OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCY …

OECD NUCLEAR ENERGYAGENCY

NUCLEAR REGULATORYAUTHORITY OF THE SLOVAKREPUBLIC

Second International Workshopon the Indemnification of Nuclear Damage

Bratislava, Slovak Republic18-20 May 2005

QUESTIONNAIRES COMPLETED BY NATIONAL DELEGATIONS

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency

2

Second International Workshopon the Indemnification of Nuclear Damage

Bratislava, Slovak Republic18-20 May 2005

The Second International Workshop on the Indemnification of Nuclear Damagetook place from 18-20 May 2005 in Bratislava, Slovak Republic. The Workshop was co-organised by the NEA and the Nuclear Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic andattracted 108 participants from 27 countries, the majority of which are NEA members. Thepurpose of the Workshop was to assess the third party liability and compensation mechanismsthat would be implemented by participating countries in the event of a nuclear accident takingplace within or near their borders. To accomodate this objective, two fictuous accidentscenarios were developed, one involving a nuclear installation located in the Slovak Republicand the other involving a ship transporting nuclear substances along the Danube River.

A questionnaire corresponding to the selected scenarios was distributed to eachnational delegation participating in the Workshop. The responses to the questionnaire werecompared and analyzed during the Workshop’s discussions under the direction of aModerator and a co-Moderator. This document contains a compendium of the completedquestionnaires.

* *

*

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

_______________

Austria 5

Belarus 11

Belgium 15

Canada 19

Croatia 25

Czech Republic 29

Estonia 35

Finland 37

France 43

Germany 55

Hungary 71

Ireland 81

Italy 85

Korea (Rep. of) 89

Latvia 95

Lithuania 103

Netherlands 109

Norway 115

Slovak Republic 119

Slovenia 133

South Africa 139

Spain 143

Sweden 149

Switzerland 159

Turkey 165

Ukraine 171

United Kingdom 183

5

Austria________

TITLE II: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL AFFECTED STATES1 FORSCENARIOS 1 AND 2

1. Emergency Response

(a) Your national emergency plan has been activated to deal with the consequences of this accident.Which are the competent bodies to make possible decisions on counter-measures in relation toagriculture, industrial activities, import/export?

The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management - incooperation with the Federal Ministry of Health, responsible for food monitoring – isresponsible for recommending counter measures in the field of agriculture, industrial activities,import/export. The affected Austrian Federal Provinces are responsible for implementation ofthe preventive measures. If necessary the implementation of measures will be coordinated bythe Austrian Federal Crisis and Disaster Management in the Federal Ministry of Interior.

Concerning contamination of food- and feedstuff the main decision crite-ria are the maximum permitted levels for food- and feedstuff given in the EC Councilregulations (2218/89/EURATOM, 3954/87/EURATOM and 770/90/EURATOM).

(b) How do those authorities liaise with the competent authorities in the Accident State to obtainrecent and reliable information on releases, contamination etc?

Information on the accident scenario, the release, contamination measurement results, theestimated consequences, preventive measures implemented, etc. will be based on bilateralinformation exchange agreements with the neighbouring countries of Austria, the ECurie systemof the EC and the information system of the Convention on Early Notification of a NuclearAccident (IAEA). The information pathway is via the 24 h point of contact (Austrian FederalAlarming Centre at the Federal Ministry of the Interior) to the competent authority (FederalMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management).

(c) Are counter-measures coordinated with neighbouring states?

A co-ordination with the neighbouring state concerning the evaluation of the consequences ofthe accident and the counter measures is highly intended and foreseen in the bilateralinformation exchange agreements. In periodical international exercises (IAEA-CONVEX,OECD-INEX, EC-ECURIE, etc.) the coordination with neighbouring countries has been andwill be exercised.

1. These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: Slovak Republic, nor bythe Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary.

6

2. Dissemination of Information

(a) How is information disseminated to the public on:

� the accident which took place, its possible consequences in the Accident State and in yourState?

The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management isresponsible for disseminating information to the public on the accident and possibleconsequences. Usually information to the public will be provided by the press relationsofficer via mass media (TV, radio and print media). If necessary, dependent on the scaleof the consequences of the accident, the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, Environmentand Water Management will provide the information for the public via mass media.Additionally a call centre will be established by the ministry.

� the manner in which claims can be made against the operator liable for this accident?

(b) Would your State organise (at national level) an inventory of victims on your nationalterritory and the injury or damage which each has suffered?

(c) Would your State assist such them in bringing their proceedings?

No.

3. Claims Management

(a) How would the following claims be dealt with:

(i) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agriculturalproducts because those products were proven contaminated and who therefore loseconsiderable revenue due to restrictions placed on the commercialisation of thoseproducts;

Loss of revenue due to restrictions will be compensated.

(ii) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agriculturalproducts due to the public’s fear that those products are contaminated, even thoughcommercial contamination levels were not exceeded (rumour damage) and who loseconsiderable revenue as a result.

Loss of revenue due to rumours will not be compensated.

(iii) Industries in the contaminated area (e.g. food processing):

� which are obliged to stop production following the accident to determine the extentof the radioactive contamination, thereby losing income;

No compensation foreseen.

7

� which suffer a loss of income in the short term after the accident due to the provencontamination of raw materials;

Loss of income emanating from the contamination of raw material will becompensated.

� which suffer a loss of income from the cancellation of orders following the accidentdue to unfounded rumours of the continued contamination of its products;

No compensation foreseen

(iv) Personnel of the above-mentioned industries who claim compensation for having beenreleased from employment following the accident;

There is no compensation for released personnel.

(v) Loss of income suffered by various businesses in the tourist and service industries as aresult of tourists avoiding the entire region for several months, some on the basis ofproven contamination, others on the basis of rumoured contamination only;

Most probably there is neither compensation for loss of income of the tourist and serviceindustries.

(b) The contaminated zone includes an extended area of forest in which live a number ofendangered species. This extended area is owned by your State. How will your State:

� evaluate the cost of rehabilitating the environment in this extended area of forest?

The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Managementconsulting experts, as appropriate, would make an evaluation of these costs. Theevaluation would have to take into account the numbers of plants and animals affected.Beside that costs of measures of sealing off the contaminated area and ruling measuresconcerning foodstuff would have to be taken into account.

� claim compensation for such cost?

The costs for measures of restoration under Austrian law are to be compensated; ifnecessary the Austrian government would file a lawsuit in order to get compensation forthese costs.

(c) Two airlines from your State cancelled all their flights to and from the principal airport in theAccident State for 24 hours, although that airport remained open. Could these airlines claimcompensation for:

� loss of revenue due to cancellation of those flights?

� reimbursement of compensation it was required to pay to passengers in respect of thecancelled flights ?

There will be no compensation for the said cancellation of airlines flights.

8

(d) Would the following persons be entitled to claim compensation for damage suffered:

� nationals of your State who are permanent residents of the Accident State at the time ofthe accident?

� nationals of your State who are temporarily located in the Accident State at the time of theaccident?

The right to damages does neither depend on the nationality of the person having sufferedthe damage nor on its location. Where the damage was suffered in Austria, Austrian lawwill be applied and Austrian courts have jurisdiction.

(e) If the answer to either part of (d) is “yes”, how would those persons enter claims? Would yourState include them under its "national inventory" for the purpose of compensatingtransboundary damage or would they be required to claim as if they were citizens of theAccident State?

These persons would have to file their actions by themselves as anyone else.

(f) A certain number of victims in your State are either not sufficiently compensated for theirclaims or are not compensated at all. Would your State provide additional compensation underthese circumstances?

Currently there is no additional compensation from the state foreseen for these cases.

TITLE III: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY SPECIFIC AFFECTED STATES (asindicated in the headings)

6. Questions to be answered by State F (NCS) for Scenario 1, Austria for Scenario 2

As your State is not party to any international nuclear liability convention, any claims will most likelybe brought before your national courts and be determined according to your national law.

How will you ensure recognition and enforcement of such decisions in the State in whose territory theliable operator’s installation is situated (Slovak Republic in Scenario 1; Germany in Scenario 2)?

Due to the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and therecognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters decisions of Austriancourts are to be recognised and enforced in all other Member States of the European Union.

9

ANNEX

Austria - List of Bilateral Agreements

Austria has concluded bilateral agreements in the area of radiation protection and nuclear safety withthe following countries:

� Hungary Federal law Gazette Nr. 454/1987

� Germany Federal law Gazette. Nr. 128/1989 (DDR), Federal law Gazette Nr. 892/94

� Slovak Republic Federal law Gazette Nr. 565/1990 (CSFR), Federal law GazetteNr. 1046/1994

� Czech Republic Federal law Gazette Nr. 565/1990 (CSFR), Federal law Gazette IIINr. 123/1997

� Russia Federal law Gazette Nr. 130/1990

� Poland Federal law Gazette Nr. 643/1990

� Tajikistan Federal law Gazette III Nr. 4/1998

� Ukraine Federal law Gazette III Nr. 152/1998 (Federal law Gazette Nr. 291/1996)

� Slovenia Federal law Gazette III Nr. 176/1998

� Switzerland Federal law Gazette III Nr. 201/2000

A bilateral agreement with Belarus will be effective in the near future.

With regard to nuclear accidents these agreements are to be considered as implementing arrangementsin accordance with Article 9 of the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident.Furthermore, they provide for information exchange on nuclear incidents, on nuclear programmes ofthe Contracting Parties and on nuclear installations planned, under construction or in operation. TheContracting Parties of these agreements commit themselves to implementing programmes of radiationmonitoring and to annual exchange of radiation monitoring results.

11

Belarus________



(a) Your national emergency plan has been activated to deal with the consequences of thisaccident. Which are the competent bodies to make possible decisions on counter-measures in relation to agriculture, industrial activities, import/export?

In the framework of the Comprehensive State System of Preparedness and Response toNatural and Technology Related Emergency Situations the competent body responsiblefor co-ordination of all activities is the Ministry for Emergency Situations, as fordecisions on counter-measures in relation to agriculture, those are taken by the Ministryof Food and Agriculture, industrial activities – Ministry of Industry, as far as theimport/export is concerned the competent body to make decisions depends on whatgoods are exported/imported.

(b) How do those authorities liaise with the competent authorities in the Accident State toobtain recent and reliable information on releases, contamination etc?

On the basis of the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident 1986 (theMinistry for Emergency Situation is the national competent body for the purposes of theConvention) and through diplomatic channels.


Yes, on the basis of relevant bilateral agreements and through diplomatic channels.



� the accident which took place, its possible consequences in the Accident Stateand in your State?

Through mass-media.

� the manner in which claims can be made against the operator liable for thisaccident?

Through mass-media and issuance of special bulletins.


Yes.

1. These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: SlovakRepublic, nor by the Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary.

12

(c) Would your State assist such them in bringing their proceedings? How?

Yes. A centralised system of assistance would be set up that would provideconsultations, collect the claims and forward through official channels. Further freelegal advice would be provided during the proceedings.



(i) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usualagricultural products because those products were proven contaminated and whotherefore lose considerable revenue due to restrictions placed on thecommercialisation of those products;

Such damage would be considered as damage compensated in accordance withpara k subpara ii of Article I of Vienna Convention and claims would beforwarded to the Accident State.

(ii) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usualagricultural products due to the public’s fear that those products arecontaminated, even though commercial contamination levels were not exceeded(rumour damage) and who lose considerable revenue as a result.

Such damage could be compensated in accordance with para k subpara iii ofArticle I of Vienna Convention if the law of the Accident State provided for that.If it did not and there were no other decision taken by the Accident State or in theresult of bilateral consultations, the State would make a decision whether toprovide reasonable compensation.


� which are obliged to stop production following the accident to determinethe extent of the radioactive contamination, thereby losing income;

See ii.

� which suffer a loss of income in the short term after the accident due to theproven contamination of raw materials;

See i.

� which suffer a loss of income from the cancellation of orders following theaccident due to unfounded rumours of the continued contamination of itsproducts;

See ii.

(iv) Personnel of the above-mentioned industries who claim compensation for havingbeen released from employment following the accident;

See ii.

(v) Loss of income suffered by various businesses in the tourist and service industriesas a result of tourists avoiding the entire region for several months, some on the

13

basis of proven contamination, others on the basis of rumoured contaminationonly;

See ii.



The Ministry of Forestry and the Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection will make the evaluation.


Damage to the environment is not compensated under the Vienna Conventionunless the national law of the Accident State provides otherwise. So, if it does notand there is no other decision taken by the Accident State or in the result ofbilateral consultations, the State will claim the compensation in the InternationalCourt of Justice.

(c) Two airlines from your State cancelled all their flights to and from the principal airportin the Accident State for 24 hours, although that airport remained open. Could theseairlines claim compensation for:


The only airline is state owned. See ii.

� reimbursement of compensation it was required to pay to passengers in respect ofthe cancelled flights ?

See ii.


� nationals of your State who are permanent residents of the Accident State at thetime of the accident?

Yes.

� nationals of your State who are temporarily located in the Accident State at thetime of the accident?

Yes.

(e) If the answer to either part of (d) is “yes”, how would those persons enter claims?Would your State include them under its "national inventory" for the purpose ofcompensating transboundary damage or would they be required to claim as if they werecitizens of the Accident State?

The principle of nationality would apply and they would be included in the nationalinventory based on the information provided by relevant diplomatic missions.

14

(f) A certain number of victims in your State are either not sufficiently compensated fortheir claims or are not compensated at all. Would your State provide additionalcompensation under these circumstances?

Yes, from the state emergency fund and state budget.

TITLE III: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY SPECIFIC AFFECTED STATES(as indicated in the headings)

1. Questions to be answered by State B (RVC) for Scenario 1; by Romania forScenario 2

Both the Slovak Republic in Scenario 1 and Hungary in Scenario 2 are Contracting Parties tothe Vienna Convention. Your State is a Contracting Party to the RVC and your nationallegislation implements its provisions. Please identify possible difficulties in organisingcompensation for victims in your State due to differences between the two Conventions withregard to:

� the definition of nuclear damage;

The definition of nuclear damage under the VC is very limited and includes only death,personal injury and damage to property while the RVC expands this definitionconsiderably. This difference implies that if the law of the Accident State does notcover any other types of damage and there is no other decision taken by the AccidentState or in the result of bilateral consultations, Belarus will be faced with the problemof providing reasonable compensation from its funds.

� their geographic scope of application;

The VC is silent on the scope, so it is understood that it applies to the damage sufferedin the territory of the Contracting Parties, while the RVC applies to the damagewherever suffered. This difference implies that there could be a problem ofcompensating the damage caused to Belarusian nationals and their property if they werepermanent residents or were temporarily located in the territory of the State which isnot a Contracting Party to the VC.

� compensation amounts available;

The limited amount of compensation under the VC will result in the fact that a certainnumber of victims in Belarus will either not sufficiently compensated for their claims orwill not compensated at all, therefore the State will have to provide additionalcompensation from the emergency fund and state budget.

� time limits for submitting claims for personal injury/death.

The consequences are similar to those described above.

Relevant national legislation used: Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for NuclearDamage (is considered as a part of national legislation), Convention on EarlyNotification of a Nuclear Accident (is considered as a part of national legislation), TheCivil Code of the Republic of Belarus, the Law on the Protection of the Public andTerritories against Natural and Technology Related Emergency Situations, theRegulatory Resolution of the Council of Ministers on the State System of EmergencyPreparedness and Response.

15

Belgium________




Decisions are taken by an emergency committee chaired by the Minister of the Interior(*) which brings together all the involved ministerial departments (* or by the Ministerof the Environment if only the environment is concerned). The legal basis is mentionedunder Title III.5.

(b) How do those authorities liaise with the competent authorities in the Accident State toobtain recent and reliable information on releases, contamination etc.

An exchange of technical information (i.e. relating to the radiation risk) is organisedwith the Emergency Director of the other State(s).


See point (b).



The emergency plan comprises an Information Unit which coordinates and manages theinformation disseminated to the public, media, the IAEA, the EU and other States.Information is disseminated through various channels, including diplomatic channels.




It is likely but not organised by any regulation (see c).



16

At present, such a system is not set up. It will as the legislation implementing theamending Protocols will be adopted, within the framework of the RPC and the RBSC.It is to determine whether this system will be made applicable to the case whereBelgium has not ratified yet the PC at the time of the accident.


The answers below describe damages which may be compensated under the Act of 22 July1985 on Nuclear Third Party Liability (corresponding to the PC) and its future version asamended after the ratification of the amending Protocol (RPC). However, considering theabsence of ratification of the JP by Belgium at the time of the accident, the BelgianGovernment may refer to Article XVIII of the RVC, unless the legislator of the installationState did not use the exclusion clause allowed by Article 1.A.3 of the RVC (i.e. allowing theexclusion of NCSs which have nuclear installations and do not afford equivalent reciprocalbenefits).

a) How would the following claims be dealt with:


(Possible compensation PC+RPC).

(ii) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usualagricultural products due to public’s fear that those products are contaminated,even though commercial contamination levels were not exceeded (rumourdamage) and who lose considerable revenue as a result.

(No compensation PC+RPC).



(Possible compensation PC+RPC).


Idem.


(No, PC+RPC).


(No, as long as they are compensated on another ground).

17

(v) Loss of income suffered by various businesses in the tourist and service industries as aresult of tourists avoiding the entire region for several months, some on the basis ofproven contamination, others on the basis of rumoured contamination only;

(The court will examine the causal link PC+RPC).

(b) The contaminated zone includes an extended area of forest in which live anumber of endangered species. This extended area is owned by your State. Howwill your State:

� evaluate the cost of rehabilitating the environment in this extended area offorest?

(Yes, provided the competent court examines whether these measures arereasonable PC+RPC).


(Yes PC+RPC).

(c) Two airlines from your State cancelled all their flights to and from the principalairport in the Accident State for 24 hours, although that airport remained open.Could these airlines claim compensation for:


If the court considers the preventive measure as reasonable, which seemsunlikely in case the competent authorities in charge of the security of theplace where the airport is located have not taken any measure; PC+RPC.

� reimbursement of compensation it was required to pay to passengers inrespect of the cancelled flights, including hotel and meal expenses?

Idem.

(d) Would the following persons be entitled to claim compensation for damagesuffered:

� nationals of your State who are permanent residents of the Accident State atthe time of the accident?

Yes.

� nationals of your State who are temporarily located in the Accident State atthe time of the accident?

Yes.

(e) If the answer to either part of (d) is “yes”, how would those persons enter claims?Would your State include them under its "national inventory" for the purpose ofcompensating trans-boundary damage or would they be required to claim as ifthey were citizens of the Accident State?

18

See answer to point 2(c); in case such a compensation system is introduced, itwould in any case be subject to the express agreement of the interested persons.One may consider that, since the rights of the persons mentioned under point (d)are less hypothetical than those of a non PC State, these persons may have aninterest in introducing an action separately from “their” State.

(f) A certain number of victims in your State are either not sufficiently compensatedfor their claims or are not compensated at all. Would your State provideadditional compensation under these circumstances?

No, an emergency solidarity mechanism is however likely to be established.


5. Questions to be answered by State E (PC, non JP) for Scenario 1, France forScenario 2)

Your State is not party to the Joint Protocol which would permit compensation of victims inyour State for damage caused by either of these accidents, both of which occur in a ViennaConvention State. Will your State provide compensation for such damage and if so, howwould such compensation be organised?

Belgian Law does not organise such a compensation system at the expense of the State.

In emergency situation, the Act of 22 January 1945 on economic regulation and pricesenables the Minister of the Economy to take various measures such as requisitioning (againstcompensation).

The Act of 15 April 1994 on Protection of the Public and the Environment against Radiationand Relating to the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control empowers the King (Article 6paragraph 2d) to take any measure to avoid the dangers arising from the fortuitouscontamination of places, materials or any products by radioactive substances. This Act doesnot comprise a part dealing with compensation, which does not mean that, pursuant to someconstitutional principles protecting property, a court may not order a State to compensate theaddressee of (person concerned by) some measures. In case the PC or the RPC would apply(which is not the case in the exercise), these preventive “measures” would however becovered by the existing nuclear third party liability regime, pursuant to Article 52 of the Actof 25 June 1992 on the land insurance contract (PC) or to the future transposition of the RPCin the above mentioned Act of 22 July 1985 (preventive measures).

The Act of 21 December 1998 relating to the product standards designed to promotesustainable modes of production and consumption and to protect environment and health,enables the King to withdraw from market dangerous products for public health, this Acthowever applies only to the extent that it does not contradict the Act of 15 April 1994 onProtection of the Public and the Environment against Radiation and Relating to the FederalAgency for Nuclear Control. The Act of 21 December 1998 does not comprise either anyprovision on compensation and the above mentioned reasoning applies mutatis mutandis.

In case of a catastrophic situation a specific legal mechanism would certainly be adopted.

19

Canada________

Introduction

The following responses have been prepared exclusively for the purposes of theWorkshop and are without prejudice to any course of action that the Government ofCanada may take in the event of a nuclear accident affecting Canadian interests.

Under Scenario 1, Canada is considered a State F. A State F is an Affected State that isnot Party to one of the nuclear third-party liability conventions.




Decisions on counter-measures in relation to agriculture and industrial activities,including criteria for recommending the action, are normally within provincialjurisdiction. In the event of a provincial request for federal assistance, the FederalNuclear Emergency Plan (FNEP) would be activated. Health Canada is the lead federaldepartment under the Plan. Federal operations, including dissemination of relevantinformation to provinces, departments and Canadian Missions abroad, would becoordinated by the FNEP Coordination and Operations Group.

Federal operations will involve primarily environmental monitoring, control ofimported food and material and implementation of measures for Canadians abroad orreturning to Canada from the affected region. For example, Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada would evaluate the hazard for impacts on agricultural lands, facilities,commodities, plants and livestock. Other federal departments and agencies that wouldbe involved in Canada’s response include the departments of Environment, Fisheriesand Oceans, Foreign Affairs, International Trade, Public Safety and EmergencyPreparedness, National Defence, Natural Resources, the Canadian Border ServicesAgency and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.


Canada is a party to the IAEA Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident,which defines when and how the IAEA should be notified of an event with potentialtransboundary consequences, or when and how the IAEA would notify States Party ofan international event which could have an impact in their territory. Thus, notification,subsequent information and data exchange will follow procedures described in theConvention. In the National Support Centre established under the FNEP – the


20

Coordination and Operations Group will be responsible for ensuring that links withinternational organizations are established and maintained primarily through theDepartment of Foreign Affairs.

Once information is obtained, the FNEP Coordination and Operations Group willcoordinate the distribution of all pertinent information to appropriate federaldepartments and agencies headquarters, to the provincial authorities and to relevantCanadian missions abroad.

(c) Are counter-measures coordinated with neighbouring States?

Depending on the areas affected by the release of radioactive materials (e.g. close to theU.S.-Canada border), Canada may have to coordinate certain measures with anotheraffected State. For example, Canada will want to ensure that the impact ontransboundary transport and commercial exchanges remains minimal in areas notdirectly affected by the release. Coordination between Canada and the U.S. would beconducted through the 1996 Canada-United States Joint Radiological EmergencyResponse Plan. Communications with the relevant States will be conducted primarilythrough the Department of Foreign Affairs.




