CYIL Vol. 4, 2013

JAKUB HANDRLICA CYIL 4 ȍ2013Ȏ of 1997. 42 Of course, we have to bear in mind that a ratification of the Protocol of 1997 will constitute a major change in the nuclear liability framework of most of the “new” Member States. In particular, such a step will mean inter alia the need to increase the liability limits of the operator and to enlarge the scope of compensated damages. The proposed decision merely constitutes an approval to accede or to ratify to the Protocol of 1997 for the “new” Member States, 43 without setting them a concrete time schedule for doing so. Consequently, it will be upon those states to decide on the time framework of the accession, or ratification of the Protocol according to the rules laid down in this international treaty. By this, the European Commission also gave up the possibility to control the ratification process and to initiate infringement proceedings against those states who failed to comply with an exact time framework. So, on one hand, the “new” Member States were granted freedom to proceed in ratification; on the other hand, the wording of the proposed decision will lead de facto to another gap among the existing nuclear liability regimes in the European Union. While the Union will have competencies to intervene into the ratification proceedings of the Protocol of 2004, it will have no similar powers in relation to the Protocol of 1997. Further, the proposed decision does also not contain any requirement for a simultaneous deposit of ratification instruments. 44 This is the second difference of the proposed decision, if compared with the existing authorisation decision. It is a matter of fact that a requirement for a simultaneous deposit of ratification instruments would have no reason in relation to the Protocol of 1997, as in contrast to the Amended Paris Convention, the Amended Vienna Convention already did enter into force. Last, but not least, in contrast to the existing authorisation decisions, the proposed decision states in its recital 9, that: “The rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments laid down in Article XII of the Vienna Convention, as amended by Article 14 of the 1997 Protocol, should not take precedence either over the relevant rules established in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, as extended to Denmark by the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, or in the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 30 October 2007. Therefore, when ratifying or acceding to the 1997 Protocol, the Member States must make the declaration with the aim of ensuring continued application of the relevant EU rules.” 42 In its very early proposal, the European Commission required ratification of the Protocol of 1997 by the end of 2016, which caused a strict refusal from the representatives of the “new” Member States. 43 This authorisation is issued ex post also for Poland. See details in note 40. 44 In its very early proposal, the European Commission also required a simultaneous deposit of ratification instruments. This requirement too caused a strict refusal from the representatives of the “new” Member States.