CYIL 2012

JAKUB HANDRLICA CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ legal report that summarised the outcomes of this stakeholder’s survey has been titled the “ Accession of Euratom to the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy”. It is a matter of fact that such step will be in line with the current tendency of the European Union to enter into international agreements parallel to their member states. 16 Obviously, the aim of these efforts will be to make the Amended Paris Convention binding for all member states. However, before dealing with consequences of such a metamorphosis , we must answer the question of whether unity of rules in the area of nuclear liability is bringing such attention and why the status quo is unsatisfactory. Furthermore, we must face the question of whether the current Euratom Treaty competencies are sufficient in this field. A similar question arises from the perspective of the Amended Paris Convention: whether this agreement enables the Community to become its contracting party. 2.1 A way out from the labyrinth: the search for unity of nuclear liability rules 2.1.1 Common features of existing international nuclear liability conventions Basically, both major international treaties that govern issues of the nuclear third party liability in Europe, share the same basic principles, which differ considerably from the principles of conventional tort law. 17 The operator of a nuclear installation is exclusively liable for damage resulting from accidents at his installation. There are specifications of minimum and maximum liability (under the Paris Convention) or only minimum liability (under the Vienna Convention) for damages caused by a nuclear incident. Consequently, the liability of the operator for nuclear damages must be regulated by national legislation, which creates another specialty relating to the conventional framework of civil liability. The Brussels Supplementary Convention provides for additional compensation from public funds in events where compensation (created under the Paris Convention) proves to be insufficient to cover damages. 18 At the same time, only the courts of the contracting party where the nuclear incident occurred will have jurisdiction over actions brought for damages caused by a nuclear incident occurring in such a territory. In a case where nuclear material in transport causes damage within the territory of a contracting party, the court where the nuclear material was situated at the time of damage will be exclusively competent. Furthermore, both the Paris and Vienna Conventions provide for very limited liability exonerations. Finally, there is a time limitation for claims arising from nuclear damage. 16 E.g. Hillion, C. and Koutrakos, P. (2010) Mixed Agreements Revisited – The EU and its Member States in the World, pp. 20 et seqq., Hart Publishing, Oxford. 17 See e.g. Kissich, S. (2004) Internationales Atomhaftungsrecht: Anwendungsbereichund Haftungsprinzipien, pp. 63 et seqq., Nomos Verlag, Baden Baden. 18 Pelzer, N. (2010) ‘Main Features of the Revised International Regime Governing Nuclear Liability – Progress and Standstill’, in OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (ed.): International Nuclear Law: History, Evolution and Outlook, p. 377 et seqq., Bruylant, Brussels.

46