For a nuclear emergency which occurs in a foreign country, FNEP establishesthat the authoritative source of public and media information will be establishedby the National Support Centre. The FNEP Public Affairs Group (PAG) willsupport a designated federal spokesperson by coordinating all public informationand will establish and operate media monitoring, briefing and public inquiriescentres. In these situations, the main focus of the federal response will be on theassessment of the radiological impact and protection of Canadians living ortravelling abroad near the event site, on the control of food and material importsinto Canada from areas affected by the emergency, on the assessment of impactsin Canada, on coordination of assistance to the affected country, and on publicinformation. The Department of Foreign Affairs will assist the PAG indisseminating the information to Canadians abroad.


To be determined.


To be determined.


To be determined.

21



(i) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usualagricultural products because those products were proven contaminated and whocommer therefore lose considerable revenue due to restrictions placed on thecialisation of those products;







(v) Loss of income suffered by various businesses in the tourist and service industriesas a result of tourists avoiding the entire region for several months, some on thebasis of proven contamination, others on the basis of rumoured contaminationonly;

Canada is not party to any international nuclear liability convention. Canadianclaimants would therefore have to seek redress by pursuing regular civilrecourses in domestic courts, both Canadian and foreign. Under Canadian law,the jurisdiction of the courts of the defendant’s place of business is generallyrecognized. However, Canadian courts may also be found to have jurisdictionover matters involving damages suffered in Canada. Judges have the discretionto stay proceedings in Canada if they believe another jurisdiction is better placedto hear the claim or if another court has already been seized of a similar claim.

The quantification of damages by courts in cases of nuclear damages is difficultto assess given the limited experience in Canada with these types of incidents.

As regards proceedings before a Canadian court against a foreign State, the StateImmunity Act, RSC c S-18, provides that foreign States are generally immunefrom prosecution in Canada. However, a foreign State is not immune from thejurisdiction of a Canadian court in any proceedings that relate to any death orpersonal injury, or any damage to or loss of property that occurs in Canada. Assuch, private parties adversely affected could seek compensation to the extent thatthe immunity does not apply.

22

Depending on the circumstances (e.g. international wrongful act), Canada mayhave a claim against the Accident State under general international legal rulesgoverning State responsibility. Under international law, a State is responsible forinjury to an alien caused by its wrongful act or omission. Diplomatic protection isthe procedure employed by the State of nationality of the injured person to secureprotection of that person and to obtain reparation for the internationally wrongfulact inflicted. In exercising diplomatic protection the State adopts in its own rightthe cause of its national arising from the internationally wrongful act of anotherState. Diplomatic protection includes judicial proceedings. A State can espousethe claim if: a) the individual who suffered the international wrongful act was itsnational at the time of the injury and at the time of the espousal of the claim; andb) the individual has exhausted local remedies in the foreign State.




FNEP section 5.2.5 refers to protective measures on federal lands, which will becarried out in accordance with local and provincial plans, and if required federalregional headquarters will implement protective measures in coordination withthe province. Section 6.2 states that responsibility for recovery is largely withinprovincial jurisdiction. Federal involvement or support to provinces during therecovery phase will include amongst other things: environmentaldecontamination and radioactive waste disposal operations; and monitoring ofcontaminated areas and assessment of medium and long-term health hazards.FNEP lists a number of federal departments and agencies including EnvironmentCanada, Health Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission as havingprimary or secondary responsibilities in supporting the provincial recovery phase.

(c) Two airlines from your State cancelled all their flights to and from the principalairport in the Accident State for 24 hours, although that airport remained open. Couldthese airlines claim compensation for:



Same as 3(a).



A Canadian court may have jurisdiction if there is a real and substantialconnection between the facts of the case and the court. The nationality andresidency of individuals are some of the factors that will be taken intoconsideration.


23

Same as immediately above.


Not applicable.


To be determined.



As your State is not party to any international nuclear liability convention, any claims willmost likely be brought before your national courts and be determined according to yournational law.

How will you ensure recognition and enforcement of such decisions in the State in whoseterritory the liable operator’s installation is situated (Slovak Republic in Scenario 1; Germanyin Scenario 2)?

Under Scenario 1, once a judgment is obtained in Canada from a court of justice, privateparties, whether under a class action or individually, will have to ask a court in Slovakia torecognize and enforce the Canadian judgment. Canada is not party to any convention on therecognition and enforcement of judgments to which the Slovak Republic may be party. Thejudgement would therefore have to be recognized and executed under the legislation of theSlovak Republic applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

25

Croatia________




As of II 1. (a) – Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Water Management in cooperationwith State Office for Radiation Protection, State Office for Nuclear Safety (SONS) andNational Protection and Rescue Directorate as a leading organization in a crisessituation.


As of II 1. (b) – Through the Technical Support Center – leading technical organizationin the case of nuclear emergency, operated by the State Office for Nuclear Safety.


As of II 1. (c) - Yes.





As of II 2. (a) – About the accident: from the National Protection RescueDirectorate, abut the claims instruction: from the SONS, both using a publicmedia;


As of II 2. (b) – Yes, but it has to be organize and develop in details through theactivities of SONS and Croatian Nuclear Pool (CNP).



26

As of II 2. (c) - Yes, but it has to be organized and developed in details through theactivities of SONS and other relevant governmental bodies.











As of II 3. (a) – Relevant governmental organizations will provide the evidenceof contamination level on the affected territory and other available data as a basisfor calculating the damages. SONS and CNP will provide instruction for makingclaim request for compensation of the damages.




As of II 3. (b) – By the procedure developed in Ministry of Agriculture, Forestand Water Management.

27




As of II 3. (c) – No clear answer.




As of II 3. (d) – Yes, yes.


As of II 3. (e) – According to their request.


As of II 3. (f) – No.


2. Questions to be answered by State C (VC) for Scenario 1 only

Pursuant to your State’s joint emergency plan with State A, a certain part of your State’sterritory is covered by the evacuation radius and a further part is covered by the sheltering andiodine distribution radius.

(a) How were these preventive measures coordinated with State A?

As of III 2. (a) – Through the information exchange between the Technical SupportCenter and the designated emergency contact point in State A and/or IAEA EmergencyCenter.

(b) Who made the decision on when such preventive measures would be lifted?

As of III 2. (b) - National Protection and Rescue Directorate based on recommendationsby the Technical Support Center.

28

(c) How would you respond to compensation claims by radiation workers from your Stateworking at the installation at the time of the accident, who were exposed to radiation?

As of III 2. (c) – Advising the worker(s) to claim for compensation in the State A.

3. Questions to be answered by Joint Protocol States for both Scenarios 1 and 2

The Joint Protocol provides that in the case of a nuclear incident at a nuclear installation, theapplicable Convention is the one to which the State, on whose territory the liable operator’sinstallation is situated, is a Party. This means that for Scenario 1, the Vienna Convention willapply and the applicable national law will be that of the Slovak Republic.

The Joint Protocol also provides that if a nuclear incident occurs during transport, theapplicable Convention is the one to which the State, on whose territory the liable operator’sinstallation is situated, is a Party.2 This means that for Scenario 2, the Paris Convention willapply but the applicable national law will be that of Hungary.

With respect to both scenarios, how would your State:

� obtain detailed information on the applicable legislative systems and the procedures tofollow for making claims?

� bring that information to the attention of people in your State who are likely to havesuffered damage?

� compile an inventory of those having suffered damage?

� assist victims in the procedures for claiming compensation?

� monitor the progress of such claims?

� arrange for the recognition and enforcement of decisions of the competent court in yourState?

As of III 3.

• By asking Slovakian and German nuclear safety authorities and theirs nuclearpools;

• By disseminating the information through public media;• Based on theirs request;• See answer to item II 2. (c);• See answer to item II 2. (c);• Based on international treaties.

Zagreb, 15 April 2005

2. “Liable” in this sense means liable under either Article II.1 (b) or (c) of the Vienna Conventionor under Article 4(a) or (b) of the Paris Convention.

29

Czech Republic______________




Generally the responsible person is the head of affected territory/administration unit; incase that more units are affected it is the prime minister.

This head makes decisions on the basis on recommendations prepared by responsibleexpert bodies. If the recommended countermeasures are some restrictions therestrictions can be set up/ordered by the relevant competent bodies.


In the Czech Republic is any information on any accident requested/disseminated withrespect to the relevant acts and to the relevant bilateral agreements and internationalconventions – i. e. with respect to the Acts No. 239/2000 Coll., on Integrated Rescuesystem, No. 240/2000 Coll., on Crisis Management, No. 18/1997 Coll., Atomic Act, allas amended, with respect to the bilateral agreements Czech Republic – Slovak Republicand Czech Republic – Hungary and with respect to the Convention on EarlyNotification of a Nuclear Accident.

Whenever any such information about abroad nuclear and/or radiological accident shallbe obtained the declared point of contact (State Office for Nuclear Safety) ensures thisrequest.


This co-ordination has not been planned in any emergency plan.




In the Czech Republic is any information on any accident requested/disseminatedwith respect to the relevant acts and to the relevant bilateral agreements andinternational conventions – i. e. with respect to the Acts No. 239/2000 Coll., onIntegrated Rescue system, No. 240/2000 Coll., on Crisis Management, No.


30

18/1997 Coll., Atomic Act, all as amended, with respect to the bilateralagreements Czech Republic – Slovak Republic and Czech Republic – Hungaryand with respect to the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident.

The information arrives to declared point of contact (State Office for NuclearSafety and/or General Directorate of Fire Rescue Brigade) from this point it istransferred to Regional and/or to Central Crisis Headquarters and from there toRegional, respectively to State Safety Council.

The fax messages are supposed to be used as preferred means but phone calls andelectronic mail messages can be used, too.


Basic information is given in the Atomic Act (No. 18/1997 Coll.) and details(according the actual accident and indemnification of the liable party) will bemade available to the public through press releases and in cooperation with theinsurers (National Nuclear Insurance Pool) through their web sites. The sameprocedure would be used in case of an accident in another country.


The inventory of victims for the purpose of state financial aid for the recovery of goodsensuring the basic functions in the affected region pursuant to the Act No. 12/2002Coll., on the state aid, are organising the Regional authorities in the case of declarationof the state of danger or the state of emergency.

The inventories of victims for another purposes could be organised on occasion afterthe ad-hoc decision of the State or Regional authorities commensurate with the scaleand character of damage.


Such activities are not planned in this time.




Natural persons and corporate bodies injured have the right to claim thecompensations. Way in which such problem would be solved depends on morefactors and it would be selected according the actual situation.


31

No.



See answer (i.)


See answer (i.)


No.


Compensations to the released personnel pay usually the employer. In this casethose compensations would be a part of the losses of the companies concerned.The way of solution depends on actual situation.


Not on the basis of rumoured contamination. Loss of income on the basis ofproven contamination would be solved ad-hoc according the actual situation.



The costs of rehabilitating the environment will include:

− deactivation of forest ground, ragged wood, fresh water resources,buildings and facilities

− sanitation and disposal of contaminated soil, wood waste, dead animals− losses of the wood production− recovery of the damaged dendroflora− losses of the off-production functions of the forest (recreational, hygienic,

environmental, damage of the genofund)− prevention and medical care for the persons, performing decontamination

works.

32

In the course of contamination of a large territory a decision could be made toleave the area to the spontaneous evolution. In this case the costs will include− evacuation and translocation of local population out of the contaminated

area− monitoring of the contaminated area.

Additional costs will be spent for− requalification of employees who lost their jobs following the accident− enhanced social expenses− emergency accommodation.


According to the Vienna Convention and the Joint Protocol.



No.


No.



Yes.


Yes


Those persons would enter their claims directly and separately.


It shall depend on ad-hoc government decision.

33





The Czech Republic has not any common emergency planning zone with neighbouringcountry and has not any joint emergency plans with neighbouring states. Czechlegislation does not postulate such situation. We cannot answer this question.


See answer (a).


The Czech radiation workers could be personnel of the Czech employer, employerfrom the Accident State or employer from another State. In all cases they would makecompensation claims to their employers.











34


Answer: (to all particular questions above)

The Czech Republic will act pursuant to international law and international agreementswhich contracting party it is. According to Vienna and Paris Convention are competentthe courts of Accident State and recognition and enforcement of their decisions arewarranted on the territory of each contracting party. All particular questions would besolved ad-hoc according the situation and actual needs.

35

Estonia________




The central competent bodies deciding on counter-measures in relation to agricultureand industrial activities and export/import are the Crises Management Committee of theGovernment of the Republic, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of EconomicAffairs and Communication. Decision process on counter-measures is supported byforecast from the Estonian Meteorological and Hydrological Institute and monitoringdata and assessment results on environmental contamination, which will be issued bythe Estonian Radiation Protection Centre (ERPC).


The authorities mentioned above have not direct liaison with the competent authoritiesin the Accident State; however, the information needed will be obtained through IAEAand EC ECURIE communication channels with the ERPC as the contact point forinternational communication.


There is no direct co-ordination on counter-measures with neighbouring states. Thebasis for decision-making is the recommendation issued by the IAEA, thus the counter-measures should have international acceptance.




The information on an accident and its possible consequences is disseminated tothe public by mass media announcing the notices of the Government of theRepublic, the State Chancellery or the Crises Management Committee of theGovernment of the Republic.


36


The Government of the Republic will decide how to disseminate this kind ofinformation to the public.


State will organise the inventory of victims using local governments and local rescueservice agencies that will collect the information on their territory and then submit it tothe central competent bodies.



There are no dangerous nuclear objects in Estonia and no special legislation in this field.Emergency situations will be dealt according to international conventions and agreements,generally recognised principles and rules of international law, the Constitution of theRepublic of Estonia, the Emergency Preparedness Act, the Emergency Situation Act, and theNational Crisis Management Plan.

The claims management will be decided separately in every individual accident concerningspecific realities. The Government of the Republic has the competence to decide claimsmanagement – how persons who have suffered because of accident can claim for thecompensation of damage and how the further national proceeding will be organised. TheMinistry of Foreign Affairs will represent Estonia in international communication withSlovak Republic.

37

Finland________

TITLE II: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL AFFECTED STATES1

(Scenarios 1 and 2)



The rescue authority will be the general supervisor of the situation. It co-ordinates theco-operation between the various authorities. At each supervisory level commandcentres will be used. Representatives of the most important co-operative sectors willalso be operating at these centres.

The responsibilities

The Ministry of the Interior:• Protective measures in severe hazards situations affecting widespread areas• Establishing a command centre with governemental authorities for co-

ordininating activities

Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK)• Overview of the accident and radiation situation• Assessment of the harmful effects regarding safety of the population and the

environnement• Recommendations for protective measures• Information about the situation to domestic and foreign counterparts and to media• advise, e.g. the industry, trade, transport and customs authorities regarding the

reduction of harmful effects• International assistance relating to radiation expertise

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry:• Orders and instructions concerning e.g. milk and meat and crops, forestry and

peat production

The National Food Administration subject to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry(The Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health aretaking part in agreeing the annual work plan of the Administration):• The supervision of foodstuffs in the processing and delivery and supervision of

retail foods

The Ministry of Trade and Industry:• Energy management, storage of reserve supplies and foreign trade

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health:• General safety of public health and social security also in radiation hazards

1. These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: the SlovakRepublic; nor by the Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary.

38

• Orders concerning the monitoring and quality of drinking water

The Defense Forces:• Participation in rescue activities by supplying the necessary equipment, personnel

and special expert services

The Ministry of Transport and Communication;• Matters concerning traffics, transports and communication links

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs:• Intensified communication to Finnish ambassies abroad and to embassies of

foreign countries in Finland

The State Provincial Offices with other regional administrative authorities:• Monitoring the accident situation, supervise rescue activities and direct the

activities of their subordinate authorities

The municipalities of the danger area:• Implementation the decision and instruction pertaining the rescue activities and

other areas of administration• Issue of information to the residents of their own area• Directing the activities and co-ordination of their own area


Finland has bilateral agreements on early notification of a nuclear accident and on theexchange of information on nuclear facilities with:

• The Nordic countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark• Russia• Germany• Ukraine

In Finland, the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) is the national warningpoint and the competent authority (a domestic nuclear accident, a radiologicalemergency and an accident abroad). STUK is responsible for notifying the foreigncountries and sending information about the situation and countermeasures. STUK hasa 24-hour duty system.


Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) sends without prior requestinformation about the situation and countermeasures to the other countries (countrieswith the bilateral agreements, IAEA, EU and WHO). Written notifications are sent bythe fax. Email and phone contacts are used, also. STUK has nominated contact personsfor the IAEA, EU and WHO.

EU regulations concerning radioactivity concentrations on food and feeding stuff applyin Finland.

39

The Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Finland) has had a longcooperation in the field of harmonization countermeasures. The Nordic countries haveissued joint intervention policy document “Nordic Intervention Criteria for Nuclear orRadiological Emergencies – Recommendations” including criteria for preventivesheltering iodine prophylaxis and precautionary evacuation. The Nordic countries alsoinform each other about decisions on so called light countermeasures (such asrecommendations concerning travelling, transport and trade).





The authority in charge is responsible for general information about the accidentand rescue activities. Authorities at governmental, provincial and municipal levelprovide information about their own activities and given instructions regardingtheir own sphere of responsibility. STUK supplies information concerning theaccident, the radiation situation and the impact of the situation on public healthand safety.

In a very serious situation, the information unit of the Council of State isresponsible for the co-ordination of the information.

Information is mainly conveyed through the media. Many authorities will alsosupply additional information via their Internet pages.

STUK supplies information concerning the accident, the radiation situation andthe impact of the situation on public health and safety via media, the Teletextpages of Finnish Broadcasting Company and via Internet pages (www.stuk.fi).

The public would be informed through the media about the manner in whichclaims can be made.


It is very likely that the Finnish government would organise and inventory of victimsand damage in Finland.


The Finnish government would most likely in the claims-proceedings.


In general, it is difficult to understand the rationale of this line of questioning since Finnishcourts would not be competent and Finnish law would not be applied in either scenario.

Anyway what can be said is the following:

40



Claims would be quite valid.


Damage through rumor was quite unlikely to be compensated due to the nature ofsuch damage being pure economic damage.


� which are obliged to stop production following the accident to determine theextent of the radioactive contamination, thereby losing income;



Damage in the first two types of losses would likely be compensated but not inthe last case because the concept of pure economic damage.


The courts would likely cut the chain of causality at this point. The law is silenton this point and it is up to interpretation.

(v) Loss of income suffered by various businesses in the tourist and service industriesas a result of tourists avoiding the entire region for several months, some on thebasis of proven contamination, others on the basis of rumoured contaminationonly?


� Evaluate the cost of rehabilitating the environment in this extended area of forest?

� Claim compensation for such cost?

Most likely through existing statistics on forest land and existing indicators of monetaryvalue of endangered species which are used in applying criminal law.

41




The airlines would not in all likelihood be compensated.



� nationals of your State who are temporarily located in the Accident State at the timeof the accident?


(d-e) If these nationals did sustain damage they would be entitled to claimcompensation. If the Accident State is a Paris country or a JP-country such peoplewould automatically have the right to compensation. Otherwise the Finnish governmentwould likely include then in the national inventory.


This would mostly depend on the grounds of insufficient compensation.





2. “Liable” in this sense means liable under either Article II.1 (b) or (c) of the ViennaConvention or under Article 4(a) or (b) of the Paris Convention.

42








Finland would most likely establish an expert group/group of experts to solve anyproblems having to do with lacking information. If adequate information is notavailable in the Olis system information would be acquired through diplomaticschannels.

People would likely be approached through the media with notification as to whatgovernment body to send their assessment of damage and claims to.

Possibly the government would assist searching common legal representation toclaimants and possibly providing financial aid where necessary.

The recognition and enforcement of decisions of the competent court is established bylaw.

43

France________


(Scenarios 1 and 2)



The alert would be given in France by the Diplomatic Transmissions Centre (Centre detransmissions diplomatiques – CTD) of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs which isresponsible for round-the-clock monitoring, and by the General Directorate for NuclearSafety and Radiation Protection (Direction générale de la sûreté nucléaire et de laradioprotection – DGSNR), the former being the national warning centre, and the latterthe competent national authority under the 1986 Conventions and Decision87/600/Euratom of the EU Council of 14 December 1987 on Community arrangementsfor the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency, foractivating and implementing national emergency measures.

As soon as it is informed of an incident occurring abroad, the CTD immediatelyforwards this information to the DGSNR for action, and to the Prime Minister (via themonitoring and warning unit of the General Secretariat for National Defence) forinformation. The DGSNR then assesses the nature of the risk for the population and theenvironment and, if necessary, informs the public and immediately alerts the authoritiesresponsible for organising national emergency measures.

Under V-2.2.1.1, of the Interministerial Directive of 7 April 2005 on the measures to betaken by the authorities in the event of an incident involving a radiological emergency,“The Prime Minister, responsible for government action, shall ensure interministerialco-ordination”. At any time, the Prime Minister may, on his own initiative or at therequest of a minister, convene the Interministerial Nuclear or Radiological EmergencyCommittee (CICNR, created by Decree No. 2003-865 of 8 September 2003), which willbe responsible for proposing the measures to be taken. The CICNR, the Secretariat ofwhich is ensured by the Secretary-General for National Defence (SGDN), who is also amember, comprises the Ministers responsible for Foreign Affairs, Defence, theEnvironment, Industry, the Interior, Health, and Transport, or their representatives.Other ministers (for example, the Minister for Agriculture) and departments (forexample, the General Marine Secretariat and the nuclear safety authorities) orestablishments concerned (such as the IRSN, Météo-France), as well as the heads ofnational nuclear operators (for example, EDF, the CEA or COGEMA) may be asked toattend, when necessary.

As the regulatory authority, the DGSNR provides advice to the competent centraldepartments (Ministry for Agriculture, Ministry for Industry, etc.) on immediatemeasures to be taken to protect the public and the environment (after consulting theIRSN).

1. These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: the SlovakRepublic; nor by the Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary.

44

(b) How do those authorities liaise with the competent authorities in the Accident State toobtain recent and reliable information on releases, contamination, etc.?

The DGSNR is the contact point for international exchanges of information aboutreleases, contamination, and the nature of the accident and its evolution. Otherauthorities may be involved with regard to other specific points. The DGSNR contactsthe competent authority of the Accident State (on the basis of the list of contact pointssupplied by the EU and the IAEA).

Furthermore, in liaison with the DGSNR, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (CTD)forwards information on the measures adopted to the embassies concerned (foreignembassies in France and/or French embassies abroad).

Item V-1.6 of the Interministerial Directive of 7 April 2005 on the measures to be takenby the authorities in the event of an incident involving a radiological emergencyprovides that “The Prefect shall apply any cross-border agreements concerning thewarning to be given in respect of the incidents. Where such agreements provide forwarning arrangements, he shall implement them.” The Prefect must neverthelessinform the competent national authority concerned of the content of the informationtransmitted/received on this basis.


Counter-measures may be co-ordinated with States which have signed informationexchange agreements with France.

In the event of an emergency, the DGSNR is the guarantor of the application of thebilateral information exchange agreements with the following countries: Germany,Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, United Kingdom.

