project, a company in the Rosatom group. Its stated reason was that the supplier’s significant delays had continued and increased. Fennovoima said the project could no longer be protected from the resulting risks by Raos Project.

The war added another layer of danger. Russia began its large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, only months before Fennovoima’s announcement. Fennovoima said the war had worsened the project’s risks. The article does not list each risk or say exactly how the war affected construction, financing, or equipment delivery.

The termination later became a central legal issue. The ICC tribunal found that Fennovoima had ended the project unlawfully, even though the tribunal also ordered Rosatom to repay advance money and pay a net €606 million plus interest. Other arbitration disputes are still continuing.

When a major reactor supplier is removed, the project can lose the partner responsible for supplying and coordinating the plant. Replacing that partner may require new contracts, technical reviews, approvals, financing, and a revised schedule. The article does not state what happened operationally to Hanhikivi after termination, so those consequences are general features of major projects, not reported outcomes here.

Money recovery is also rarely immediate. The parties may disagree about delays, termination rights, delivered work, damages, and the value of competing claims. Arbitrators must examine those issues before calculating a final balance. Here, the tribunal considered more than one billion euros in advance payments, then offset Rosatom’s claims and produced a €606 million payment plus interest.

Fennovoima says several parallel arbitrations still continue. Their private nature can make the timetable and remaining financial exposure unclear. The decision settles important claims, but it does not end every dispute between Fennovoima and Rosatom companies.

Large international contracts use arbitration because the parties may come from different countries with different courts and laws. A neutral forum can reduce concerns about home-court advantage. Confidential proceedings and specialist arbitrators can also suit technically complex projects. Arbitration clauses define how disputes will be handled before trouble begins.

The contract may allocate risks through deadlines, payment terms, delay rules, termination rights, force-majeure provisions, and damages. When a project is delayed, cancelled, or disrupted by war, arbitrators examine those clauses and the facts. They may decide whether a termination was permitted, whether a party breached its duties, and which payments or damages are due.

The Hanhikivi dispute shows that results can be mixed. The ICC tribunal found Fennovoima’s termination unlawful, yet ordered Rosatom to return advances and pay €606 million plus interest after set-off. Several related arbitrations remain pending, illustrating that risk allocation can require multiple decisions.