80 / 350
JAKUB HANDRLICA
CYIL 4 ȍ2013Ȏ
It is important to point out that the regulation generally allows such
forum shopping
for all cases of serious industrial disasters, as no explicit exemption has been made in
such cases. The fact is that neither the intentions of the fathers of the nuclear liability
treaties, nor the European legislation concerning a uniform legal framework have
been realised. The application of the provisions of the Brussels Regulation allows the
plaintiff to claim in his home country, basically in his own language, with application
of the law of his nation. The situation is unsatisfactory for potential plaintiffs as well
as for the operators. While the principle of exclusive jurisdiction, as laid down in
both Paris and Vienna Conventions, serves
inter alia
to protect operators from the
costs of extensive
forum shopping
, the possible ability to claim in non-contracting
countries and enforce judgements under the Brussels Regulation in the contracting
parties to international liability conventions makes such protections inefficient.
Consequently, harmonisation of rules creates very serious challenges. However,
obviously, the European Union failed to address these challenges. The proposed
decision authorising the Member to ratify the Protocol amending that Convention
in the interest of the EuropeanUnion does not contribute to a greater harmonisation of
nuclear liability regimes, but, on the contrary, contributes to a further differentiation
and fragmentation of the already existing nuclear liability “patchwork”.
Note:
The proposal discussed in this paper was approved by the Council Decision
2013/434/EU on 15 July 2013.