Under these agreements, provision is made for information exchange and the co-ordination of the counter-measures to be taken in the event of an emergency, inparticular in respect of border regions. Annual meetings with each of the co-contracting States are organised to discuss the harmonisation of emergency plans andpossible counter-measures, and to agree in advance those which should be taken in theevent of an emergency.

Although agreement may not be reached on what counter-measures to take, the Statesconcerned are informed of what is being done. Information is usually exchangedbetween bodies which are counterparts: regulatory authorities between themselves,technical support bodies, local authorities, etc.



� the accident which took place, its possible consequences in the Accident State and inyour State?

Under item V.2.2.1.1. of the Interministerial Directive of 7 April 2005, it is stated thatwhen the incident occurs abroad, the Prime Minister may ask the Minister for ForeignAffairs to take all necessary measures to protect French nationals on the spot.

See item V-3 of the Interministerial Directive of 7 April 2005 on the measures to betaken by the authorities in the event of an incident involving a radiological emergency:

45

“Those responsible for communicating information about the emergency […] shall be:The Prime Minister and the Ministerial authorities;The Prefect or Maritime Prefect, director of relief operations;The nuclear safety authorities;The IRSN, after the agreement of the nuclear safety authorities;Météo-France;The operator.[…]

V-3.1. Information at local level

The director of relief operations ensures that the population concerned has been warnedand puts into effect the agreement concluded with Radio France to inform the public inemergency situations.

Government services make their experts available to draft the information messages.The messages are repeated as often as necessary. They may relate to two subjects inparticular:

V-3.1.1. What to do

This information contains detailed advice about safety measures.

It is targeted at people who might be directly affected by the radiological emergency.The information is therefore given in the form of short, clear messages disseminatedvery rapidly and at regular intervals by the most appropriate means (for example,automated telephone calls, radiophonic or audiovisual channels, information systemsspecific to the operators concerned).

V-3.1.2. Information about the incident

This aims to give a summary of the nature of the incident and of its immediate andlikely short-term consequences, and to provide information about the developingsituation to all local players (including the number of victims, damage, nature of themeasures taken).

V-3.2. Information at national level

Responsibility for communications from the government lies with the Prime Ministerand, in liaison with the government’s information service (SIG), with the minister incharge of implementing government measures. This minister sets up under him acommunications unit responsible for assisting in drafting messages and disseminatingthem to the public.

Such communications must be tailored to fit needs and relate to:

V-3.2.1. General information

This concerns an assessment of the situation and the general measures which have beentaken. It is contained in communiqués issued by the minister responsible forimplementing government action, prepared in close co-operation with the SIG.

46

V-3.2.2. Technical information

This information describes the short- and medium-term risks arising from the situation,based in particular on the nature of the radiological materials involved, their quantityand the circumstances of the incident, as well as the weather situation.”

� the manner in which claims can be made against the operator liable for this accident?

A circular will be prepared and distributed by the authorities to inform the public aboutthe rules for compensating any damage and explain the claims procedure.


There is no provision, in the regulations, for an inventory of persons on French territoryunless they suffered physical injury immediately after the occurrence of the accident.

However, if the nuclear accident had resulted in loss of human life or a sizeable numberof serious casualties, the Plan rouge (Red plan) would have been activated. In suchcase, the Prefect in charge of co-ordinating relief operations must be given an initialinventory of victims within the hour following activation of the Plan rouge (Decree No.88-622 of 6 May 1988 on emergency plans, and Circular No. 89-21 of 19 December1989 on the content and preparation of the plans for cases where there are numerousvictims – “Plans rouges”).

(c) Would your State assist them in bringing their proceedings? How?

The French Delegation will provide answers to these questions at the Workshop.



(i) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usualagricultural products because those products were proven contaminated and whotherefore lose considerable revenue due to restrictions placed on thecommercialisation of those products?

Scenario No. 1:

A) Under the current agreements signed by France and the Slovak Republic

Under the regulations currently applicable in the Slovak Republic, victimslocated on the contaminated French territory would not be able to claim anycompensation under the Vienna or Paris Conventions. The Vienna Convention, towhich the Slovak Republic has adhered, applies to contracting parties only, andFrance is not a party to the Vienna Convention or to the 1988 Joint Protocol.

B) Evolving situation

As soon as France has adhered to the Paris Convention as revised by the 2004Protocol, victims on French territory will be able to claim compensation on thetwo-fold condition that the Slovak Republic adheres to the Protocol amending the

47

Vienna Convention and that, either Slovak law does not exclude its application toStates which are not parties to the Vienna Convention which, at the time of theaccident, have a nuclear installation on their territory, or the Slovak authoritiesconsider that French law grants equivalent reciprocal benefits.

If these conditions are met, victims will be able, within the limits laid down bythe Vienna Convention, its amending Protocol and the law of the SlovakRepublic, to claim compensation for any direct damage to property or economicloss.

Scenario No. 2

A) Under the current agreements signed by France and Germany

It is the Paris Convention which is applicable since the German operator at theorigin of the nuclear accident causing damage belongs to a contracting party tothe Paris Convention.

Victims could claim, within the limits laid down by the Paris Convention,compensation for direct damage to property.


Under the Paris Convention as amended by the 2004 Protocol, in addition tocompensation for direct damage to property, victims can also claim compensationfor direct economic loss.

(ii) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usualagricultural products due to the public’s fear that those products arecontaminated, even though commercial contamination levels were not exceeded(rumour damage) and who lose considerable revenue as a result?

Scenario No. 1


France gives the same answer as under item 3 a) (i) A).


Even if the conditions referred to in item 3 a) (i) B) § 1 were met, victims couldnot, in our view, claim any compensation since the loss suffered could not beconsidered to be direct.

However, it would be interesting to know how the courts would analyse thisparticular case, in particular as to whether rumour can constitute a causal link.

Scenario No. 2

A) Under current agreements

The Paris Convention does not provide for the compensation of non-materialdamage.

48


We do not think that the 2004 revision Protocol of the Paris Convention enablesvictims to claim any compensation whatsoever since it cannot be considered thatthe damage suffered, even if non-material, is direct.


(iii) Industries in the contaminated area (e.g. food processing)

� which are obliged to stop production following the accident to determine theextent of the radioactive contamination, thereby losing income?

Scenario No. 1




Provided the conditions referred to in item 3 a) (i) B) § 1 were met, victims couldclaim compensation, especially if the French public authorities asked forproduction to be stopped in order to determine the extent of the radioactivecontamination. The loss would then be direct.

Scenario No. 2


The Paris Convention does not provide for the compensation of non-materialdamage or of costs arising from preventive measures.


Since non-material damage is clearly referred to in the Paris Convention asamended b Convention, and notably if the French authorities asked for productionto by the 2004 Protocol, victims can claim compensation within the limits of thesaide stopped in order to determine the extent of the radioactive contamination.Such a decision by the authorities should be considered as a preventive measurewithin the meaning of the 2004 revision Protocol.

� which suffer a loss of income in the short term after the accident due to theproven contamination of raw materials?

Scenario No. 1



49


Provided the conditions referred to in item 3 a) (i) B) § 1 were met, victims couldclaim compensation since this would be direct damage to property.

Scenario No. 2

Under both the Paris Convention and the 2004 revision Protocol, victims canclaim compensation since this is direct damage to property.

� which suffer a loss of income from the cancellation of orders following theaccident due to unfounded rumours of the continued contamination of itsproducts?

Scenario No. 1




Even if the conditions referred to in item 3 a) (i) B) § 1 were met, the victimscould not, in our opinion, claim any compensation since it could not beconsidered that the damage suffered is direct.


Scenario No. 2

Under both the Paris Convention and the 2004 revision Protocol, victims couldnot, in our opinion, claim any compensation since it cannot be considered in thecircumstances that the damage is direct.


(iv) Personnel of the above-mentioned industries who claim compensation for having beenreleased from employment following the accident?

Scenario No. 1




Provided the conditions referred to in item 3 a) (i) B § 1 were met, victims couldindirectly claim compensation. The industrial entrepreneur would first have to havebeen compensated by the competent courts of the Slovak Republic. It is French law

50

which would then apply to determine the allocation of compensation between theentrepreneur and the employees.

Outside application of nuclear third party liability legislation, dismissed personnelcould claim loss of employment indemnities from their employer.

Scenario No. 2

Under both the Paris Convention and the revision Protocol of 2004, victims couldindirectly claim compensation. The industrial entrepreneur would first have to havebeen compensated by the competent courts of Germany. It is French law which wouldthen apply to determine the allocation of compensation between the entrepreneur andthe employees.

Outside application of nuclear third party liability legislation, dismissed personnelcould claim loss of employment indemnities from their employer.

(v) Loss of income suffered by various businesses in the tourist and service industries as aresult of tourists avoiding the entire region for several months, some on the basis ofproven contamination, others on the basis of rumoured contamination only?

Scenario No. 1




Provided the conditions referred to in item 3 a) (i) B) § 1 were met, victims could claimpartial compensation. However, only damage resulting from the scientifically provenexistence of contamination would give rise to compensation.

However, it would be interesting to whether the courts would decide that rumour canconstitute a causal link.

Scenario No. 2

Under both the Paris Convention and the 2004 revision Protocol, victims could claimpartial compensation. However, only damge resulting from the scientifically provenexistence of contamination would give rise to compensation.

However, it would be interesting to know whether the courts would decide that rumourcan constitute a causal link.



Scenarios 1 and 2

51

The French State can call on the services of bodies such as the Institute forRadiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Institut de Radioprotection et de SûretéNucléaire – IRSN) or the National Institute for the Industrial Environment andRisks (Institut National de l’Environnement Industriel et des Risques – INERIS),specialised in risk assessment. They can help prepare reports to determine thecost of rehabilitating the environment.


Scenario No. 1


France cannot claim compensation for such costs for the reasons referred to underitem 3 a) (i) A).


Provided the conditions referred to under item 3 a) (i) B) § 1 were met, theFrench State could claim compensation for damge to the environment and theloss of forestry income.

Scenario No. 2


The Paris Convention doe not provide for the compensation of damage to theenvironment. The French State could not therefore claim any compensation fromGermany.


Since damage to the environment is included in the revision Protocol of 2004,France could claim compensation from Germany.



Scenarios 1 and 2

In no case could airlines claim compensation.

� reimbursement of compensation it was required to pay to passengers in respect ofthe cancelled flights?

Scenarios 1 and 2

In no case could airlines claim compensation.

52

(d) Would the following persons be entitled to claim compensation for damge suffered:


Scenarios 1 and 2

Yes, on the basis of the Convention applicable (Vienna or Paris) and thelegislation of the country of the operator liable.


Scenarios Nos. 1 and 2

Yes, on the basis of the Convention applicable (Vienna or Paris) and thelegislation of the country of the operator liable.

(e) If the answer to either part of (d) is “yes”, how would those persons enter claims?Would your State include them under its “national inventory” for the purpose ofcompensating transboundary damage or would they be required to claim as if they werecitizens of the Accident State?

They would have to claim compensation as if they were citizens of the Accident State.They would be assisted in this by the French Consulate of the country of the operatorliable.


There is not at the moment any provision allowing for additional compensation.


5. Questions to be answered by State E (PC, non JP) for Scenario 1, France forScenario 2


Scenario No. 1

On the basis of the current legislation on nuclear third party liability alone, France could notadmit claims for compensation from victims on French territory since France is not party tothe Vienna Convention or to the Joint Protocol of 1988.

As soon as France has adhered to the Paris Convention as revised by the 2004 Protocol,victims located on French territory will be able to claim compensation on the two-fold

53

condition that the Slovak Republic adheres to the Protocol amending the Vienna Conventionand, either Slovak law has not excluded from its field of application States who are notcontracting parties to the Vienna Convention which, at the time of the accident, have anuclear installation on their territory, or the Slovak authorities consider that French law grantsequivalent reciprocal benefits.

If these conditions are met, victims will be able to claim compensation within the limits laiddown by the Vienna Convention, its amending Protocol and the law of the Slovak Republic.

Scenario No. 2

It is the Paris Convention which is applicable. Therefore, victims present on French territorycan claim compensation.

55

Germany____________

TITLE I: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED ONLY BY THE ACCIDENT STATEOR BY THE STATE OF THE LIABLE OPERATOR (as indicated in the footnotes)

3. Nuclear Insurer1

(a) Who is responsible for informing the nuclear operator's insurer of the accident?

The operator liable is responsible to inform the insurer of the accident.

(b) Is the operator's insurer permanently on call?

Yes.

(c) How does the operator’s insurer mobilise its resources?

By modern means of communication.

(d) Does the insurer liaise with insurers in Affected States if damage is suffered in thoseStates?

Yes, in most cases via the respective Pools.

(e) Are emergency assistance payments provided for? If so, how are such payments madeto victims in the Accident State and to victims in Affected States?

Emergency assistance payments can be provided by the insurer with respect to its ownobligations. A requirement for receiving emergency assistance payments limited inamount from the insurer is that the victim demonstrates probability of damage. Ifapplicable the sum will be set off against a possible overall claim of the claimant.

(f) If such emergency assistance payments exist,

� What expenses do they cover (medical, food, accommodation)?

The emergency assistance payments cover damage as defined in the ParisConvention as implemented by the Atomic Energy Act, i.e. damage to life orhealth or damage or loss of property that has been caused by a nuclear event.Whether a specific damage is recoverable or not must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Damage to the nuclear facility itself and damage to common propertyare excluded from damage liability.

� Is there a maximum amount per person?

A lump sum of € 500 per person is foreseen.

1. Questions to be answered by the State of the liable operator: Slovak Republic in Scenario 1,Germany in Scenario 2.

56

� What are the criteria for payment of such sums and how are they made?

Following requirements have to be met:

− plausibility of claim;− obvious hardship;− reservation of reimbursement.

4. Claims Management2

(a) How will you obtain comprehensive inventories of nuclear damage suffered

� On your national territory?

There are two levels of establishing an inventory of nuclear damage

− the insurer collect all claims raised broad in a data base until the insurershave paid the insured amount;

− the state authority (local and Länder authorities and Federal Government)also collects information on the damage suffered. Public authorities and theinsurers exchange all information.

� In Affected States whose victims are entitled to claim compensation pursuant toan applicable international third party liability regime?

It is up to the respective victims and, as the case may be, to the affected State, tocontact the operator liable and the Government. We cannot impose duties toinform us on other States. We can only recommend to do so.

(b) Who is responsible for handling compensation claims?

The insurers up to the insured amount: In excess of the insured amount the operator isresponsible for claims handling.

(c) Who is responsible for the costs of handling compensation claims?

Claims handling costs usually lie with the insurer up to the insured amount and beyondthat the operator liable.

(d) Do you have a system for making an initial assessment of the extent of the damagewhich would allow the operator, insurer, the competent court and the State to establisha rough estimate of the damage?

See answer to Question 4 (a).

2. Questions to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: Slovak Republic, and by theAccident State and the State of the liable operator together in Scenario 2: Hungary andGermany. We encourage the delegations of Hungary and Germany to liaise on the completion ofthis section.

57

(e) What is the procedure for initiating compensation claims?

Claims are first submitted to the nuclear operator or the insurer. The operator is alwaysthe party against whom claims may be asserted, even though the claim is handed on tothe insurer that has obliged itself to settle the claims brought forward against theinsured party. If this commitment is dishonored, there is legal recourse.

(f) What is the applicable time limitation for bringing compensation claims?

Damage claims are subject to a limitation period of three years, starting on the day theclaimant has knowledge or should have had knowledge of the damage and of the partyliable to compensation within a period of thirty years from the damaging event onward.

Nonwithstanding the legal statute of limitations of three and thirty years, respectively,for damage claims, the insurance only covers third party liability for damage reportedin writing to the insurer no later than ten years after the nuclear event of the nuclearthird party liability insurance policy conditions.

(g) Is there a priority system in the administration of claims?

There is no legal ex-ante provision for the distribution procedure. Rules for theadministration of claims in major damage scenarios have to be developed on the basisof the specific requirements of the concrete damage. For this reason Section 35 of theAtomic Energy Act stipulates that a special law has to govern the distribution ofavailable funds in the context of fulfilling damage liabilities as well as the proceduresto be observed in this process. Until such a law is adopted – maybe to fend offthreatening damage – a legal ordinance will have to govern these aspects, if it can beexpected that the legal third party liability will exceed the means available for suchclaim settlement.

It is conceivable to initiate a distribution procedure comparable to the distribution ofassets of a bankrupt debtor, where liability claims will be cut or partially privileged (forinstance in cases of physical damage). In practical application much will depend onwhether the claims filed refer to unproblematic cases, or whether a legal dispute isinvolved.

(h) Is there a possibility of grouping compensation claims ("class actions") or of makingclaims directly against the operator's insurer?

There is no possibility of grouping compensation claims but "test cases" would befeasible.

The claim is valid exclusively against the operator of a nuclear facility, however, it canbe asserted against the insurer; cf. Question 4 (e).

(i) How will claims by State C’s radiation workers working at the installation at the timeof the accident (Scenario 1) or contract workers involved in salvaging the ship (inScenario 2) be dealt with?

Radiation workers are covered by the respective social security system in accordancewith Art. 6 (h) Paris Convention.

58

(j) How would claims from the following victims be dealt with:

� a person originating from a Non contracting State who is on holiday in theAccident State at the time of the accident and suffers personal injury and propertyloss? In particular, how would that person initiate and follow progress on theirclaim following their return to their home country?

Persons on holiday in an accident state will be treated like a resident of that state.

� a person who is a permanent resident in your State but who is on holiday in anAffected State which is a Non contracting State at the time of the accident andsuffers property loss there?

The same principle applies: the person is subject of the jurisdiction of the holidaystate.

5. Compensation of Claims3

(a) If a compensation claim cannot be settled out of court, which court will havejurisdiction?

The competent court will be determined by the Code of Civil procedure (ZPO),normally it will be the court of the seat of the operator.

(b) Pursuant to the law which the competent court will apply, which of the following headsof damage (apart from personal injury/death and property damage) would be subject tocompensation (see Title II, Section 3, for examples of each of the following heads ofdamage):

� Decontamination expenses?

Yes, it is a compensable damage.

� Environmental damage?

Compensation may be due if the damage to the environment is at the same timedamage to property, as e.g. damage to forests or crops.

� Economic loss/Non-material damage?

Economic lossYes, in so far as it is directly consequential to personal injury or damage toproperty.

Non-material damageIs not expressly addressed in the PC. However Art. 11 PC allows nationallegislators to cover that head of damage; in Germany Section 29 para 2 AtomicEnergy Act provides for compensation for non-material damage, however only in


59

cases of personal injury. This compensation is not full compensation butequitable compensation.

� Preventive measures?

Under the unrevised Paris Convention, the costs of preventive measures couldonly be compensated after a nuclear incident had occurred. Such measures aim atmitigating the consequences of the incident.

� Other damages?

No.

(c) If the insurance coverage of the operator is insufficient to cover all the claims fordamage, how will those funds be distributed:

� On a pro-rata basis?

� On the basis of set amounts?

� With intervention by the State?

See answer to Question 4 (g).

(d) Are funds to be set aside to compensate damage which manifests itself in the mediumand long term? If not, will the State provide funds for these damages?

No, see answer to Question 4 (g).

(e) How will decisions of the competent court be notified to, and enforced in, foreignjurisdictions?

Notification and enforcement of decisions follow the rules set forth in Art. 13 (d) PC.




The authorities in charge are the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG); the FederalMinistry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), theFederal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture (BMVEL) - therelevant document is Section 7 of the Precautionary Radiation Protection Act (StrVG) –or the EU (in line with regulation 3954/87, among others). In Germany, harvesting isnot prohibited, there is merely a recommendation to refrain from harvesting. The sameapplies to a limitation of economic activities. Delegated legislation is stipulated in

4 These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: SlovakRepublic, nor by the Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary.

60

Article 7, para 1 of the StrVG. In line with this provision, the BMG, in agreement withthe BMU the BMVEL and the Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor (BMWA), isentitled to prohibit or to restrict foodstuffs in the wider sense to be put on the market orto be shipped. So far, the BMG has never resorted to its delegated legislation authority.


The existing reporting routes of the IAEA (EMERCON forms to be sent by fax), of theEU (PC-aided early warning information system) and the information channelsconnecting us to our bilateral partners (usually via fax or email) are being used. Thereports will in all cases be issued by the emergency center of the BMU. Germanauthorities also liaise with other states on the basis of bilateral agreements, as the casemay be, see answer to subquestion (c).


Germany has bilateral agreements with about 25 countries on the exchange ofexperience and information in the field of nuclear safety and radiation protectionincluding early notification in case of a nuclear accident with transboundary impact. Afunction of BMU is to fulfil its international and bilateral information obligations. Aspart of these obligations, the BMU maintains contact with the European Union, theIAEA and with other nations.

Apart from that, the neighboring state will only be informed about domestic measures.




The competent authorities at federal and at Länder level are responsible fordisseminating information to the public, both regarding an event and theimplementation of preventive measures. The major part of the responsibility lieswith the federal authorities for events taking place abroad, while events occurringwithin Germany are subject to the responsibility of the emergency responseauthorities of the Länder and of the federal level.


The operator and the insurance company are responsible for disseminatinginformation, as well as the Länder and the Federal Government.


See answer to Question 4 (a).


It depends on the individual circumstances.

61




Yes, there will be compensation.


No, pure economic loss will not be compensated .



Question is not clear:

If the industry is obliged to stop production because workers should not beexposed to radiation, economic loss consequential to that stop ofproduction is compensable damage.


Yes, see (i).


No, see (ii).


No compensation by the operator .


No.

62



That depends on the individual case.


Probably: no.

(c) Two airlines from your State cancelled all their flights to and from the principal airportin the Accident State for 24 hours, although that airport remained open. Could theseairlines claim compensation for:� loss of revenue due to cancellation of those flights?

No.


No.



They only may have claims under the law of the Accident State.


See answer above.


./.


Yes, in accordance with Section 38 Atomic Energy Act.



63




See discussion of Joint Protocol on May 20.


Ask the Accident State by diplomatic channels.


The Federal Government will use the general media to inform the common public aboutthe legislative systems and procedures.


See answers to Title I, Question 4 (a).


It depends on the individual case.


Yes.


Yes.

4. Questions to be answered by PC/BSC/JP States (Germany, Slovenia and Switzerland)for Scenario 2 only

Since the German nuclear operator is liable for the damage caused in all Joint Protocol States,its financial security is likely to be exhausted more quickly than if it were not a Party to theJoint Protocol. As a result, it is conceivable that Germany will call for the early mobilisationof international funds under the Brussels Supplementary Convention.


64

In addition, since the German nuclear operator will likely have more than 175 million SDRsof financial security available, the other Contracting Parties to the BSC could refuse toprovide the third tier of compensation.

Questions for Germany:

(a) What steps would you take to initiate the early mobilisation of international fundsunder the third tier of the BSC and which other BSC Contracting Parties would youcontact for that purpose?

We will use the procedure foreseen in the BSC.

