CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) UNRAVELING THE ENIGMA OF THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE VIENNA CONVENTION … Convention, in Article 57(1), recognized the pre-eminence of conventions governing specific jurisdiction, as well as the recognition and enforcement of decisions in specific matters, to which the contracting parties of the convention were or may become parties in the future. Considering that Brussels I bis does not address the priority of international conventions that Member States may join, it is evident that the intention of the Regulation was to accord precedence only to those conventions to which Member States were parties at the time of the regulation’s adoption (this may be supported by the fact that that specific conventions, which would have enjoyed priority in application, were discussed during the legislative process of Brussels I Regulation). 54 The demarcation of jurisdictional rules application between the Regulation Brussels I bis and international conventions pertaining to specific matters (including the Vienna Convention) presents a relatively clear framework. However, certain ambiguities arise from Article 71 of the Regulation Brussels I bis, which necessitate further examination. Specifically, there are instances where the Vienna Conventions touch upon specific issues only tangentially, while the Regulation Brussels I provides a comprehensive regulation of these matters. 55 The Court of Justice of the European Union has opined that a convention governing specific matters excludes the applicability of Brussels I bis solely in relation to the issues it addresses. Consequently, areas not regulated within the context of the respective convention, fall under the purview of the Brussels I bis Regulation, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 71. This signifies a subsidiarity relationship between the Vienna Convention and the Regulation Brussels I bis. 56 4. Conclusion The Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, currently celebrating its 60th anniversary, remains a significant instrument for regulating nuclear law relations among its contracting parties. Despite its venerable age, it is clear that the Convention’s journey is not yet complete. However, it must be acknowledged that in some respects it struggles to adapt gracefully to the new material conditions it faces. This research paper highlights the Convention’s stumbles, however not arising from its fundamental principles or the aspirations placed upon it at the time of its adoption, but this time rather due to its position within the complex network of European regulations it involuntarily intersects. In that context, the research paper explores the complex interplay between the Vienna Convention and both the Brussels I bis Regulation and the Rome II Regulation, focusing on challenges that may arise in determining the applicable law and jurisdiction in cases involving nuclear damage. Through an analysis of the respective provisions within these instruments, the paper sheds additional light on potential conflicts and their implications 54 NOVOTNÁ, M., VARGA, P. The relation of the EU law and the nuclear liability legislation: Possibilities, limits and mutual interaction (2014) 3 Societas et iurisprudentia , p. 109. 55 HANDRLICA, J. The Brussels I Regulation and Liability for Nuclear Damage (2010) 2 Nuclear Law Bulletin , p. 36. 56 MAGNUS, U., MANKOWSKI, P. Brussels I regulation (Sellier 2012), p. 869.

343