CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) UNRAVELING THE ENIGMA OF THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE VIENNA CONVENTION … However, drawing from experience, it is reasonable to presume that conventions governing nuclear liability establish an autonomous set of rules. Through an expansive interpretation, it is conceivable to identify a conflict of law rule and theoretically consider the potential exclusion of these conventions from the scope of the Rome II Regulation. By employing this line of reasoning, it follows that all nuclear damage relationships governed by nuclear liability conventions would likewise be exempted from the application of the Rome II Regulation under Article 1(2)(f). Subsequently, in accordance with Article 28, the relationships associated with nuclear damage compensation would also fall outside the scope of the Regulation’s application. This would uphold the application priority of the Vienna Convention over the application of the Rome II Regulation, ensuring its full primacy. 3.1 Introductory reflections Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 35 (Brussels I bis Regulation or Brussels I bis) serve as the legal basis to determine the jurisdiction of the court in cross-border litigations between parties in different European Member States and it sets out the conditions, based on which a judgement will be recognized and enforced in other Member States. A key aspect arising from this regulation is that EU has an exclusive competence in the realm of judicial cooperation and the enforcement of decisions. Due to the EU competence in the area of jurisdiction, enforcement, and recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters represented by the Brussels I bis Regulation, it is clear that the States are not entitled to enter international obligations that regulate areas falling under the EU’s exclusive competence, consequently they are not authorized to accede to conventions governing jurisdiction, enforcement, and recognition of decisions, as well as to assume obligations that could impede the application of EU law in this area. 36 As the EU itself cannot participate in an international regime of the international nuclear liability law, it enters into this area in a way that the EU could authorise its Member States to accede or to ratify specific international conventions. In such an authorization act, the EU must explicitly specify the relation of the EU law to the regime established by the international convention. 37 The position of Member States on this issue pro futuro is obvious, but what if Member States were already parties to the Vienna Convention at the time of the adoption of the Brussels I bis Regulation? 35 The Brussels I bis Regulation replaced (as from 10 January 2015) the Council Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I Regulation). To the most important amendments see NIELSEN, P. A. The new Brussels I Regulation (2013) 2 Common Market Law Review , pp. 503–528. 36 Similarly, to the Brussels I Regulation as the predecessor of the Brussels I bis regulation HANDRLICA, J. The Brussels I Regulation and Liability for Nuclear Damage (2010) 2 Nuclear Law Bulletin , p. 30. 37 HANDRLICA, J., NOVOTNÁ, M. Európska únia a Protokol z r. 1997, ktorým sa doplňuje Viedenský dohovor o občianskoprávnej zodpovednosti za jadrové škody z r. 1963 [The European Union and Protocol of 1997, which is supplemented Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage from the year 1963] (2014) 2 Justičná revue , pp. 252–268. 3. Regulation Brussels I bis vs Vienna Convention

339