CYIL Vol. 4, 2013

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.