(b) Given that your liable operator’s financial security is likely to be more than 175 millionSDRs, what steps would you take to initiate payment of the third tier of compensationunder the BSC and which other BSC Contracting Parties would you contact for thatpurpose?

See answer above.

65

ANNEX

Germany: Bilateral agreements on the exchange of experience and information in thefield of nuclear safety and radiation protection including early notification

in case of a nuclear accident

Country Agreement MajorAgreement

content

In force since Published

Abkommen zwischen derRepublik Österreich und derBundesrepublik Deutschlandüber die gegenseitigeHilfeleistung beiKatastrophen und schwerenUnglücksfällen

Mutual aid in caseof catastrophes,nuclear accidentsincluded

1992 BGBl. II 1992,S. 206

AustriaAbkommen zwischen derRegierung derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der Regierung derRepublik Österreich überInformations- undErfahrungsaustausch aufdem Gebiet desStrahlenschutzes

Exchange ofinformation

1994 BGBl. II 1995,S. 482

BelgiumAbkommen zwischen derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund dem Königreich Belgienüber die gegenseitigeHilfeleistung beiKatastrophen oder schwerenUnglücksfällen


BGBl. II 1982,S. 1006;

BGBl. II 1984,S. 327

BulgariaAbkommen zwischen demBundesministerium fürUmwelt, Naturschutz undReaktorsicherheit derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund dem Komitee zurNutzung der Atomenergiefür friedliche Zwecke beimMinisterrat der RepublikBulgarien über Fragengemeinsamen Interesses imZusammenhang mitkerntechnischer Sicherheitund Strahlenschutz

Early notificationin the case ofnuclear accidents;exchange ofinformation

1993 BGBl. II 1993,S. 1281

66


content


Czechoslovakia(former)

Abkommen zwischen derRegierung derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der Regierung derTschechischen undSlowakischen FöderativenRepublik zur Regelung vonFragen gemeinsamenInteresses imZusammenhang mitkerntechnischer Sicherheitund Strahlenschutz


1990 BGBl. II 1990,S. 1307

Abkommen zwischen derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund dem KönigreichDänemark über diegegenseitige Hilfeleistungbei Katastrophen oderschweren Unglücksfällen


1988 BGBl. II 1988,S. 286; 619

Denmark Vereinbarung zwischen demBundesminister für Umwelt,Naturschutz undReaktorsicherheit derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund dem Minister fürUmweltschutz desKönigreichs Dänemark überFragen gemeinsamenInteresses imZusammenhang mitkerntechnischer Sicherheitund Strahlenschutz


1988 BGBl. II 1988,S. 1099

FinlandAbkommen zwischen derRegierung derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der Regierung derRepublik Finnland über diefrühzeitigeBenachrichtigung beinuklearen Unfällen sowieüber den Informations- undErfahrungsaustauschbezüglich kerntechnischerSicherheit undStrahlenschutz vom 21.Dezember 1992


1993 BGBl. II 1993,S. 1264

67


content


Abkommen zwischen derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der FranzösischenRepublik über diegegenseitige Hilfeleistungbei Katastrophen oderschweren Unglücksfällen


1980 BGBl. II 1980,S. 33; 1438

FranceVereinbarung zwischen derRegierung derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der Regierung derfranzösischen Republik überden Informationsaustauschbei Vorkommnissen oderUnfällen, die radiologischeAuswirkungen haben können


1981 BGBl. II 1981,S. 885

Hungary

Abkommen zwischen derRegierung derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der Regierung derRepublik Ungarn überFragen gemeinsamenInteresses imZusammenhang mitkerntechnischer Sicherheitund Strahlenschutz


1991 BGBl. II 1991,S. 889

Lithuania

Abkommen zwischen derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der Republik Litauenüber die gegenseitigeHilfeleistung beiKatastrophen oder schwerenUnglücksfällen


1996 BGBl. II 1996,S. 27

68


content


Abkommen zwischen derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund dem GroßherzogtumLuxemburg über diegegenseitige Hilfeleistungbei Katastrophen oderschweren Unglücksfällen


1981 BGBl. II 1981,S. 445; 1067

Luxembourg

Agreement between theMinister of Internal Affairsof Luxembourg and theMinister of Internal Affairsof Germany on theapplication of the generalagreement on mutualassistance in emergencies

1987 --------

Beschluss derDeutsch-NiederländischenKommission für grenznahetechnische Einrichtungen(NDKK) zumInformationsaustausch überbedeutsame Störfälle undwichtigesicherheitstechnischeVorkommnisse inKernkraftwerken

Mutual informingon nuclearincidents close tothe border, withinthe frames of theDutch-GermanCommission(NDKK)

1981 --------

The Netherlands

Abkommen zwischen derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund dem Königreich derNiederlande übergegenseitige Hilfeleistungbei Katastropheneinschließlich schwerenUnglücksfällen


1992 BGBl. II 1992,S. 198

Norway

Vereinbarung zwischen derRegierung derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der Regierung desKönigreichs Norwegen überFragen gemeinsamenInteresses imZusammenhang mitkerntechnischer Sicherheitund Strahlenschutz


1988 BGBl. II 1988,S. 1097

69


content


Poland

Abkommen zwischen derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der Republik Polen überdie gegenseitigeHilfeleistung beiKatastrophen oder schwerenUnglücksfällen


1998 -------

Abkommens vom 25.Oktober 1988 zwischen derRegierung derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der Regierung derUnion der SozialistischenSowjetrepubliken über diefrühzeitigeBenachrichtigung bei einemnuklearen Unfall und denInformationsaustausch überKernanlagen einschließlichergänzendem Notenwechselzu Artikel 5 des Abkommens


1989 BGBl. II 1990,S. 165

TheRussian

Federation Abkommen zwischen derRegierung der Bundes-republik Deutschland undder Regierung derRussischen Föderation überdie gegenseitigeHilfeleistung beiKatastrophen oder schwerenUnglücksfällen


1994 BGBl. II 1994,S. 3542

Sweden

Abkommen zwischen derRegierung der Bundes-republik Deutschland undder Regierung desKönigreichs Schweden überdie frühzeitige Benach-richtigung bei nuklearenUnfällen sowie über denInformations- undErfahrungsaustauschbezüglich kerntechnischerSicherheit undStrahlenschutz


1990 BGBl. II 1991,S. 421

70


content


Vereinbarung zwischen derRegierung derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund dem SchweizerischenBundesrat über denradiologischen Notfallschutzeinschließlich demergänzenden Notenwechselvom 15. Februar 1980,Änderungsvereinbarung undDurchführungsvereinbarung

Radiologicalemergencypreparedness

1979; 1980;1988

BGBl. II 1980,S. 563;

BGBl. II 1988,S. 519

Switzerland

Abkommen zwischen derRegierung derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der SchweizerischenEidgenossenschaft über diegegenseitige Hilfeleistungbei Katastrophen oderschweren Unglücksfällen


1988 BGBl. II 1988,S. 598

UkraineAbkommen zwischen derRegierung derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund der Regierung derUkraine über Fragengemeinsamen Interesses imZusammenhang mitkerntechnischer Sicherheitund Strahlenschutz


1993 BGBl. II 1994,S. 380

USAVereinbarung zwischen demBundesministerium fürUmwelt, Naturschutz undReaktorsicherheit derBundesrepublik Deutschlandund Nuclear RegulatoryCommission der VereinigtenStaaten von Amerika überden Austausch technischerInformationen und überZusammenarbeit in Fragender nuklearen Sicherheit


1995 BGBl. II 1996,S. 259

71

Hungary___________


1. Dissemination of Information about the Accident1

In general:− Legal background, relevant documents:

o Law on Atomic energy No. CVI of 1996

o The Executive Gov. Decree of the Atomic Law No. 108/1997 and 114/2003

o Law on Protection against Disasters No. LXXIV of 1999

o The Executive Gov. Decree of the Law on Protection against Disasters No.179/1999

o 248/1997 Gov. Decree on the Nuclear Emergency Response modified by the40/2000 Gov. Decree

o 165/2003 Gov. Decree on the Public Information

o The national, central, sectorial, regional and local Emergency Response Plans

− Central Organs of the HNERS (Hungarian Nuclear Emergency Response System)

1. Questions to be answered by the Accident State: Slovak Republic in Scenario 1, Hungary inScenario 2.

Government

....

Minis try

GOVERNMENTAL CO-ORDINATIONCOMMITTEE

HAEA

CERTA

DefenceCommittee

Minis try

Ministry

OperativeStaff

Ministry ofInterior

National EmergencyDirectorate

EICNuclear

EmergencyCentre

ExpertPanel ofthe DC

TechnicalScientificCouncil

Secretariate

72

(a) What is the applicable procedure, and what means are used, for disseminatinginformation between the competent national and local authorities?

It is the Governmental Co-ordination Committee (GCC) that disseminates theinformation

− According to the National Emergency Response Plan via official, redundantchannels (phone, mobile, e-mail, fax) among competent authorities and organs.

(b) Who is responsible for disseminating information to the public regarding

165/2003 Governmental Decree on the Public Information.

− Plans shall be elaborated on− national level− sectional level− county level− nuclear installations

− Government Decree determines the content and structure of the Plans.

� Preventive measures to be taken?

− Responsibilities for the Public Information on preventive measures to be taken.

o Public Information Group operated by the Ministry of Interior and countyand local organs.

� Availability of emergency payments?

− On availability of emergency payments

o County and local organs

� County Defence Committee, Mayor

� Health care services for performing check-ups and for injured victims, etc?

− On health care services



� How compensation claims can be made?

− On how compensation of claims can be settled


73


(c) How is information disseminated to Affected States?

On the basis of the Convention on Early Notification of a nuclear accident.

− Bilateral governmental agreements

� Via official channels

• On diplomatic levels, and

• Direct levels

2. Emergency Response2

(a) Who is responsible for making decisions in respect of preventive measures such asevacuation, sheltering, iodine distribution, etc.?

(b) How would these preventive measures be co-ordinated with those of State C for thatpart of State C falling within the 20 kilometre radius of State A’s installation?

(c) Who is responsible for making decisions in respect of restrictions on harvesting,production, marketing and consumption of food products? How would contaminatedfoodstuffs be withdrawn from the market and disposed of?

(d) Would the State claim a right of recourse against the operator in respect of costsincurred for the destruction or disposal of contaminated foodstuffs?

3. Nuclear Insurer3








� Is there a maximum amount per person?

2. Questions to be answered by the Accident State for Scenario 1only: Slovak Republic.


74




� on your national territory?

As per the respective Governmental Decree of 179/1999.

� in Affected States whose victims are entitled to claim compensation pursuant toan applicable international third party liability regime?

179/1999 Governmental DecreeGCC, County AdministrationHungarian State Treasury


As per the respective 227/1997 Governmental Decree on the terms and limits of thenuclear liability related insurance and financial coverage.


The licensee or the operator of nuclear facility.


179/1999 Governmental DecreeGCC, County Administration.


As per the 227/1997 Governmental Decree.


10 years from the date of the occurrence of the nuclear accident.



As per the 227/1997 Governmental Decree.


75


(j) How would claims from the following victims be dealt with:

� a person originating from a Non contracting State who is on holiday in theAccident State at the time of the accident and suffers personal injury and propertyloss? In particular, how would that person initiate and follow progress on theirclaim following their return to their home country?

� a person who is a permanent resident in your State but who is on holiday in anAffected State which is a Non contracting State at the time of the accident andsuffers property loss there?

By bilateral agreement, between the “Ceding Pool” and ” Reinsuring Pool”, it is notedand agreed that the word assistance in § 6.1.1. shall mean the following:

The “Ceding Pool” shall keep the “Reinsuring Pool” fully informed with regard to thefollowing:

• All basic information about the accident

• The information made available to the public and relevant authorities by the“Ceding Pool”

• Necessary information on any decisions of the “Ceding Pool” concerning claimshandling

• Information on the development of the nuclear accident, i.e. if the limits ofliability and/or sums insured are exhausted.

The “Reinsuring Pool” shall, when asked for assistance in the event of a major nuclearaccident, provide the “Ceding Pool” with assistance that will include the following:

• Assist in claims handling in the same manner and to the extent as if the accidenthad occurred in the country of the “Reinsuring Pool”.

• Distribute to the public and authorities the relevant information on compensationfor the victims of the accident, the liability insurance cover and on decisionsmade by the “Ceding Pool” and by the authorities.

• Assist the “Ceding Pool” in distributing any necessary information in the countryof the “Reinsuring Pool”.

• Submit information and documentation to the “Ceding Pool” about claims andfacts of importance on the territory of the “Reinsuring Pool” related to theaccident.

76



The Municipal Court of Budapest has exclusive jurisdiction to judge compensationclaims submitted on the basis of Act CXVI of 1996 on Atomic Energy.






� Other damages?



Yes, on pro-rata basis, in accordance with the Atomic Act and its GovernmentalDecree of 227/1997.




Yes, the Central Nuclear Financial Fund, as per the Atomic Act CXVI of 1996.

The amount of payment is determined by the law o the annual budget on the basis of thecost estimate prepared by the organisation identified taking into consideration theobligations and reviewed by the HAEA.



77




− HAEA

− Ministry of Agriculture

− Ministry f Industry and Trade

− Ministry for Environment and Water

− Ministry of Interior (Directorate General of the National disaster Management)


− According to the bilateral Governmental Agreement between the SlovakRepublic and the Hungarian Republic the coordinators of the Agreement are therelevant Nuclear Safety Regulatory Bodies. The close and continuous connection– especially during an emergency situation – between the two regulatory bodiessupplies the reliable information flow.


− On the basis of the good relationship between the regulatory bodies, the countermeasures are co-ordinated.




− The Public Information Group operated by the Ministry of Interior and thecounty and local organs are responsible for the dissemination of theinformation.


− The claims can be made at the local organs of the Governmental Co-ordination Committee (County Defence Committee, Mayor)


78


− The governmental Co-ordination Committee is responsible for the organisation ofthe inventory caused by the damage.


− The State has to separate a “vis maior” fund for such purposes within the CentralBudget. (Atomic Act., V. Chapter).



As per the 179/1999 Governmental Decree as Executive order of LXXIV Act of 1999on the Supervision of Catastrophe Defence and its Organisation.











79














The preventive measures are coordinated by the GCC in State A.

Simultaneously continuous connection prevails between the nuclear regulatory bodiesof the States.


The decision is in the hand of the Chairman of the Governmental CoordinationCommittee.


80

State A refuses the claims, because the radiation workers worked (independently oftheir nationalities) in the territory of the State of the installation.











Hungary, (Scenario 2) has signed but not ratified the Joint Protocol.

On the basis of mutuality Hungary is in a position to obtain information, to compile aninventory and to assist victims for claiming compensation.


81

Ireland________




The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has the lead rolein ensuring that the response operates as smoothly as possible and that the necessaryprecautions are taken to protect the Irish people.

The national competent authority, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII)recommends the need for certain countermeasures to the Emergency ResponseCoordination Committee (ERCC) – a committee of experts from key GovernmentDepartments and national agencies. This Committee considers the practicalities of theserecommendations. The Committee’s observations, with the RPII recommendations, arepresented to a committee of Government Ministers that in turn decides on whether toimplement the countermeasure(s) or not.


The two principal notification systems used are; the Convention on Early Notificationof a Nuclear Accident wherein the Accident State will notify the International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA) who, in turn through its Emergency Response Unit, will notifyall of its member States; and the European Community Urgent RadiologicalInformation Exchange (ECURIE) wherein member States of the EU are required tonotify fellow member States in such instances.

Additionally, Ireland signed a bilateral Agreement on the Early Notification of anAccident or Incident of Radiological Significance and Exchange of InformationConcerning the Operation and Management of Nuclear Facilities or Activities with theUnited Kingdom in December 2004.

Stemming from this Agreement, Ireland, through the RPII, also has access to the UK’sradiation monitoring system (RIMNET).


As a first step the RPII would liaise with the competent authorities in the neighbouringcountry in regard to proposed preventive actions along the shared borders. Theimplementation of these countermeasures would be primarily conducted between therelevant Government Departments.Furthermore, the Agreement referred to in the response to 1(b) makes specificprovision for the exchange of information between the UK and Ireland while there are


82

also established formal and informal links between officials and regulators in bothcountries.





Formal advice and instructions will be given principally through radio andtelevision announcements issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritageand Local Government, as directed by the Committee of Ministers acting onbehalf of the Government. These will be supplemented by material issued by theRPII through its Information Office.


While the State does not currently have a mechanism in place to organise such aninventory, the likelihood is that in order to assist victims it would consider it necessaryto organise an inventory.


Under present rules each victim would have to pursue his own claim against the nuclearoperator.

See also response to Question 6 (TITLE III).




Such victims would be entitled to sue for the losses they have suffered undernormal tort rules or settle their claims.


Subject to tort remoteness of damage rules, such victims would also be entitled tosue for the losses they have suffered under normal tort rules or settle their claims.


83


Such victims would be entitled to sue for the losses they have sufferedunder normal tort rules or settle their claims.


Such victims would be entitled to sue for the losses they have sufferedunder normal tort rules or settle their claims.


Subject to tort remoteness of damage rules, such victims would also beentitled to sue for the losses they have suffered under normal tort rules orsettle their claims.





See response to Questions 2(b) and (c).




Evaluation would be carried out on the basis of advice furnished by the RPII andthe National Parks and Wildlife Service Section of the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government. See also response to Question 6(TITLE III).


84


� reimbursement of compensation it was required to pay to passengers in respect ofthe cancelled flights?

Subject to tort remoteness of damage rules, the airlines would be entitled to suefor the losses they have suffered under normal tort rules or settle their claims.




On the basis of the information supplied, they would be entitled to claimcompensation subject to Ireland’s private international law rules.



As there is no legal provision in place, any additional compensation would only bemade after a detailed assessment of circumstances and a specific policy decision on thematter from Government.





Judgments of Irish courts would be recognised and enforced through the Brussels Conventionon Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters, the LuganoConvention or EC Regulation 44/2001.

85

Italy________




According to the national plan for nuclear and radiological emergencies, the competentdecision-making body is the Prime Minister, or the person delegated by him, assisted byan operational Committee for Civil Protection. In this Committee all the administrationsoperationally involved in the emergency are represented. In addition the competentbody may ask for advise by a national Commission on Prevention of Major Risks.

The Prefects of the Provinces and the Presidents of the Regions are also locallycompetent to take immediate actions in case of an emergency. Decision-making issupported by the technical advice of CEVAD (the Centre for data evaluation) co-ordinated by APAT (the National nuclear regulatory body).

In addition, it is recalled that in case of a disaster or a seriously damaging event a taskforce is set up as a rule at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to handle the “crisis”. If thistask force were to be set up in a nuclear emergency, it would be very likely to act inclose liaison with the operational Committee of above.


The authorities liaise with the competent authorities in the Accident State on the basisof the Convention on early notification of nuclear accidents, of the EuropeanCommunity ECURIE system (in connection with EC Council Decision87/600/EURATOM) or of bilateral agreements.







86

− The information to the public concerning the accident and its possibleconsequences is ensured via the mass media by the Department of CivilProtection, in liaison with the Prefects of the Province and the President ofthe Region concerned.

− See for some references article 25 under para. 3 below.


This action would presumably be carried out within those mentioned in reply to para 1.a).


No specific measures have been applied so far.











According to article 24 of the Italian legal provisions (Decree of the President ofthe Republic no. 519/75) implementing the Paris (and Brussels) Conventions, theItalian courts are exclusively competent to rule on claims both whether the

87

accident has taken place in Italy or outside the territory of States to which theabove Conventions apply. Under article 25 of the same Decree, claims areintroduced before the court in whose jurisdiction the nuclear installation involvedis situated. The Ministry of Treasure (who may intervene in the case at any time)must also be notified of the file.




− It is recalled that under the EC Directive on compensation of environmentaldamage, the relevant (non-binding) criteria consider primary remediation interms of natural resources and services, should this not be practicable, actionis taken to guarantee equivalent resources; should also this be impossible,remediation is sought in terms of monetary compensation. Since thesecriteria apply mainly to traditional damage to the environment, should it bedecided to extend them to the case(s) in point, they would have to beadjusted as far as possible to that (those) case(s), bearing in mind theconditions attached to compensation for damage to the environment underthe nuclear liability Conventions as amended.

− No specific measure has been adopted thus far, but presumably the Ministryof Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice would be the main authoritiesinvolved.




In principle yes, but it would be up to the competent Court to decide on a case bycase basis (justification of the measures from a precautionary stand point,whether they were proportionate to the actual situation etc.).




In principle yes, bearing in mind the provisions under article 24 (DPR 519/75)mentioned above, provided that they have retained Italian citizenship (which israther unlikely in the former case). Consideration would have to be givenpresumably also to the provisions of the Accident State, relating to compensationand relevant claims.

88

If the answer to either part of (d) is “yes”, how would those persons enter claims? Would yourState include them under its "national inventory" for the purpose of compensating trans-boundary damage or would they be required to claim as if they were citizens of the AccidentState?

(e) A certain number of victims in your State are either not sufficiently compensated fortheir claims or are not compensated at all. Would your State provide additionalcompensation under these circumstances?

To be decided on a case by case basis, but according to article 25 of DPR 519/75already mentioned, if the financial security amounts are found to be insufficient, thecourt will cut down in proportion the compensation to each damaged person.












Apart from the third question, about which elements for a reply could be found in thereply to para 1.a) and 2.b), replies to the remaining questions will need some more timeallowing for further accurate checks with the authorities and bodies involved.


89

Republic of Korea___________________




The (Central Radioactivity Emergency Bureau) in the Ministry of Science andTechnology establishes counter-measures on the national level. If a nuclear accidentoccurs within the country, the local Offsite Emergency Management Center has theauthority to decide upon matters concerning provisions, agriculture, livestock, marineproducts, and consumption.


In accordance with the IAEA Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident,the authorities obtain information through the IAEA.


Yes, for example, with Japan and USA.

On November 9th, 1990, the government made a mutual agreement with Japanconcerning the establishment of a nuclear safety early communications system for thenotification of nuclear cases and early notifications.

On March 18th, 1976, the Ministry of Science and Technology concluded anAgreement on Regulation and Safety Research Cooperation and Exchange ofTechnological Information with the NRC of the United States of America. ThisAgreement includes measures for mutual cooperation in cases of radiation emergencies.

On November 29th, 1983, Korea, Japan and the United States conducted joint nuclearemergency training of the first Gori nuclear plant. Since the first training session,emergency communications training has been conducted yearly each quarter.





90

− If there are no serious effects in Korea, the mass media is the only channelthrough which the information can be disseminated to the public.

− If there are effects in Korea, and if special counter-measures are necessary, aRadioactivity Emergency Bureau is established at all levels and the Ministryof Science and Technology (MOST) is responsible for providing coherentinformation.

− In case of domestic nuclear accidents, in order to provide uniform andcoherent information, joint information centres are to be established.Recently MOST developed ‘Emergency Response Information ExchangeSystem’(ERIX) using internet.



If there are effects in Korea to the extent that victims arise, Radioactivity EmergencyBureau is established on all levels under the instruction of the Ministry of Science andTechnology, counter-measures are to be planned in response to the damage.


Victims may use the proceeding assistance system, which is generally designed forthose who want to initiate proceedings. If damages occur within in the country,Radioactivity Emergency medical treatment centres are established for national victims,as a central organ of all regional Radioactivity Emergency medical treatment centres,which victims are assigned to on a first and second level basis. There neutral andobjective evidences are collected for the eventual judicial/ administrative proceedings.




− Korean domestic courts tend to apply so-called ‘proximate causation theory’in damage-compensation cases.

− Article 393 of Civil Code stipulate that ‘tort feasor should compensate forthe normal loss which is causally connected to the act.’

− Article 2 of Nuclear Liability Act mentions several categories of nucleardamage.

− According to such a prevailing interpretation of the Article 393 of CivilCode and Article 2 of Nuclear Liability Act, damage proven to be linkedwith the accident “by proximate causation” should be compensated.

91

− A burden of evidence falls to a liable operator. A victim proves onlyexistence of damage.

− Therefore, we think this type of damage can be compensated in thelitigation.


According to the ‘proximate causation theory’, we are not sure this rumourdamage can be compensated or not.



Article 2 (2) of Nuclear Liability Act, an economic loss is also included innuclear damage. Also according to the ‘proximate causation theory’, wethink this damage can be compensated.


Article 2(2) of Nuclear Liability Act, a loss of income is considered asnuclear damage. Also according to the ‘proximate causation theory’, wethink this damage can be compensated.


According to the ‘proximate causation theory’, we are not sure if thisdamage can be compensated or not.


According to the ‘proximate causation theory’, we think this damage can becompensated.


Article 2(2) of Nuclear Liability Act, a loss of economic income related to usingthe environment is considered as nuclear damage. Also according to the‘proximate causation theory’, we think this damage can be compensated if thevictim succeeds in proving the existence of proximate causation between theaccident and the damage.

92



‘damage to environment itself’ is not mentioned clearly in Nuclear Liability Act.However, costs of restitution and of preventive measure taken to save and restoreare included as nuclear damage of that Act. Also according to the ‘proximatecausation theory’, we think this damage of the cost can be compensated if theState succeeds in proving the existence of proximate causation between theaccident and the damage (cost).





(Answer to two questions)

We think above mentioned cancellation is a voluntary act. So those airlinecompanies should prove a close causation between the accident and the damagebefore the competent court.



Nuclear Liability Act can not apply here because this Act applies only a nuclearaccident occurs inside of Korean territory or EEZ. So according to the conflict oflaws mechanism, the victim can claim compensation for damage before Koreandomestic court but the case will be decided by ‘the law of accident place’.(Article32 of Korean Private International Law).


Nuclear Liability Act can not apply here because this Act applies only a nuclearaccident occurs inside of Korean territory or EEZ. So according to the conflict oflaws mechanism, the victim can claim compensation for damage before Koreandomestic court but the case will be decided by ‘the law of accident place’.(Article 32 of Korean Private International Law).


93

We can not answer to this question because we don’t clarify a difference of resultsbetween two theories.


Our State will exercise ‘diplomatic protection’, such as a negotiation with the countrywhere a liable operator is situated. However, providing additional financialcompensation by the Government under the Nuclear Liability Act is impossible becausethat Act applies only when a nuclear accident occurs inside of Korean territory or EEZ.(Article 2 bis).





Conditions of recognition of foreign judgement are mentioned in Article 217 of ‘CivilProcedures Law’. A final and conclusive judgement by a foreign court shall be acknowledgedto be valid upon the following conditions:

− That the international jurisdiction of such a foreign court is recognized in theprinciples of an international jurisdiction pursuant to the Acts and subordinatestatutes of the Republic of Korea

− That a defeated defendant received, pursuant to a lawful method, a service ofsummons or documents equivalent thereto, and a notice of date or an order, with atimely way sufficient to defend (excluding the case pursuant to a service by publicnotice or similar service)

− That such judgement does not violate public order such as the good morals andother social order of the Republic of Korea

− That there exists a mutual gurantee.

The enforcement of foreign judgement satisfied above conditions will be done by a‘enforcement judgement’ according to Article 26 and 27 of ‘Civil Enforcement Law’.

95

Latvia________




Decision will be taken by State Operative Commission of Emergency Situation(Commission) which consists of two officials authorized by each Ministry. Commissionis led by the Minister of Interior. Commission is convened in case of emergencysituation or possible emergency situation in Latvia. Decision would be taken accordingto recommendations from Radiation Safety Centre (RDC), Food and VeterinaryService, State fire and rescue service (other competent institutions).

If consequences of accident would be located in a small area the responsible bodymight be Local Commission of Emergency Situation led by head of local State fire andrescue service (VUGD) department. Decisions would be taken also according torecommendations of relevant responsible authorities.

Before the Commission for Emergency situation would start react responsible body fordecision making is State fire and rescue service.


All international information about radiation or nuclear accidents may be obtainedthrough National Contact (Warning) Point in RDC, which is responsible forinternational information exchange in such emergencies. It could be obtained by VUGDor Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But in any case RDC will share information withVUGD, which is responsible for information distribution between all organizations inCivil protection system.


They would be partly coordinated according to bilateral agreements on state orinstitution levels (Lithuania, Estonia), i.e. information exchange about current situationand action should been taken or planned, measured data exchange etc. The sameinformation has to be distributed through IAEA and EC ECURIE systems.





96

If there are emergency procedures activated in Latvia or emergency situation isenvisaged, the Commission is taking its duties. Then Commission is responsiblefor information of public and press conferences. In all other cases the VUGD hasuse its contracts with several radio and television companies on early notificationof public - at least State Television and Radio will be informed.


Information about responsible operator will be disseminated to State and/or localmass media. The content of information is prescribed by EU directive(89/618/Euratom), which is introduced by national regulations.


Yes.


Yes. The main State’s help will be public information of possible compensation andprocedures to claim for them, and recommendations on methods to calculate losses. Incase of few victims of accident, the help will be given by diplomatic missions. In caseof large accident decision about responsible Ministry or institution, which willcoordinate help for victims, will be taken at the Cabinet of Ministers level but in anycase Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for inhabitants of our country in othercountries.




According to legislation in Latvia unearned income has to be recovered, but itmust be proved that loss of revenue have caused by the accident. So losses due tocontaminated production shall be compensated, as well as loss of profit due to thereduction of farmer’s production can be compensated, but just for short term loss.However Latvian Court is not competent in this case. According to theConvention the Slovakian Court is competent in this case.


In this case this is farmers’, wholesalers’ and retailers’ own risk; there are nodirect correlations between accident and losses. Losses proceeded by rumours,because they can not be controlled by Operator, should not be compensatedthereof.

97

Theoretically there might be claims to the court of Latvia against institutionresponsible for the decision to implement restrictions, and then there might be aLatvia’s court decision, but only on things outside jurisdiction of the Convention.Yet there are no strict regulations in Latvia for civil liability for harm done bydecision of officials and employees of institutions. Nevertheless there areongoing discussions in the Parliament about responsibility of State’s institutions(and its officials) for negative impact of decisions. We expect that relevant actshould be accepted soon.



Evaluation should be done by relevant Ministries and competent authoritiesunder their subordination. Assessment of contamination is obligatory.Claim will be prepared by producers of products.

In case of food stuff the decision to implement restrictions would be takenby Food and Veterinary Service, as well it could be done by RDC if there isa threat for human’s life or safety. If further operation of labour process isdangerous for people’s life, RDC shall take a decision to restrict furtheroperations. According to other industrial works the situation is morecomplicated. RDC may recommend stopping of operations for some periodof time, but it is not strictly clear who will take a decision; more possibly itwill be done by relevant Ministry or head of company.


According to legislation in Latvia compensation could be obtained for shortterm loss of income due to lack of raw materials and contamination ofmaterials, anyway for this scenario competent court is Slovakian court.


In this case this is industry’s own risk. There are no direct obligationsbetween actions in accident and compensations of losses. Losses proceededby rumours can not be controlled by operator, so it can be not directlyresponsible for that.

There can be claims prosecuted in law-court of Latvia theoretically againstorganization responsible for decision to implement restrictions. Then therecould be Latvia’s court decision, but only for things outside jurisdiction ofConvention. Yet, there are no strict regulations in Latvia for civil liabilityfor harm done by officials and employees of institutions.


There shall be taken into the account company’s Collective Agreement andLabour’s Law of the Republic of Latvia. Responsible for the compensationshould be the company, which had to pay compensation for losses of employees.

98

There might be the situations when companies argue to the Latvian court, thatemployers don’t have to pay compensation based on the force majeure situation.


If it is possible for those industries to prove that the loss is really due tocontamination, then compensations can be asked, but again the procedures forforce majeure may be used.



Costs of losses contain two possibilities (according to legislation in Latvia):

− Under the amended Vienna Convention for specially protected speciesand/or their living ambience there is in legislation settled rates (for eachphyla stated sum of money). The state has to count and prove fundsnecessary for recovery of relevant species.

− Costs of decontamination – sum which is necessary to decontaminate areato the level before contamination of that area. In case if it is not possible toprove the costs, operator can pay for or do decontamination of equivalentarea.

Assessment of the costs would be done by relevant Ministries and competentauthorities under their subordination (e.g. the Ministry of Environment, theMinistry of Agriculture etc.).


State Environmental Service on behalf of State has rights to ask for compensationfrom Operator for damage done to the environment. As compensation forprotected area contamination is not settled in Convention and if it is not settled inlegislation of Accident State there should be a competent (Slovak) court’sdecision.



Claim may be persuaded, but compensation could be obtained just in case if itwould be stated in Law of Accident State (in this case Slovak legislation).


The procedure would be the similar as in situation of personnel which claims forcompensation for having been released from employment following the accident.

99



Yes. Everybody has rights to claim for compensation (as stated in Convention).


Everybody has rights to claim for compensation (as stated in Convention).


In these cases claims shall be submitted to the Accident State. If the legislation ofaccident state does not cover such claims, then victims might ask for help andassistance in competent authorities in Latvia.


It is possible only if the political decision is taken to provide help to the victims.


1. Questions to be answered by State B (RVC) for Scenario 1; by Romania forScenario 2

Both the Slovak Republic in Scenario 1 and Hungary in Scenario 2 are Contracting Parties tothe Vienna Convention. Your State is a Contracting Party to the RVC and your nationallegislation implements its provisions. Please identify possible difficulties in organisingcompensation for victims in your State due to differences between the two Conventions withregard to:

� the definition of nuclear damage;

There shouldn’t be any problems, because definition in RVC is more precise in terms,but terms of VC shall be used for any losses or damage in this case. Anyway onlyoperator has full responsibility to compensate damage in accordance with provisions ofthe Convention in the respective state.

� their geographic scope of application;

According to this there shouldn’t be any problems in earlier mentioned Scenario 1.

100

� compensation amounts available;

As competent court is Accident State’s court, the Latvia might make its decision onpolitical level. In most cases claims will overrun available compensation amount,therefore Accidents State’s court will have to take decision according to its legislation.

� time limits for submitting claims for personal injury/death.

One of problems would be connected to the evaluation and persuasion time, alldecisions and processes would have to be done more quickly. Other problem would beconnected to the compensations for victims transpired after time settled in Convention.



The Joint Protocol also provides that if a nuclear incident occurs during transport, theapplicable Convention is the one to which the State, on whose territory the liable operator’sinstallation is situated, is a Party. This means that for Scenario 2, the Paris Convention willapply but the applicable national law will be that of Hungary.



International information can be obtained through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs andits subordinated institutions in foreign countries; it can be obtained through IAEA as theSecretariat of the Convention or OECD/NEA, because it maintains informationalreviews of such questions.


Information would be brought to the public via Mass media.


Assessment would be done by relevant Ministries and competent authorities under theirsubordination.


It will be done by subordinated bodies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


It will be done by subordinated bodies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

101


Decisions would be recognized and enforced in accordance with international contractsand ratified conventions.

103

Lithuania___________




According the Law on Nuclear Energy of 1996, all preventive measures before or theactual nuclear accident will be decided by the Emergency Management Commission(hereinafter – the Commission). The Commission was settled and its Roles approved bya Resolution of the Government of 2000. The Emergency Management Commission ischaired by the minister of Interior and consists from secretaries of the followingministries: Economy, Environment, Health, Interior, Agriculture, Transport, Finance,External affairs, Defenceas well as heads of the institutions:State Nuclear Power Safety Inspectorate (VATESI), Fire protection Department of theMinistry of Interior, Security Department and Police Department.

The Commission acts as the leading body ruling the situation. In accordance with theLaw on Nuclear Energy the Commission performs the following functions in the eventof the nuclear accident:

− organise the response effort to mitigation of the consequences of the accident;

− co-ordinate the activities of all the bodies and forces taking part in the response tomitigation of the consequences;

− periodically report to the President of the Republic, the Seimas (Parliament ofLithuania) and the Government about the course of the response to mitigation ofits consequences;

− implement the decisions adopted by the Government and instructions given inthat situation;

− organise evacuation of the population from the endangered area;

− notify the relevant organisations, mass media and the public about the course ofthe response to mitigation of the consequences, the danger of ionising radiationand instruct the population about protection from radiation.

The Plan for the Protection of the Population of the Republic of Lithuania in the Eventof an Nuclear Accident (2002) provides, inter alia, for the Emergency ManagementCenter, as well as the responsibility of the institutions in the developing of preventivemeasures and measures to be taken.


104

The Emergency Management Center (emergency headquarters) will be activated in acase of emergency on the base of the staff of Fire Protection Department of the Ministryof Interior and chaired by a representative of the Government.

Pursuant the Plan, the proposals on counter-measures in relation to the above-mentioned fields shell be submitted by following:

− in relation to agriculture – by the Ministry of Agriculture;

− industrial activities (on restrictions of supply and consumption of energy andenergy recourses for industry as well as price-fixing) – by the Ministry ofEconomy;

− import/export – by Radiation Protection Center of the Ministry of Health(import/export of contaminated goods); by Veterinary Service (import/export ofcontaminated foodstuff).


The information will be available through the channel established by the IAEAconvention on Early Notification in case of Nuclear Accident (VATESI appointed asthe counterpart in Lithuania) as well as by EU legislation. Following nationallegislation establishes order on the information to authorities:

− The Plan for the Protection of the Population of the Republic of Lithuania in theEvent of an Nuclear Accident, 2002;

− The order on Notification of the Emergency Management Center, 2003.

The Emergency Management Center is responsible for transmission of the informationto the authorities through established channels.


Agreements with Belarus, Latvia and Poland on emergency planning provide for earlynotification about emergency and assistance in emergency response.




According to the Plan for the Protection of the Population of the Republic ofLithuania in the Event of an Nuclear Accident, the Fire Protection Department isresponsible for dissemination of the information to public through an establishedwarning system as well as Radio and TV.

The warning system is based on all levels (state, county and municipal)emergency response plans. The plans have detail lists and schemes of interaction.Emergency response systems are similar at local, county and state levels.Common decision making principles are applied for all three levels. Emergencymanagement centres shell be established in a case of an emergency. One of theprimary tasks of Emergency Management Centres at all levels is disseminating

105

public with information regarding emergency. The Resolution of the Governmenton Public Information in case of Radiological or Nuclear Accident adopted in2002 provides measures and common procedures for public information.


Not indicated.


We have not established rules on such inventory in a case of nuclear damage.

For the present, we would apply the existing order on inventory of the material damagethat is established according to the Law on Civil Protection of 1998 and, if necessary,the order for inventory of the damage to requisitioned property that is establishedaccording to the Law on State of Emergency of 2002.

Speaking about injuries, The Radiation Protection Center, which is responsible forpublic dose exposure evaluation, would register dose received by each person.

Additionally, it should be mentioned that the state bodies of interest are preparingamendments to the Plan for the Protection of the Population of the Republic ofLithuania in the Event of an Nuclear Accident. The amended plan should foresee aninventory of damage which each has suffered in case an nuclear damage. TheEmergency Management Commission, the Fire protection Department, county andmunicipal Emergency Management Centers should be responsible for such inventory.The amended plan should include provisions on preparing an order that should beestablished for inventory of loss or damage to property in a case of emergency.


No legal provisions in the national legislation regarding such assistance.


No legal provisions in the national legislation regarding claim management.



–


–

106









The law on Environment Protection of 1992 provides for methodologies for costevaluation for rehabilitating the environment, however, a methodology forrehabilitating the environment in particular case of radionuclide contaminationhas not been prepared.


–



–


–(d) Would the following persons be entitled to claim compensation for damage suffered:


–

107


–



Since there are not provisions for such case in the national legislation, the Governmentwill decide whether to provide or not an additional compensation in respect of currentlegislation.




In the case of an accident in Slovakia, Lithuania will participate in the system of assistanceestablished by EU legislation (the Fire Protection Department in the Ministry of Interior).For the presence, we do not have any other base for joint actions.


–


According to our national legislation:

− decision regarding evacuation is to be made by the Government after proposal putforward by the Emergency Management Commission. The Commission makessuch proposal after consultations with county and municipal EmergencyManagement Centers.

− county and municipal Emergency Management Centers are entitled to decide onsheltering and iodine distribution in the area after recommendations of theMinistry of Health.


–

108






Through official external relations

No legal provisions regarding the following issues:

� bring that information to the attention of people in your State who are likely tohave suffered damage?




� arrange for the recognition and enforcement of decisions of the competent courtin your State?


109

Netherlands_____________







As long as it is likely that the total amount of claims will remain below the maximumliability of the operator and thus is covered by his liability insurance, the claims will bedealt with by the insurer of the liable nuclear operator. In cases like this the State willnormally not organise an inventory of the victims and their injury or damage.

However, if a reasonable likelihood exists that the total amount of claims will exceedthe liability of the nuclear operator, the Nuclear Liability Act requires amongst othersthat the District Court of The Hague appoints an examining judge who shall beresponsible for determining the statements of distribution of the available amounts andshall appoint a committee of liquidators.


The general rule is: No.

In exceptional circumstances however, the State can decide, on an ad-hoc basis, toassist victims.




For this type of damages the nuclear operator is in principle liable and thereforehis insurer must pay (up till the amount of the liability).


110


The nuclear operator is in principle not liable for this type of damage andtherefore no payment will take place.



The nuclear operator is in principle liable.


The nuclear operator is in principle liable.


The nuclear operator is in principle not liable.


Assuming that the nuclear operator is liable for the accident, his insurer has topay for a limited period of time and with deductions for social security benefitspaid to the personnel and other benefits they did receive.


In case of proven contamination: The nuclear operator is in principle liable.

In case of rumoured contamination only: The nuclear operator is in principle notliable.



On the basis of the existing law and jurisprudence these costs will presumably bedetermined along the lines of the definitions of “measures of reinstatement”and“reasonable measures” in the revised Paris Convention.

� claim compensatin for such cost?

On that same basis.

111



No.


No.



Yes.

The Nuclear Liability Act does not make any distinction based upon domicile orresidence of victims, as far as the liability of the nuclear operator is concerned.


Yes.


Those persons have to enter their claims in the same manner as every other claimant.As long as the operator liable is the operator of a nuclear installation situated in theNetherlands and the damage is:

− suffered in a Paris State;

− suffered in a Vienna State, Party to the Joint Protocol; or

− regardless where suffered, resulting from a nuclear incident on the territory of theNetherlands;

the Nuclear Liability Act makes no distinction between claimants from the variousstates as far as the total amount of claims remains below the maximum amount ofliability of the nuclear operator.

However for damage suffered on Netherlands territory for which the operator of anuclear installation situated in the Netherlands is liable and the funds available fromother sources are insufficient to compensate all damage, the State shall provide publicfunds to the effect that a total amount of € 2.268.901.080 is available. This provisionalso applies to damage suffered in States Party to the Brussels SupplementaryConvention, which have enacted provisions equivalent to this provision. For claims

112

under this provision, the Nuclear Liability Act therefore does differentiate betweenclaimants from different states.


No general rules exist.

In very exceptional circumstances however, Government and/or Parliament canconsider whether use should be made of existing funds, or that new legislation shouldbe drafted.







Through the usual diplomatic channels, informal personal connections and assistanceof local experts.


Radio, tv, press, internet.


The National Coordination Centre, in which all relevant ministries are represented, willcompile this inventory.


The general rule is: No.


113

In exceptional circumstances however, the State can decide, on an ad-hoc basis, toassist victims.


No.


In conformity with article 13 (d) of the existing Paris Convention.

115

Norway________




The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA), a governmental directorateunder the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services, is Norway’s competentauthority and national contact and warning point for international warning agreements,such as the 1986 Conventions on Notification and Assistance, as well as severalinternational (mostly bilateral) agreements with several states. The NRPA maintainround-the-clock alertness, and is affiliated to national and international networks formeasurement of radioactivity.

The National Preparedness Organisation for Nuclear Accidents, established byRoyal Decree of 26 June 1998, is built around the Crisis Committee for NuclearAccidents. The Crisis Committee relies on a set of scientific advisers, recruited frommajor government agencies and institutions with special expertise in nuclear andradiological emergency preparedness. The County Governors represent the regionalcomponent of the nuclear accident preparedness. The core members of the CrisisCommittee for Nuclear Accidents are:

• The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (leader and secretariat)

• The Ministry of Defence

• The Police Directorate

• The Norwegian Food Safety Authority

• The Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning

• The Directorate for Health and Social Affairs

The main object of the Crisis Committee is to protect life, health, the environment andimportant social interests during a nuclear or radiological emergency. In the acutephase of a nuclear accident, the Committee shall determine the action to be taken; in thesubsequent phase, it will act as advisor to the Government and its relevant ministries,and other authorities. Furthermore, the Committee is responsible for the development ofcontinuous nuclear and radiological emergency preparedness. In the acute phase, theCrisis Committee can decide:

• to secure contamined areas

• to initiate evacuation from areas at risk

• short-time dose-reducing measures/restrictions on food production


116

• decontamination (cleansing) of contaminated persons

• indoor stay in risk areas

• use of shelters

• distribution of iodine tablets

• dietal advices

• other dose-reducing measures

The Crisis Committee for Nuclear Accidents can also be involved in relevant mattersregarding medium and long-term effects by giving advice to other governmentalorganisations.

In addition to the mandate given for the Crisis Committee, the Norwegian RadiationProtection Authority may, according to the Act on Radiation Protection and Use ofRadiation (12 May 2000), refuse to import or sale any product or substance and anyitem that may involve a risk to health or environment due to radiation, provided thatthis is not in conflict with international agreements to which Norway has acceded.



Answer to (b) and (c): During the acute phase, the Norwegian Radiation ProtectionAuthority (NRPA), on behalf of the Crisis Committee for Nuclear Accidents, will haveclose contact with its neighbouring states and their respective competent authorities andcontacts points, discussing and assessing the situation, using available expertise.Through the IAEA, and if possible directly to the Accident State, the NRPA will seek toacquire all available and necessary information about the accident, and what possibleconsequences it might have for Norway. This work is guided by the preparedness plansof the NRPA and the Crisis Committee, relevant guides and handbooks from the IAEA,in addition to the conventions on notification and assistance.

The NRPA will use all available technical resources for both the communication andthe assessment work.

The cooperation between Norway and its neighbouring states rest heavily on the day-to-day cooperation that exists. In addition, there are programmes in the field of researchwhich can be useful. One example is The Nordic Nuclear Safety Research Programme(NKS), which is a partnership between the radiation protection, nuclear safety andpreparedness authorities of the Nordic countries, aims to improve safety, expertise andknowledge in the field of nuclear safety, and contributes to a Nordic division of labourwhenever this is rational.





117

Information to the public on the nature of the accident and its possible consequenceswill be issued by the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority through press releases,press conferences, internet and by all other available means.

The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority has organised a special informationgroup that can be augmented by several information experts from other governementalauthorities. The group will work in close cooperation with the Crisis Committee forNuclear Accidents.

When it comes to non-acute issues (issues related to medium and long-term effects), theNorwegian Radiation Protection Authority may direct the questions to the properauthorities, for example the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry ofAgriculture and Food, and their respective organisations and directorates.



Answer to (b) and (c): Inventories on acute personal damage (like numbers of dead orinjured) suffered by individual Norwegian citizens is a matter for the police. The Policemay require assistance from the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority and theCrisis Committee for Nuclear Accidents, of which the Police Directorate is a member.Other inventories (of a non-acute character) will be set up by the proper nationalauthorities depending on the type of damage. The Norwegian Radiation ProtectionAuthority and the Crisis Committee for Nuclear Accidents will produce reports on theaccident itself, and its possible impact on society when it comes to the effects ofradiation and possible counter-measures.

119

Slovak Republic_________________


1. Dissemination of Information about the Accident1

(a) What is the applicable procedure, and what means are used, for disseminatinginformation between the competent national and local authorities?

The information is disseminated by means of notification and warning system. Theinformation concerning accident starts by the Nuclear Installation (NI) and is initiatedby the shift supervisor. Then it proceeds to the local authorities, competent authority(regulatory authority) and to the national level – National Emergency Commission forRadiation Accident (NECRA). Relevant procedures concerning notification andwarning are fixed in the on-site emergency plan, off-site emergency plan and nationalemergency plan. Notification and warning is covered by 24 hours duty service.

First of all shift supervisor informs state authorities and ministries (Nuclear RegulatoryAuthority, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Health etc.) and Headquarters of Slovenskéelektrárne, a. s. (SE – Slovak NPP operator) by phone or by fax. Information about theoccurrence of the accident and its possible progression is provided first of all. Follow-up information is distributed based on first evaluation of plant status. It also includesrecommended measures for public protection in the affected area.

As the means there are used the reserved telephone networks, faxes, e-mail accounts,electronic mass media and sirens.

Public warning and notification to authorities and organisations within a range of 30 kmaround the Bohunice site is provided by:

1. External warning system in the hazard area comprising more than 400 rotarysirens. Further to siren sound warning additional information for the public willbe transmitted by the electronic mass media.

2. External person notification system uses so called HADOS receivers. Themayors of the municipalities, towns and cities, large companies, otherinstitutions and all NECRA members (Slovak Government’s Commission forRadiation Accidents) are outfitted with these receivers. In addition, notificationto authorities and organisations is provided via public telephone networks,controlled by automatic telephone person notification device ZU 1619 APCZUZANA.

The public warning and notification to authorities, organisations is provided 20 kmaround the Mochovce site by:

1. Radio controlled electronic siren based warning system (more than 200 sirens).Similarly as in Bohunice case followed by additional information provided byelectronic mass media.

1. Questions to be answered by the Accident State: Slovak Republic in Scenario 1, Hungary inScenario 2.

120

2. Paging radio network based system to notify authorities, organisations and staff.ERO - EMO members on call, municipality, town & city mayors and emergencycommission and joint staff members are fitted with the transmitters.

(b) Who is responsible for disseminating information to the public regarding

� Preventive measures to be taken?

Pursuant to the § 28 Section 17 and 18 of the Atomic Act, public serviceauthorities and municipalities concerned shall be liable to make the public withinthe endangered area informed of the preventive protection measures for thepopulation in case of an incident or accident at the nuclear installation or upon anincident or accident upon transport of radioactive materials.

Public service authorities and municipalities, as well as legal entities and naturalpersons concerned shall be liable to participate, within the scope and in the waydetermined by the specific Off-site Emergency Plan, in exercising and taking ofprotective measures, as well as, within the scope determined, in the elimination ofconsequences of incidents or accidents at nuclear installations or incidents oraccidents upon transport of radioactive materials.

For disseminating information to the public regarding the preventive measures tobe taken are responsible both the NPP operators and regional (county and district)authorities. In the case of nuclear event at nuclear installation on the nationalterritory the operator of nuclear installation is responsible for the public warningand notification as laid in national law.

Plant shift supervisor provides first information to the permanent service of theCivil Protection Office (CPO) of the Ministry of Interior. This includesinformation on the accident happened, its expected development, first evaluationof source term, wind velocity and its direction and affected sectors of theemergency planning zone. Based on this information, district and regionalemergency commission take appropriate actions for public protection accordingto their internal procedures.

Permanent service of the CPO completes template information to the public oninevitable measures, like sheltering, iodine prophylaxis, etc., which isbroadcasted via electronic mass media. An agreement between SE and Ministryof Interior is concluded for these purposes.

� Availability of emergency payments?

There exists specific regulation No. 557/2002 Coll. on the civil protectionexpenses provided from the state budget resources that is based on CivilProtection Act. It defines the financial arrangements of civil protection systemitself. There is specified concretely which measures are covered by the Statebudget resources where Ministry of Interior has its own budget section as well aswhich are covered by the County Offices budgets.

The expenses on the rescue, containment and elimination operations in the caseof emergency situation and for evacuation to be done are covered by the budgetresources of the County Offices concerned.

If such funds and reserves for emergency interventions are not sufficient the casehas to be solved on the state level via decision of NECRA.

121

In the emergency situation the trans-boundary financial aid might be providedbased on concluded bilateral agreements. (See Title I Section 2 Letter b).

� Health care services for performing check-ups and for injured victims, etc?

In general responsible is Ministry of Health. Every NPP has health arrangementsobligatory prepared on site and there are agreements between NPP and healthfacilities for case of an nuclear event. Health care services for injuredoccupational victims of an accident are provided according to approved “Plan onHealth Care Measures”. Victims are sorted out according to seriousness of theirharm and transported to a particular appointed hospital. It takes into accountcases of health states of life threatening, injuries, burns, received individualdoses, internal contamination etc. Individuals in life threatening states, seriouslyinjured or suffering burns are transported to local hospitals in Trnava or Levice.Workers of NPP with high individual doses or with internal contamination aresent to specialized clinics in Bratislava, based on extent of their harm.

Co-ordination of health care services for public victims is assured by regionalauthorities, and if necessary, on the state level, via NECRA.

� How compensation claims can be made?

Pursuant to the § 30 Section 5 of Atomic Act upon the occurrence of a nuclearevent, the authorisation holder is liable to make written information availablewithin the area affected by such an event, according to the findings of the NuclearRegulatory Authority and other bodies concerned, that he is liable for the nucleardamage caused by the event. This written notice must be publicly accessible atthe authorisation holder, at the Nuclear Regulatory Authority and in allmunicipalities within the area.

(c) How is information disseminated to Affected States?

There are three ways at present:

1. Information is sent through the contact point (Nuclear Regulatory Authority ofSlovakia) to the IAEA Emergency Services and these forward the informationfurther, to the Affected States and then to other states. Such dissemination ofinformation is based on the Convention on Early Notification of a NuclearAccident that the Slovak Republic is bound by.

2. Information is sent in frame of bilateral agreements through the contact point tothe neighbouring states.

3. The information is disseminated by the EU system ECURIE concerning urgentexchange of radiological information among EU member states and Switzerlandbased on Council Decision No. 87/600/Euratom of 14 December 1987 onCommunity Arrangements for the Early Exchange of Information in the Event ofa Radiological Emergency (Official Journal L 371, 30/12/1987 p. 0076-0078).

There is also Warning and Notification Centre of Civil Protection Office at Ministry ofInterior that besides Nuclear Regulatory Authority send the information based onbilateral agreements with Affected states and it also provides for 24 hours duty servicefor the Nuclear Regulatory Authority if needed.

122

2. Emergency Response2

(a) Who is responsible for making decisions in respect of preventive measures such asevacuation, sheltering, iodine distribution, etc.?

Such measures are defined in off-site emergency plans for each level of public serviceauthorities and municipalities including the objects located in the emergency zone. Inactual case the decision itself is made by county emergency commission respectivelygovernmental emergency commission that, in a case of emergency situation, take partin the crisis staff of County Offices respectively Central Crisis Staff.

The ultimate making decision on taking preventive measures such as evacuation,sheltering, iodine prophylaxis, etc. rests with a chairman of district and regionalemergency commission. Information for further activities of population is given byMinistry of Interior via public address system, radio and TV releases. Iodine pills arepre-distributed in the area of emergency planning zone (population, schools, factories,institutions…). There is a 100% reserve of pills for individuals who stay temporarywithin emergency planning zone.

Intervention limits and derived intervention limits for preventive measures are set inRegulation of Ministry of Health No. 12/2001 Coll. on requirements on radiationprotection assurance. Preventive measures are based on diverted effective or equivalentdose within specific time period.

As mentioned above, NI operator provides information on the accident happened, itsexpected development, evaluation of source term, wind velocity and its direction andaffected sectors of the emergency planning zone. Additional radiological data areprovided by Slovak Radiation Network Monitoring Centre and from RODOS systemcalculations.

(b) How would these preventive measures be co-ordinated with those of State C for thatpart of State C falling within the 20 kilometre radius of State A’s installation?

There is used permanent mutual exchange of information about radiological situationby means of the Slovak Radiation Network Monitoring Centre and National RODOSCentre.

These preventive measures would be co-ordinated by the civil protection offices ofcountries concerned.

Moreover, Slovak republic concluded agreements on providing a bilateral assistance inthe case of emergency situation, disaster or calamity with Czech republic, Hungary,Austria, Russia, Poland, Slovenia, Ukraine and Croatia focusing on rendering themutual assistance and cooperation in performing the preventive measures, mutualexchange of information about the emergency situation, in common exercising, inevacuation as well as on compensation of expenses and damages occurred at providingfor assistance.

(c) Who is responsible for making decisions in respect of restrictions on harvesting,production, marketing and consumption of food products? How would contaminatedfoodstuffs be withdrawn from the market and disposed of?

2. Questions to be answered by the Accident State for Scenario 1only: Slovak Republic.

123

Responsibility for making decision on restriction of food consumption, harvesting,production etc. also rest with the Head of County Office concerned, respectively Headof the Central Crisis Staff, respectively the Government itself based on the NECRArecommendation. NECRA itself has necessary tools for assessment of radiologicalsituation and the specialists from concerned ministries such as Ministry of Health,Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Land, Ministry of Economy etc. are members ofNECRA. NECRA may recommend prohibition of their distribution, to order theirspecial management depending on the contamination characteristics or product itself(collection, storage etc.), consecutive disposal etc.

These measures are taken based on information provided by expert steering group ofNECRA – Operative Control Group and radiological data provided by Slovak RadiationNetwork Monitoring Centre and from RODOS system calculations.

(d) Would the State claim a right of recourse against the operator in respect of costsincurred for the destruction or disposal of contaminated foodstuffs?

When the measures for the civil protection are planned in off-site emergency plans forthe case of emergency situation there is also prohibition of consumption or use ofcontaminated foodstuffs, feedstuffs and contaminated water for the population and forthe animals besides the other measures. Such measures are set as rescue operations.Pursuant to the applicable law, the expenses on the rescue, containment and eliminationoperations in the case of emergency situation are covered by the budget resources of theCounty Offices concerned (See Title I Section 1 Letter b) second Indent). RegulationNo. 557/2002 Coll. on the civil protection expenses provided from the State budgetresources, defines the financial arrangements of civil protection system itself. If suchfunds and reserves for emergency interventions are not sufficient the case has to besolved on the state level via decision of NECRA.

In respect of these expenses the State would claim a right of recourse against theoperator as laid down by the abovementioned regulation No. 557/2002 Coll.

3. Nuclear Insurer3


Nuclear operator is responsible for informing the nuclear operator´ insurer of theaccident.


Yes, the operator´s insurer is permanently on call.


The Slovak Nuclear Insurance Pool (the insurer) has a special cooperation agreementsigned among the pool members who deals with the response to a nuclear accident andmobilisation of resources. (Claims handling personnel, emergency response teams,information collection forms, etc.)


124


Yes, mainly in Affected States where a national nuclear pool exists. In all other cases adhoc solutions would be looked for.


No.



� Is there a maximum amount?




� on your national territory?

In the Slovak republic does not exist specification of obtaining thecomprehensive inventories of nuclear damage suffered laid down by law. Itwould be an interest of injured parties as well as of operator and insurer as well.The operator and injured parties might be supported by the insurer assistance andcooperation.

Pursuant to the § 29 Section 4 of Atomic Act, when determining the scope of lossand the method of indemnification of nuclear damage, provisions of the generallybinding regulations concerning liability for damage (the Civil Code and theCommercial Code) shall be used. Regulations applicable at the time of theoccurrence of the nuclear event that caused the nuclear damage shall apply forpurposes of determination of the nuclear damage.

� in Affected States whose victims are entitled to claim compensation pursuant toan applicable international third party liability regime?

The insurer will offer assistance in collecting such information via national poolsin Affected States.


Generally the operator and insurer are responsible for handling compensation claims,depending on extent of damage and number of claimants.


125


Generally the insurer and operator, depending on number of claimants.


No we do not have such system laid down by law.


Pursuant to the § 30 Section 5 of Atomic Act upon the occurrence of a nuclear event,the holder of authorisation for operation (operator) is liable to make written informationavailable within the area affected by such an event, according to the findings of theNuclear Regulatory Authority and other bodies concerned, that he is liable for thenuclear damage caused by the event. This written notice must be publicly accessible atthe authorisation holder, at the Nuclear Regulatory Authority and in all municipalitieswithin the area.

At first each injured party would claim its right of compensation for damage sufferedagainst the operator. We suppose that injured parties would assert their claims directlyto the liable operator, who will gather all requests. There is also other possibility thatthe operator will empower the insurer to collect all claims.In the case of an injured party would not be successful in obtaining the compensationdirectly from operator, they shall claim its rights of compensation against the operatorin the competent court.


Pursuant to the § 29 Section 4 of Atomic Act, the right for indemnification for nucleardamage shall be statute barred if it fails to be claimed within three years of the date onwhich knowledge was or could be obtained by the injured party of the event resulting innuclear damage and of who was liable for it, or within 20 years of the occurrence ofsuch an event, whichever comes earlier, or after the extinction of insurance if thevalidity of the policy was longer.


No.


Such possibility is not laid down by the national law but is not excluded (e. g. there ispossibility for claimants to appoint their common counsellor).


State C radiation workers claims will be dealt with in the same way as claims of otherworkers. There are no legal reasons to distinguish among them, otherwise it could bejustified as discrimination.

126

(j) How would claims from the following victims be dealt with:� a person originating from a Non-Contracting State who is on holiday in the

Accident State at the time of the accident and suffers personal injury and propertyloss? In particular, how would that person initiate and follow progress on theirclaim following their return to their home country?

There are no legal reasons to distinguish among them otherwise it could bejustified as discrimination.

There is possibility of providing for assistance through the national insurancepools if exist. (See Title I Section 3 Letter d).

� a person who is a permanent resident in your State but who is on holiday in anAffected State which is a Non-Contracting State at the time of the accident andsuffers property loss there?

There is possibility of providing for assistance through the national insurancepools if exist.



There is no special court determined by law to have jurisdiction in case ofcompensation claims concerning the nuclear damage. However, when legislativeprocedure for the new Atomic Act was held last year there was made an attempt todetermine one specialized court in the first Atomic Act Draft. Such proposal was notaccepted in legislative process due to observation and comments of concernedministries. Therefore the competent court will be determined according to theevaluation of the damage suffered by individual claimant, the subject of the damage andthe character of damage pursuant to the general provisions on the subject and locallycompetent court as laid down in the Civil Proceedings Code.



Yes.


The competent court might issue a verdict based on the provisions of generalliability as laid in the Civil Code that environmental damage is subject tocompensation.



127

The competent court might issue a verdict based on the provisions of generalliability as laid in the Civil Code and Commercial Code that Economic loss/Non-material damage is subject to compensation.


Yes.

� Other damages?

The competent court might issue a verdict based on the provisions of generalliability as laid in the Civil Code and Commercial Code that Other damages aresubject to compensation.


In nowadays, the way of how the claims for damage will be covered if the insurancecoverage of the operator is insufficient to cover all the claims is not laid down inAtomic Act. In this case we can only expect that the competent court would decide onhow those funds will be distributed pursuant to the general provisions on the generalliability for damage as laid down in the Civil Code and Commercial Code.





There does not exist such funds for compensation damages. The State will notcompensate such damages in general but there is possibility that State might provide fora special objected financial aid in certain individual cases from the GovernmentalReserve Fund.


The Slovak republic has concluded bilateral agreements with many countries onreciprocal relief and recognition and performance of law based on the verdict of theother state´s court.

128


FOR SCENARIOS 1 AND 2


(a) Your national emergency plan has been activated to deal with the consequences of thisaccident. Which are the competent bodies to make decisions on counter-measures inrelation to agriculture, industrial activities, import/export?

NECRA is a decision maker on the state level. These are representatives of all relevantministries in the NECRA. Based on results of radiological situation evaluation made byOperative Expert Group expert decisions are taken. (See Title I Section 2 Letter c).)

(b) How do those authorities liaise with the competent authorities in the Accident State toobtain recent and reliable information on releases, contamination etc.

Emergency response centre of Nuclear Regulatory Authority together with OperativeExpert Group of NECRA perform a comprehensive evaluation of radiological situationand consequently prepare recommendations and suggestions for decision makers on thelevel of NECRA. Information is forwarded as soon as possible.

There are three ways at present:

1. Information is sent through the contact point (Nuclear Regulatory Authority ofSlovakia) to the IAEA emergency services and these forward the informationfurther, to the affected states and then to other states.

2. Information is sent in frame of bilateral agreements through the contact point toneighbouring states

3. The information is disseminated by the EU system ECURIE concerning urgentexchange of radiological information among EU member states and Switzerland.


Neighbouring states are informed immediately on countermeasures taken via contactpoints. Communication is possible by means of phone, fax, e-mail. Information can beexchanged also via ECURIE system or ENATOM, if appropriate other bilateralagreements.




According to the Atomic Act and relevant decree the operator as well as relevantregional authorities have to inform public on all aspects of accident and toprovide guidance how to behave. The information is disseminated by radio and

6 These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: SlovakRepublic, nor by the Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary.

129

TV releases. On the state level NECRA prepares information for public which isannounced by means of NECRA speaker.


There is provision of § 30 Section 5 of Atomic Act: upon the occurrence of anuclear event, the holder of authorisation for operation (operator) is liable tomake written information available within the area affected by such an event,according to the findings of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority and other bodiesconcerned, that he is liable for the nuclear damage caused by the event. Thiswritten notice must be publicly accessible at the authorisation holder, at theNuclear Regulatory Authority and in all municipalities within the area.

Such provision is in the case of the nuclear event outside the State requires thetrans–boundary cooperation of regulatory bodies, public authorities as well as theinsurers or operators.


Yes.


The State might provide for all necessary information related to the bringing ofproceedings through dissemination of information about who is the liable operator,where to claim the right of compensation for damage suffered, the period, etc.However, it would be interest of individual claimant to do so by himself/herself.

130

ANNEX

List of pertinent bilateral agreements - Slovak Republic

1. Agreement between the Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and theGovernment of Hungary on Exchange of Information and Co-operation in the Field ofNuclear Safety and Radiation Protection.

2. Agreement between the Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and theFederal Government of Germany on Questions of Common Interest in Connection withNuclear Safety and Radiation Protection.

3. Agreement between the Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and theGovernment of Austria on Questions of Common Interest in Connection with NuclearSafety and Radiation Protection.

4. Agreement between the Government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and theGovernment of India on Co-operation in the Field of Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy.

5. Agreement between the Government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and theGovernment the Union of Soviet Republics on Extension of Co-operation in PeacefulUse of Nuclear Energy.

6. Agreement between the Government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and theGovernment of People´s Republic of Bulgaria on Co-operation in Peaceful Use ofNuclear Energy.

7. Agreement between the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Government of theCzech Republic on Co-operation in the Field of State Supervision of nuclearInstallations an if State Supervision of Nuclear Materials.

8. Agreement between the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Government of theRepublic of Poland on Early Notification of Nuclear Accidents, on Exchange ofInformation and Co-operation in the Field of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection.

9. Agreement between the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Government ofCanada for Co-operation in the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy.

10. Agreement between the Government of the Slovak Republic, the Government ofUkraine and the Government of the Russian Federation on Co-operation in the Field ofTransportation of Nuclear Fuel between the Slovak Republic and the RussianFederation across the Territory of Ukraine.

11. Agreement between the Government of the Slovak Republic, the Government of theCzech Republic, the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet ofMinisters of Ukraine on Co-operation in the Field of Transportation of NuclearMaterials between the Czech Republic and the Russian Federation across the Territoryof the Slovak Republic and the Territory of Ukraine.

12. Agreement between the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Cabinet ofMinisters of Ukraine on Early Notification of Nuclear Accidents, on Exchange ofInformation and Co-operation in the Field of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection.

131

13. Agreement between the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Government of theRepublic of Slovenia for the Exchange of Information in the Field of Nuclear Safety.

14. Agreement between the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Government ofRomania on Early Notification of Nuclear Accidents and Information Exchange onNuclear Facilities.

15. Agreement between the Government of the Slovak Republic and the Government of theCzech Republic on Early Notification of Nuclear Accidents.

16. Agreement between the Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic and FederalNuclear and Radiation Safety Authority of Russia on Co-operation in the Field of StateSupervision of Nuclear Safety in the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy.

17. Agreement between the Ministry of Economy and the Committee on the Use of AtomicEnergy for Peaceful Purposes of the Republic of Bulgaria on Co-operation in the FieldState Supervision of Nuclear safety in the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy.

18. Arrangement between the Nuclear Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic(U.J.D.S.R.) and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S.N.R.C.) forthe Exchange of Technical Information and Co-operation in Nuclear Safety Matters.

19. Arrangement between the Nuclear Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic and theNuclear Installations Safety Directorate of the French Republic for Exchange ofInformation and Co-operation in the Regulation of Nuclear Safety.

20. Administrative Arrangement between the Nuclear Regulatory Authority of the SlovakRepublic and the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada pursuant to the Agreementbetween the Government of Canada and the Government of the Slovak Republic forCo-operation in the Field of Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy.

133

Slovenia__________




In both scenarios the competent body in Slovenia is a Civil Protection Headquarters ofthe Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter: CPH), based on the Civil Protection legislationand State Emergency plan.


CPH would obtain recent and reliable information on releases, contamination and otherconsequences through Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration (SNSA) andAdministration for Civil Protection and Disaster Relief (ACPDR) which act as a contactpoint according to IAEA and EU "emergency" arrangements.

The IAEA/ENTOM procedures would be used, based on the Early NotificationConvention.

Since the accident in both scenarios has occurred in EU States, recent and reliableinformation would also be obtained through Ecurie arrangements, based on the CouncilDecision of 14 December 1987 on Community arrangements for the early exchange ofinformation in the event of a radiological emergency (87/600/Euratom).

For scenario 2 the bilateral agreement with Hungary on early exchange of informationin case of radiological emergency would also be used to obtain recent and reliableinformation on releases, contamination etc.


Yes, as much as such co-ordination is provided for in the IAEA and EU "emergency"arrangements.

In addition, the bilateral agreements with neighbouring states (Austria, Croatia andHungary) on early exchange of information in case of radiological emergency would bethe channel for the exchange of proposed counter-measures and their co-ordination.




134



Since Slovak Republic (State A) in scenario 1 has informed the IAEA, EC andthe neighbouring states, Slovenia has been informed and consequently the CPHhas been operational.

Scenario 2 does not provide such information, but we believe that HungarianAuthorities would notify Slovenia pursuant to it's obligations under variousinternational instruments and/or bilateral agreement.

The CPH would disseminate the information to the public by using press releases,radio, TV, internet ….

With respect to information on claims, the SNSA and the Nuclear Insurance andReinsurance Pool (Pool) would jointly inform the public using the same tools.


Yes, the Pool would organise and co-ordinate such action.


Yes, by explaining the general conventional rules and provisions of national third partyliability Act which govern the proceedings for claims.


In general it is difficult to understand the nature of the questions in this section since based onboth Paris and Vienna Convention Slovenian legislation would not be applied and Sloveniancourt would not be competent in either scenario.

Based on the provision of Article III of the Joint Protocol, the applicable Convention in thecase of a nuclear incident occurring in a nuclear installation is that to which the State withinwhose territory that installation is situated is a Party (for Scenario 1 – Slovak Republic) and inthe case of a nuclear incident outside a nuclear installation that to which the State withinwhose territory the nuclear installation is situated is a Party (for Scenario 2 – Germany).



On the basis of the valid Slovenian Act on Liability for Nuclear Damage theseclaims would be compensated.

(ii) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usualagricultural products due to the public’s fear that those products are

135

contaminated, even though commercial contamination levels were not exceeded(rumour damage) and who lose considerable revenue as a result.

These claims would not be compensated.





These claims would probably be compensated.









It is not foreseen in advance, it would be evaluated on the individual case basis.


The State would probably not claim compensation.



No.

136


No.



Yes; the Act on Liability for Nuclear Damage does not make any distinctionbased on residence of victims.


Yes.


These persons would enter their claims as any other victims.


It is not foreseen in existing legislation; however, in exceptional circumstances theParliament could pass an intervention act to provide additional compensation.







137


SNSA would obtain information on the legislative systems through the Ministry ofForeign Affairs or directly since Slovenia has bilateral agreements both with SlovakRepublic and Hungary.

With regard to claiming procedures the Pool would obtain information from the insurerof the State, on whose territory the liable operator’s installation is situated.


The SNSA and the Pool would jointly inform the public using press releases, radio, TV,internet ….


The Pool would compile an inventory of those having suffered damage.


The Pool would assist victims in the procedures for claiming compensation.


The SNSA would monitor the progress of claims through the Pool.


Based on both liability conventions the decisions of the competent court becomeenforceable in the territory of any of the other Contracting Parties. If the decisionshould be enforced in the territory of Slovenia, the provisions of the Execution ofJudgements in Civil Matters and Insurance of Claims Act would apply.






138


Questions for Slovenia and Switzerland:

(c) What steps would you take in response to a request from Germany for the earlymobilisation of international funds under the third tier and what, if any, conditionsmight you attach to the actual transfer of those funds?

Slovenia would positively respond to such request.

(d) What steps would you take in response to a request from Germany for payment of thethird tier of compensation under the BSC and what, if any, conditions might you attachto the actual transfer of those funds?

Slovenia would positively respond to such request.

139

South Africa_____________




Competent bodies to make possible decisions on counter-measures in relation toagriculture, industrial activities and import and export will be identified by the NationalDisaster Management Centre (the National Centre) established in terms of theDisaster Management Act No. 57 of 2002. This legislation provides for anIntergovernmental Committee on Disaster Management.


Liaison will have to be done through the National Centre in communication with theDepartment of Foreign Affairs.


Yes. This will be in terms of the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a NuclearAccident or Radiological Emergency.




The relevant local authority notifies the relevant authorities in the AccidentState of the accident through formal means. The Regulator may publish a noticein the Government Gazette and in newspapers circulating in the accident areainforming the public about the accident.

National Centre maintains a directory of institutional role players that are orshould be involved in disaster management and informs public andcommunities through communication channels it has established whichincludes mass media (radio, electronic, print and television) andannouncements.

1 . These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: SlovakRepublic, nor by the Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary.

140


The National Centre may conduct workshops and act in any other wayapproved by the Director-General of the Department. The other means wouldbe publishing of notices in the Government Gazette and in newspapers. Theother would be direct communication with the persons whose particulars wereobtained.


The National Nuclear Regulator Act No. 47 of 1999 provides for the Regulator to directthe nuclear license holder to obtain the names, addresses and identification numbers ofall persons who were during the period of the accident within that area. Therelegislation does not require that the injury or damage that each person has suffered berecorded. It should also be noted that our legislation provides that the license holdermust be directed to collect this information on the basis that the installation is withinour borders. There are no provisions relating to a holder whose installation is not withinthe South African borders.


In terms of the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident orRadiological Emergency our state would assist the victims. Regarding the proceedingsthe national laws relating to civil procedure will have to be adhered to.









141



Since the liable operator is not within the South African borders and is not alicense holder within the meaning of the National Nuclear Regulator Act No. 47of 1999, the liability of such operator will have to be proven in accordance withthe normal civil law principles.

The claims listed under this item would have to be dealt with in terms of the ourcivil law and procedure as provided in our common law and in the Magistrate’sCourt Act No. 32 of 1944 and the Supreme Court Act No. 59 of 1959.

Since the liable operator is not within the borders of South Africa victims wouldhave to find property belonging to the liable operator within South Africa so as toconfirm jurisdiction and to attach same for litigation to proceed in South Africa.If this is possible then the victims listed in (a)(i)-(v) will must prove the damagesthey suffered as a result of the accident.

Where there is not property to be attached to confirm jurisdiction the victims willhave to follow the liable operator and institute their actions in the state of theliable operator and either seek to enforce the law of that state or South Africanlaw in that state against the liable operator.




The state will conduct environmental assessment study and have an environmentalimpact report. The procedures for claiming damages will be done in the same way as in(a) above.




The answer for both cases is no.



142


The answer for both cases is yes. These people will have to claim as if they werecitizens of the Accident State.



The position would be that, where the liable operator was a license holder within themeaning of the National Regulator Act and security provided would be insufficientParliament would allocate funds for compensation.

Where however the victims are compensated pursuant to ordinary civil litigation eitherin or outside South Africa and the National Nuclear Regulator Act is not applicable thestate would not provide additional compensation.





Where there are sufficient factors to enable South African Courts to exercise their jurisdictionand the arrive at a decision, such a decision may only be recognized and enforced in countrieswhich have reciprocating arrangements with South Africa either by having been designated orby virtue of South Africa having acceded to the Hague Conventions.

Failing these mechanisms South Africa may approach the courts of the State in whoseterritory the liable operator’s installation is situated and in accordance with the laws of suchstate seek to have the South African decision recognized and enforced in such State.

143

Spain_________




There is a Governmental Commission for Crisis Management under the direct orders ofthe President of the State and composed of the competent Ministers. This Commissionhas an executive organ, namely the Committee of National Civil Emergency Plans andSubcommittees to carry out exceptional measures.


This question is regulated in two areas:

− In the EU: The main document is Council Decision 87/600, of December 14th, onCommunity arrangements for the early exchange of information in the event of aradiological emergency. In this area the Community and the Member States’work is organised in the so called system ECURIE. For these purposes, thecompetent authority designed in Spain is the Nuclear Safety Council (Consejo deSeguridad Nuclear, CSN), and the contact point is the so-called “SALEM” orEmergency Room of the CSN.

− At the IAEA: Two Conventions deal with these situations: the Convention onEarly Notification of a Nuclear Accident and the Convention on Assistance in theCase of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency. Both were ratified by theKingdom of Spain through a common instrument on August 30th 1989.

� For the first of these Conventions, the designed authority and contact pointwere originally the CSN and SALEM.

� For the second one, the designed authority was the General Direction ofCivil Protection, depending on the Ministry for Internal Affairs, havingSACOP (Room of Operative Coordination) as contact point.

At a later stage, the competent authority and contact point has been centralized in theGeneral Direction of Civil Protection and SACOP for both IAEA Conventions.

Having two different authorities before the EU and the IAEA does not bring substantialproblems, in so far as immediate flow of information is foreseen between SACOP andSALEM.


144


Apart from one bilateral Agreement with Portugal, there are no other specificAgreements with neighbouring States. With other countries it is understood thatcoordination will take place through the multilateral existing instruments or accordingto the instructions given by the Governmental Commission for Crisis Management.




This aspect is regulated in the general law for Civil Protection. Dissemination ofinformation to the public is one of the aspects that the Territorial Plan forEmergencies must contain according to the law -Royal Decree 407/92 (point 4p).


Royal Decree 1378/85, of Provisional Measures for Action in EmergencySituations in Case of Risk, Catastrophe or Public Calamity, establishes thedifferent kinds of attention to the population, among which social consultationsand services (as a different entry from sanitary attention) are foreseen.


Yes; this inventory is foreseen in the Terrritorial Plans.


In general terms, the Spanish Common Law encourages the formation of Associationsof Victims for the purposes of their representation at judicial procedures. .


In these answers, it is assumed that the questions are referred to Spanish Law as if theaccident had occurred in Spanish Territory, except for paragraphs d and e.



According to the actual law –Nuclear Energy Act 25/1964 and the ParisConvention in force, the operator’s liability covers material damage, so theseclaims would be attended and victims would obtain compensation.

145


No compensation is foreseen for losses which are not a direct consequence of theradioactive properties or the combination of these with the properties ofdangerous materials.



This loss is considered to be the consequence of a preventive measure, soaccording to the actual law and Paris Convention in force these victimswould obtain no compensation. However, the revised Paris Conventiondoes include such compensation as far as the Internal Law does, beingadded that the latter (the Nuclear Energy Act of 1964) is being revised.


This loss of income is not covered by the actual Spanish liability law.However, as in the question above, it is expected to be covered in the nearfuture when the revised Paris Convention is enforceable.


As indicated above, rumours are not a valid ground for claims, neither inthe actual liability law nor in the near future.


This kind of compensation is ruled by the Spanish Labour Code.


There would be no compensation in the actual Spanish liability system. With theforeseen reform according to the revised Paris Convention, only the cases ofproven contamination would obtain compensation.



These measures would be managed according to values given and classified bythe Ministry of Environment.

146


In the understanding that this area is of State ownership, the claims would bemanaged via the Ministry which is entitled in the affected public domain.



As there is no direct material damage, we consider that there would be nocompensation under the Spanish Law.


The same answer applies.



We assume that damage suffered by these Spanish nationals would be covered bythe Slovak law, as the Vienna Convention establishes a non-discriminationprinciple. In any case, the Spanish Ministry of External Affairs would contact theSlovak authorities to deal with the situation of such victims.


The same answer applies.


In Spain a non-discrimination principle among the victims is applied, and theinventories prepared by the Spanish authorities would include all victims, being theirnationality irrelevant.

In the same way, we understand that the inventories of other countries would containthe names and circumstances of victims in their territory, also under a non-discrimination principle. Anyway, this kind of information would be made clear troughthe Spanish Ministry of External Affairs in the affected States – especially in theAccident State.


No; unless some urgency law or measure is adopted.

147




No, according to the law in force. However, exceptional measures would normally be adoptedin cases of catastrophes.

149

Sweden__________




(a) In case of a nuclear accident, or a situation where there is a grave and imminentthreat of a nuclear accident, a vast number of authorities will be involved (e.g. theCounty Administrations, the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, the SwedishRadiation Protection Institute, the National Board of Health and Welfare, the NationalPolice Board and the Defence Ministry). The Swedish Meteorological and HydrologicalInstitute plays an important role in the accident phase as the national warning point incase of an accident in a foreign country. The Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate andthe Swedish Radiation Protection Institute have the immediate task to forwardinformation to authorities and the public.

As for decisions on countermeasures in relation to agriculture the Swedish Board ofAgriculture and the National Food Administration are the competent authorities in caseof a nuclear accident. It is however the County Administrations who are authorised todecide what measures should be taken to protect the public.

As for decisions on countermeasures in relation to industrial activities andimport/export the competent body depend on the kind of damage presumed. Generalquestions will most probably be handled through the government. If there is a provencontamination or there is a risk for contamination in the industrial materials theSwedish Radiation Protection Institute will act on basis of inter alia the SwedishRadiation Protection Act (Sw: Strålskyddslagen).


(b) Sweden is among the 94 parties to the IAEA Convention on Early Notification of aNuclear Accident from 1986. Sweden has moreover concluded bilateral agreements onnotification/warning and exchange of information with the Nordic countries (Denmark,Finland, Norway). Sweden and Germany have concluded an agreement on EarlyNotification of a Nuclear Incident and on Exchange of Information and Experiencesregarding Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection, dated 25 September 1990. Swedenhas also concluded bilateral agreements with Russia and moreover The SwedishNuclear Power Inspectorate and the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute haveagreements and satellite connections to safeguard early notification and exchange ofinformation with the nuclear power plants Ignalina in Lithuania and Sosnoy Bor inRussia.


150

Under Community law the EU member states are obliged to provide early notificationto other Member States of the EU in case of a nuclear incident (Council Decision87/600/Euratom of 14 December 1987 on Community Arrangements for the earlyexchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency). The exchange ofinformation is co-ordinated by the European Commission.

The gist of the agreements is that the Contracting Parties undertake to inform each otherimmediately on nuclear incidents in their respective territories.

A more general Community document is the Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangeroussubstances. Some of the topics of this document is information and emergencyplanning. This Directive is implemented in Swedish law in the Act on ProtectionAgainst Accidents (Sw. lagen (2003:778) om skydd mot olyckor). The CouncilDirective 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public abouthealth protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of aradiological emergency is implemented in the same law.

In Sweden the competent authorities and points of contact authorized inter alia to makeand receive requests for and to accept offers of assistance in case of a nuclear accidentor radiological emergency are the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute,the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate and the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute.

There is a 24 hours contact person at the Swedish Meteorological and HydrologicalInstitute.

The competent Swedish authorities do not differ between the accident phase and thesecond level. This means that the authorities listed under 1(a) will be immediatelyinvolved and have a sustained responsibility.


(c) The Nordic Countries have concluded formal agreements to harmonize theintervention criteria in the event of a radiological emergency and are obliged to provideeach other with information on counter measures taken in the event of an accident andco-ordinate such measures, inter alia the document entitled “Nordic InterventionCriteria for nuclear or Radiological Emergencies – recommendation”. It is possible tocarry out the co-operation directly through the authorities responsible for the nationalrescue operations.

The traditional informal contacts between the Nordic countries are also very wellfunctioning. Within IAEA the Nordic countries are co-operating in cases of commoninterests. Moreover, there is a constant exchange of information as concerns emergencyplanning within the Nordic countries and seminars are co-arranged.

The Nordic nuclear radiation and safety authorities are co-operating within

− NEP, Nordic Emergency Preparedness Group

This group consists of emergency planning experts from the Nuclear radiation andsafety authorities. Sweden is represented through the Swedish Radiation ProtectionAuthority (SSI) and the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI). From FinlandSTUK is part of the group, from Norway Strålvernet and from Iceland the RadiationProtection Institute.

151

NEP is mainly working with routines for early notification and assistance in case of anuclear accident in the Nordic states or other closely situated states. There are alsoroutines worked out for exchange of information in case of an accident at Ignalina, inLeningrad, Kola or Murmansk (see above).

− NKS, Nordic Nuclear Safety Research (Sw: Nordisk Kärnsäkerhetsforskning)

The purpose is to co-ordinate research about nuclear safety issues, preparedness andradiation exposure. Within this organization there is also a possibility for the Nordiccountries without nuclear power plants to share the Finnish and Swedish knowledgeand experience in this area.

Sweden is also part of WENRA (Western European Nuclear Regulators Association).





(a) Information is transmitted through press releases, advertising and Internet.The responsibility for providing information rests both with the CountyAdministrations, the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute and the local safetycommittees at the nuclear installations. The Swedish Radiation ProtectionInstitute shall provide information to the Government, other authorities, the massmedia and the public on the consequences from a radiation point of view of theincident and on the advice given and other measures undertaken. The SwedishNuclear Power Inspectorate also plays an important role in respect of informationto the public.

Even if this area to a great extent is unregulated in Swedish law it goes withoutsaying that the state will act to disseminate information. It is assumed that in caseof a nuclear incident it will be necessary for the State to provide someinformation as to the applicable rules on compensation for damage. Suchinformation would not only be provided on request. The adoption of aninformation strategy with regard to provisions on compensation will probablyhave to be elaborated in conjunction with the relevant insurers. This applies notonly to the obligations of the operator to pay compensation but also to the role ofthe State.

There are no rules in place regarding information to victims abroad. The relevantinformation could be distributed through embassies, consulates and otherrepresentations. Co-operation between authorities in the installation state and the“victim state” would most likely be necessary.


(b) There is no pre-organized national system within the state in this matter. The statewould possibly send out experts in the field to try to identify victims and carry outinventories. At a national level inventories of victims would be organized within the

152

Government Offices of Sweden, probably the Foreign Ministry. Also the insurers wouldco-operate. It would most certainty be possible for the Slovakian Nuclear Pool tocontact the Nordic Nuclear Insurers and request for help registering the victims andinform the public. The Nordic Nuclear Insurers would send out information to thepublic and contact the different insurers to help working out inventories etc.


(c) No, not in principle. At present there are no such national rules except for thepossibility according to the Paris and Vienna Conventions to submit claims through thestate.


In Sweden the types of damage subject to compensation is determined by the insurer orfinally the courts in accordance with the national law applicable. Which heads of damage thatare compensated are determined by ”general principles of the law of torts” as referred to inthe Nuclear Third Party Liability Act. If the operator or his insurer refuses to paycompensation or assesses the damage at a lower amount than the claimant has claimed for, heor she can always file an action with the competent court of law. Eventually it will be for thecompetent courts to decide whether in a particular case a certain loss constitutes an eligibleclaim.

According to The Joint Protocol, article II, the Slovak operator shall be liable for the nucleardamage suffered in Sweden in connection to scenario 1. According to article III the applicableConvention shall be the Vienna Convention. The applicable national law will be that of theSlovak Republic. As concerns scenario 2, the Paris Convention will apply as the liableoperator is German.

The following answers to the questionnaire are however based on the Swedish view asregards victims in Sweden. This means that national law is applied on the accident scenarios.



(a) (i) This must be considered as an economic loss linked to property damageand will therefore be treated as a nuclear damage already according to theexisting wording of the Vienna and Paris Conventions. In Swedish tort law thiseconomic loss is treated in the same way as the actual property damage since it isa result of the property damage. This means that the nuclear operator can be heldliable and his insurer must pay compensation within the liability limits.


(a) (ii) No actual property damage has occurred. According to the revised Viennaand Paris Conventions the competent court has to deal with the questions if thiswould be considered as a result of a significant impairment of the environment

153

and if there is a geographical proximity between each of the farmer, wholesalerand retailer and the impaired environment. According to Swedish tort law thiswould be considered a pure economic loss for which no compensation could beexpected according to the existing tort law. The nuclear operator can not be hledliable.





(a) (iii) According to the main rule in Swedish law only a person immediatelysuffering damage to person or property or a pure economic loss is considered tohave a right to compensation. If the economic loss follows from damage sufferedby another person, for example due to another persons damaged property, theperson suffering economic loss will not be compensated according to generalSwedish tort law. The damage is considered as an economic loss to a third party(sw: tredjemansskada). In Swedish case law a slightly different opinion has beenput forward since the Supreme Court has judged that a third party might becompensated if he has concrete and closely related interests in the damagedproperty (Swedish case law NJA 1966 s. 210). A later judgement of the SupremeCourt is also of great interest, i.e. NJA 1988 s. 62. In this case a processingindustry factory had to stop all production since the electric cable which providedthe factory with electricity was damaged by a construction machine. Theconstruction machine was owned and used by a company working with a roadconstruction. The electric cable – which was situated outside the ground of thefactory and owned by a electricity company – was damaged and caused a totalpower failure at the processing industry factory. Due to the power failure somematerial used for the production was destroyed. Moreover the industry sufferedeconomic loss since it had to stop the production for some time. The majority ofthe Supreme Court found that the processing industry company had a right tocompensation from the owner of the electric cable for damage to property (thedestroyed materials) but not for economic loss due to interruption of business.

In Swedish tort law there seems to be an unclear distinction on the one handbetween compensable damage to property and economic loss and on the otherhand how closely affected by the actual damage one has to be to be compensatedfor economic loss. The case law is very important, but still there are not enoughjudgements by the Supreme Court to provide a definite answer to the questions.

− If a halt in production is necessary to determine the extent of theradioactive contamination this would according to Swedish tort law beconsidered as a pure economic loss, occurring to a third party (sw.“tredjemansskada”), unless there is an actual damage to the industry (seenational case law, Sw. NJA 1996 s. 68 and also Torben Melchior, Thedefinition of nuclear damage, Colloquium 11 February 2004). The claimwould not be treated as an environmental damage according to chapter 32in The Environmental Code since these rules not applies to cases of

154

ionizing radiation. It would however be compensated under sub-paragraph3 if considered as damage to the industry property for which the owner is tobe compensated. According to the policy within the International Funds forCompensation for Oil Pollution damage this would most probably beconsidered a compensable loss. Still a Swedish court would most probablynot consider it to be a compensable loss in this context. There is aninteresting point though in what way the national Swedish court might beinfluenced by the statements and judgments in connection to oil pollutionand the case-law within the IOPCS funds.

− Both according to national Swedish tort law and the Vienna and ParisConventions a loss of income due to contaminated raw materials seems to beconsidered as property damage. This means that the owner is entitled tocompensation. However, should the raw material not be owned by theindustry the scenario would rather be seen as a pure economic loss notcompensated under Swedish tort law (see above).

− This loss of income due to unfounded rumours would most probablyaccording to Swedish law be considered as a pure economic loss. Thedamage is not linked to any personal injury or property damage suffered bythe industry owner in question. The nuclear operator is not liable.


(a) (iv) The personnel at the industries will not be entitled to compensationaccording to national Swedish tort law since their loss would be considered aspure economic loss not following a personal injury or property damage.Compensation is however paid according to the existing social security system.Some compensation might also be paid for losses not covered by the socialsecurity system (Torben Melchior, The definition of nuclear damage, Colloquium11 February 2004 s. 3).


(a) (v) If a contamination is proven the requirements under article 1 sub-paragraph 5 in the revised Paris Convention could be fulfilled if the business canprove to be dependent upon the tourists and there is a geographical proximitybetween the hotel and the impaired environment.

If this question is answered as if an accident occurred, loss of reputation andimage due to a rumour would not be compensated according to national tort lawor according to the Paris Convention. In a false alarm scenario no emissionactually occurred and the requirements in the Paris Convention, sub-paragraph 5,are not fulfilled.




155

(b) Damage to the environment could be regarded as property damage, but if thearea is state owned this would be treated under article 1 sub-paragraph 4 in therevised Paris Convention as costs of measures of reinstatement of impairedenvironment. According to Swedish law damage to the environment could beregarded as an environmental damage according to chapter 32 in TheEnvironmental Code. The Environmental Code is however not applicable in casesof ionizing radiation.




(c) This kind of damage would not be compensated according to Swedish lawsince it is considered as a pure economic loss, occurring to a third party(“tredjemansskada”), i.e. damage not immediately following the propertydamage. A similar case has been dealt with by the Oil Pollution Funds followingon the Sea Empress accident in Wales 1996. In connection to Oil Pollution a losswas not compensated since it followed on the closing of a harbour due to safetyand not as a consequence of the oil pollution (Annual report 1996 s. 100 f., MånsJacobsson, Festskrift till Ulf K. Nordenson, 1999, s. 227).




(d) All nationals would be entitled to claim compensation. The Nuclear LiabilityAct make no distinction between domicile and residence of victims in this matter.


(e) Those persons will be treated the same way as other claimants, see under (a) above.


(f) All claims are treated equally in priority when administrating the claims. If theamount of damages are insufficient it follows from Section 19 in the Swedish NuclearLiability Act of 8 March 1968 (No. 45) that all the claims for damages, includinginterest, will be reduced according to the same quota. According to Section 33 in thesame act the state will provide additional compensation to victims if the amounts asotherwise stipulated turns out to be insufficient. Deviation from the non-discrimination

156

rule is allowed for the distribution since the compensation exceeds the totalcompensation provided for under Article 3 of the Brussels Supplementary Convention.












As a general background it can be stressed that the information system to a great extentwill be the same as described under question 2 (a) above. A national committee wasrecently set up to prepare and suggest the changes to the Swedish nuclear legislationwhich will be necessary in order to enable Sweden to ratify the revised Paris- andBrussels conventions. Within the work of the Committee the national informationsystem will most likely be developed by new guidelines and it will also be investigatedto what extent there is a need for additional legislation in the matter.

Some more specific answers to the questions would be the following:

Detailed information would be obtained through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs andalso through diplomatic channels. The information would be brought out to theattention of people likely to have suffered damage through advertising in the press,media and Internet.


157

Within the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate an inventory of those having suffereddamage is supposed to be made.

The Swedish embassies can act as a mediator and assist victims with lawyers andcentral legal aid. The embassy could also help in monitoring the progress of suchclaims.

A decision of the competent Slovakian or Hungarian court can be enforced in Swedenafter an approved application according to section 38 in the Swedish Nuclear LiabilityAct. The competent court is Svea Court of Appeal. If the application is approved thejudgment will be executed in the same way as national judgments.

159

Switzerland_____________




The Emergency Organisation Radioactivity (EOR) will be in charge of managing thecountermeasures for the Swiss Territory. All Ministries, involving in the decision arepart of this organisation. Decision are therefore taken by the involved ministries.


The information exchange (in and out) are the responsibility of the “NationalEmergency Operation Centre” (NEOC) in Zurich, which is also the Contact Point forIAEA Messages.


For the import and Export of food, the countermeasures are co-ordinated and are inaccordance with the “Codex Alimentarius” values for accepted concentration orcontamination in food. External Countermeasures like sheltering are not co-ordinated.




All information to the public is disseminated trough the NEOC. NEOC makespress bulletin and press conferences if necessary. All ministries, which areinvolved in the consequences for Switzerland, are part in such informationbulletin/press conferences.


At present, the Swiss Nuclear Risk Insurance Pool (the Pool) is tasked by theConfederation to receive and handle all compensation claims for nuclear damage.However, the convention agreed between the Pool and the Confederation doesnot lay down how or who shall transmit these claims to the foreign liableoperator. Therefore, it remains with the Confederation and the Pool to decide who


160

will pass on these claims and, if necessary who will be in charge of lodging thembefore the competent court.


The “Radiation Emergency Management Board” (LAR) is responsible for collectingdata concerning the victims and injuries, but details for such lists are not planned now.


This issue has not been discussed yet between the Pool and the Confederation.




Claims would be compensated, subject to prove of loss.


Claims would not be compensated, as claimants’ property was not damaged andthere would be no compensable loss.



If the determination is considered to aim at avoiding an immediate threat ofa nuclear danger and as far as commissioned by the competent authoritiesloss of income (but no loss of profit) would probably be compensated onthe bais of art. 2 1c of the Swiss Nuclear Liability Act. Although this articleprimarily aims at evacution related losses, this is not explicitely expressedin the wording of the article.


Assuming that the raw materials are not owned by the industriesthemselves, such loss of income would in princple not be compensated(property damage) on the basis of civil law.

However, the Swiss High Court has issued a verdict in a case, in which ashovel had broken an underground electricity cable. Although in pricipleonly the owner of the cable would have a right to compensation under civillaw, the Court ruled that also firms, who could not operate anymore

161

because of the unavailability of electricity, could be compensated, shouldthere be a ground for punishment under penal law. This so called“Reflexschaden”-construction could, depending on the circumstances,probably also be used in the above case.


Claims would not be compensated (no relation to damage to property)


The personnel has not suffered damage to their own property and cannot beidentified with their employer. Their claim would not be compensated. However,in case their employer’s property would be compensated: see Relexschaden-construction under iii 2nd arrow above.


If the tourist/service industry is established in the contaminated region itnecessarily implies that their property (hotels, busses etc.) in the area is too. Inthat case its claim would be compensated. In the other cases falling within thescope of this question it would not. However, see under iii 2nd arrow(Reflexschaden).



Specialists in the areas concerned would probably be commissioned to do so.


As far as the State owned forest is concerned compensation depends on whetherthere is an actual loss. If the forest would not be exploited in any way there wouldbe no compensable loss. If it were for instance be used for commercial woodcutting the relevant loss of income would be compensated.

The endangered species would probably be considered to be res nullius, notbelonging to anyone in particular. Therefore there would probably be nocompensation.



162

There would be no compensation as no damage to property of the airlines orunderlies the claim.


There would be no compensation as no damage to property of the airlineunderlies the claim.



No.


No.



If it concerns an accident in Switzerland, which has absorbed all funds provided for inthe Swiss Nuclear Liability Act, Parliament could decide to make additional fundsavailable. If it concerns an accident abroad and the loss is suffered in Switzerland, theState provides for compensation as far as the victims concerned cannot obtaincompensation in the Accident State, being equivalent to the one provided in the SwissNuclear Liability Act.





163




Questions for Slovenia and Switzerland:

(c) What steps would you take in response to a request from Germany for the earlymobilisation of international funds under the third tier and what, if any, conditionsmight you attach to the actual transfer of those funds?

These issues have not been discussed yet by the Government of Switzerland.

(d) What steps would you take in response to a request from Germany for payment of thethird tier of compensation under the BSC and what, if any, conditions might you attachto the actual transfer of those funds?

Funds will come from the Fund for nuclear damage. The conditions for the payment ofthis tier have not yet been examined by the Swiss government.




In each case, Switzerland will apply the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 onjurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters.

165

Turkey________




In Turkey, the main responsible organization for wide scale emergency management isthe Crises Management Center (CMC) under supervision of Prime Ministry. It isresponsible from all kind of disasters including large scale nuclear and radiologicalemergencies, and acts as a coordination center among ministries and governmentalauthorities relevant to the disaster. It is the ultimate decision making body on counter-measures to be taken for mitigation of the effects of emergencies.

CMC is not a permanent organization and is constituted in case of any wide scaleemergency. The leading authority under the CMC is selected depending on the type ofemergency. Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEK) is the leading organization forthe wide scale nuclear emergencies.

Turkey has a regulation which is titled as “National Regulation for Nuclear andRadiological Emergency”. Responsibilities of all relevant ministries in case of a nuclearand radiological emergency are defined within this regulation.

Under coordination and supervision of CMC, the Ministry of Agriculture and RuralAffairs deals with the issues concerning agriculture; the Ministry of Industry and Tradedeals with the issues concerning industry; and the Undersecretary of Customs dealswith the issues concerning import/export.


Since Turkey has no bi-lateral agreement with Slovak Republic on Early Notification ofNuclear Accidents and Exchange of Information, there will be no direct liaison with thecompetent authorities in the Accident State. Rather, Turkey will liaise with IAEA toobtain recent and reliable information on releases, contamination etc. The nationalcompetent authority is TAEK as indicated in the Early Notification Convention. TAEKwill deliver the information obtained from IAEA to CMC and/or relevant nationalMinistry or organization.


Turkey has a bi-lateral agreement with Bulgaria Republic on Early Notification ofNuclear Accidents and Exchange of Information. Reciprocal information exchange willbe provided during the emergency. Although coordination of counter-measures is not


166

explicitly mentioned in the agreement, some counter-measures can be also coordinatedwithin the context of this agreement by consensus of both parties.




Information is disseminated by CMC and/or national organizations authorized byCMC through national media and internet.


Responsible public authorities and related NGOs will disseminate the informationthrough the national media and internet.


Studies on drafting a detailed national law on third party liability issues have just beenstarted. This issue will be taken into consideration and be handled in the law.






Studies on drafting a detailed national law on third party liability issues have justbeen started. This issue will be taken into consideration and be handled in thelaw.



167



Studies on drafting a detailed national law on third party liability issueshave just been started. This issue will be taken into consideration and behandled in the law.











The Ministry of Environment and Forest and TAEK will be main responsiblenational organizations for the evaluation of the cost of rehabilitating theenvironment in this extended area of forest. Also, some assistance will beprovided by universities. Due to lack of experience on this issue, Turkey willprobably need the assistance of IAEA for this issue.


168

Since Turkey has not been party to the Joint Protocol and Slovak Republic hasnot been party to the Paris Convention, Turkey can not claim compensation forsuch cost.















169

There is no specific national legislation dealing with this issue. Studies on drafting adetailed national law on third party liability issues have just been started. This issue willbe taken into consideration and be handled in the law.




No.

171

Ukraine________




The unified state system of executive power bodies, which deals with issues ofpreventing and response to emergency situations of man-made and natural character,has been created and is functioning in Ukraine. It consists of territorial and functionalsubsystems (Article 20 of the Law of Ukraine N1809-ІІІ „On Protection of Populationand Territories from Emergency Situation of Man-made and Natural Character” onJune, 8 2000).

Functional subsystems are being created by the central executive power bodies (branchprinciple), and territorial subsystems are being created in the Crimean AutonomousRepublic, regions (oblasts), cities Kiev and Sevastopol (territorial principle) with thepurpose of prevention and elimination of the consequences of the emergency situationsof man-made and natural character within the boundaries of their territories (Article 21of the Law of Ukraine N1809-ІІІ „On Protection of Population and Territories fromEmergency Situation of Man-made and Natural Character” on June, 8 2000).

The unified state system, consisting of functional and territorial subsystems functioningon permanent basis, has four levels: national, regional, local and on-site (object) (para5 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Regulation “On Single System for Preventingand Response to Emergency Situations of Man-made and Natural Character”, that wasapproved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Decree N1198 on September, 31998).

Each level of the unified state system has its coordinating and functioning on thepermanent basis managerial bodies which are responsible for solution of the tasks inthe sphere of emergency situations prevention, protection of the public and the territoryfrom emergency situations consequences, system of day-to-day monitoring, forces andmeans, material and financial resources, systems of communication and informationalservicing (para 9 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Regulation “On Single Systemfor Preventing and Response to Emergency Situations of Man-made and NaturalCharacter”, that was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Decree N1198 onSeptember, 3 1998).

Coordinating bodies of the unified state system are the state, regional, local and on-site(object) committees, that depending on emergency situation level ensure immediatesupervision over emergency situation or its threat and response (para 11 of the Cabinetof Ministers of Ukraine Regulation “On Single System for Preventing and Response toEmergency Situations of Man-made and Natural Character”, that was approved by theCabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Decree N1198 on September, 3 1998).


172

Re: agriculture

Among Ministry of agriculture’s functions are:

• organization and implementation of the measures relative to preventing andresponding to emergency situations of man-made and natural character onthis industry facilities ;

• ensuring the participation of the forces and means (within the limits of theirtactics and technical capabilities) in performing emergency-rescue andother urgent activities within the emergency situation area;

• management of such functional subsystems of the unified system forpreventing and response to emergency situations of man-made and naturalcharacter:

− protection of the agricultural animals and plants;

− forces and means of preventing and response to emergency situations on the agro-industrial complex facilities;

− food and forage stock creation.

Re: industry

Among Ministry of industrial policy’s functions are:

• organization and implementation of the measures relative to preventing andresponding to emergency situations of man-made and natural character onthe industry objects;

• ensuring the participation of the forces and means of the subordinateaccident rescue units, composing the unified system, while conductingemergency-rescue and other urgent activities in case of emergencysituations (or its threat);

• management of the creation and activity of such functional subsystems ofthe unified (single) state system:

− heavy industry, defense industry, chemical and petrochemical industries.

Among Ministry of fuel and energy’s functions are:

• organization and implementation of the measures relative to preventing andresponse to emergency situations involving this industry objects;

• ensuring the participation of the forces and means of the subordinateaccident rescue units, composing the unified (single) system, whileconducting emergency-rescue and other urgent activities in case ofemergency situations (or its threat);

• management of the creation and activity of such functional subsystems ofthe unified (single) state system:

173

− nuclear power industry and а fuel and energy complex;

− coal-mining industry;

− oil and gas exploring, raw materials production and processing, oil pipelines andgas pipelines.

Re: export /import

Among Ministry of foreign affairs’ functions are:

• guarantee of the urgent validation of the necessary documents with the purpose offrontier crossing by the forces and means of the accident-rescue groups in case ofemergency situations.

(Annex to Regulation “On Single System for Preventing and Response to EmergencySituations of Man-made and Natural Character”, that was approved by the Cabinet ofMinisters of Ukraine Decree # 1198 on September 3, 1998).


State Nuclear Regulatory Committee is (the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine RegulationN1570 on October, 2 2003 “On Appointment of Competent National Authorities asregards Implementation of International Conventions in Nuclear Energy”):

• competent national body, authorized to issue an emergency notification andinformation in the event of a nuclear accident or radiation emergency in Ukraineand receive an emergency notification and information in the event of a nuclearaccident or radiation emergency in another country;

• responsible for functioning of a unified competent national communication centremaintaining twenty-four-hour duty with the purpose of receiving at any timeaccident notification and information, as well as requests for assistance in theevent of a nuclear or radiation accident.

Analogous regulation is stipulated in para 5.4 of Response Plan to Radiation AccidentsN87/211 dated 17 May 2004, approved by the SNRCU, Ministry for Emergencies andPublic Protection against Consequences of Chornobyl Catastrophe of Ukraine: „In theevent of radiation accident the State Nuclear Regulatory Committee of Ukraine bearsthe responsibility of international information exchange pursuant to Convention onEarly Notification of a Nuclear Accident and within the framework of thecorresponding bilateral agreements with other countries”.

Pursuant to Scenario 1 the “accident state” is Slovak Republic.

On 24 September 1998 the Agreement was concluded between the Cabinet of Ministersof Ukraine and the Government of Slovak Republic on early notification of nuclearaccidents, information exchange and cooperation in the field of nuclear safety andradiation protection.

Pursuant to Article 2 of this Agreement in the event of any accident involving nuclearfacility or activities, which has affected or may affect the radiation safety of the otherParty, the Party in the territory of which the accident has occurred shall promptly notify

174

the other Party. The Party also provide any information available with a view tominimizing the radiological consequences and to protecting the public. Informationshall include the mentioned below data, if available:

(a) time, exact location and nuclear accident character;

(b) corresponding installations or kind of activity;

(c) probable or ascertained cause of the accident and foreseeing the nuclear accidentdevelopment, that may result in transboundary radioactive materials release;

(d) generic parameters of the radioactive release, including if available: possiblephysical and chemical characteristics and radioactive materials quantity, compositionand affective height of the radioactive materials’ release;

(e) information from the actual meteorological and hydrological conditions and forecastnecessary for foreseeing transboundary radioactive materials release;

(f) results of environment monitoring, concerning transboundary radioactive materialsrelease;

(g) realized or planned protective off-site measures;

(h) predictable behavior of the radioactive release in time.

Such information shall be supplemented with the corresponding data on the situationdevelopment till the competent bodies of the Contracting Parties consider this sort ofinformation necessary.

Contracting Party communicating the information pursuant to this Article shall aspromptly as possible reply on the request of the other Contracting Party with regard toreceiving further information or rendering consultation.

Pursuant to Scenario 2 the “accident state” is Hungary.

On 12 November 1997 Agreement was concluded between the Government of Ukraineand the government of Hungarian Republic on early notification of nuclear accidents,information exchange and cooperation in the field of nuclear safety and radiationprotection.

Pursuant to Article 2 of this Agreement in the event of any accident involving nuclearfacilities or activities which has affected or may affect the radiation safety of the otherParty, the Party in the territory of which the accident has occurred shall promptly notifythe other Party. The Party shall also provide any information available with a view tominimizing the radiological consequences pursuant to Article 5.1 of the Convention onearly notification.

At any rate events involving nuclear facilities rated at level 3 (serious incident) or upperlevels INES shall be notified.

Such information shall be supplemented with corresponding data on the situationdevelopment till the competent bodies of the Contracting Parties consider suchinformation necessary.

175

Contracting Party, communicating the information pursuant to Article 2 of thisAgreement, shall as promptly as possible, reply on the request of the other ContractingParty with regard to further information or rendering consultations.

(c) Are counter-measures coordinated with neighboring states?

Article 37 on international cooperation in the field of population and territory protectionfrom emergency situations of man-made and natural character of the Law of Ukraine N1809-ІІІ “On Protection of Population and Territories from Emergency Situations ofMan-made and Natural Character ” on June, 8 2000 stipulates that Ukraine participatein the international cooperation in the form of:

• conducting of joint scientific research;

• development and implementation of the international programs, agreements,memorandums and so on;

• forming of the joint working management groups for escorting of internationalprojects;

• realization of the information exchange and international experience study;

• participation in international congresses, conferences, symposiums, exhibitions,fairs and their holding, joint training and retraining of the senior staff of theprofessional emergency–rescue groups and specialized (militarized) emergency-rescue services;

• affiliation in the international organizations;

• promotion of the international professional contracts.

Realization of these measures will allow effectively coordinate counter-measures in theevent of the radiation accident. Ukrainian legislation does not stipulate for the specialprocedure of counter-measures coordination.

Among other issues SNRCU is authorized to coordinate within the limits of itscompetency interaction of the executive powers, state enterprises, institutions andorganizations with IAEA, other international organizations and foreign states bodies,that exercise activities in the field of nuclear energy use, ensuring nuclear and radiationsafety requirements, among them nuclear materials and other sauces of ionizingradiation illicit trafficking (para 4 of the Regulation N155/2001 on SNRCU, approvedby Presidential Order of 6 March 2001).

For Scenario 1

Moreover, Agreement was concluded between the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine andthe Government of Slovak Republic on cooperation and mutual assistance in the eventof emergency situations on December, 5 2000 (Ukraine has ratified it, but on April,14 2005 the Agreement has not come into effect;).

Article 6 of the given Agreement deals with settling the issues of management andcoordination. Accordingly, competent bodies, designated to manage and coordinate

176

activities, connected with the implementation of the given Agreement in Ukraine isMinistry for Emergencies and Public Protection against Chornobyl Catastrophe ofUkraine; in Slovak Republic – Ministry of Internal Affairs of Slovak Republic. Thesebodies (officials) may empower other bodies request assistance and accept requests forassistance.

Management of all activities that are performed on the territory of the requesting Partyis exercised by the Competent Body of this Party.

Orders for assisting Party groups are given exclusively to their leaders who determinethe ways of their execution.

Competent body of the requesting Party secures assisting /emergency groups, providesthem with free medical aid and organize all necessary interaction.

For Scenario 2

In addition, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Government of HungarianRepublic concluded the Agreement on cooperation and rendering the mutual assistancein the field of emergency situations prevention and their consequences eliminations onOctober, 27 1998.

Article 10 of this Agreement is devoted to regulation issues of the coordination andmanagement of rendering assistance in emergencies. In accordance with it on theterritory of the requesting Party authorized under this state legislation bodies andpersons manage rescue and consequences elimination activities, and they also assist tothe affected population.

Order for assistance rendering groups is given exceptionally through the leaders ofthese groups.

Competent body or authorized bodies of the requesting Party inform the leaders of thesegroups on situation arisen in the area of emergency situation and on the specific allottedwork, determine the sequence of work and, if the need arises, provide these teams withinterpreters as well as other necessary means. Requesting Party use necessary law-enforcement measures to ensure safety of the members of the assistance renderingteams, secures free first medical aid, nourishment and dwelling, and also provideteams’ members with essentials in the event of exhaustion all their resources.



� the accident which took place, it possible consequences in the Accident State andin your State?

One of the principles of the state policy in the field of nuclear energy use andradiation protection is publicity and accessibility of the information, concernedwith nuclear energy use (Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine „On Nuclear EnergyUse and Radiation Safety”).

State Nuclear Regulatory Committee of Ukraine efficiently notifies throughmedia on radiation accidents on the territory of Ukraine, as well as beyond itsboundaries in the event of possibility of transboundary transfer of the radioactive

177

substances (para 4 Provisions on SNRCU, approved by the President of UkraineDecree N 155/2001on March, 6 2001).

Central and local executive bodies, executive soviet bodies are entrusted with atask of providing the population though mass media with an efficient andtrustworthy information on the status of population and territories protection fromemergency situations of man-made and natural character, on rise of emergencysituations of man-made and natural character, methods and means of theirprotection, on applying safety assurance measures.

Notification on the threat of emergency situations of the man-made and naturalcharacter and continual notification (on the permanent basis) of the populationabout them is ensured by means of:

• timely creation and support in constant preparedness state and territorialautomated systems of the centralized notification of the population;

• organizational and technical connection of the territorial automatedsystems of the centralized notification and notification systems on theeconomic objects;

• timely creation and organizational-technical connection with themonitoring and control systems of the functioning on the permanent basislocal notification and informing population systems in the areas of possibledisastrous flood, location areas of radiation and chemical industryenterprises, other objects representing increased danger;

• centralized use of state and industry communication systems, notificationby means of wireless and TV, broadcasting network and other technicalmeans of communicating the information (Article 8 of the Law of UkraineN1809-ІІІ „On Protection of the Population and Territory from EmergencySituations of Man-made and Natural Character” on June, 8 2000).

In the event of radiation accident Ministry for Emergencies and Public Protectionagainst Consequences of the Chornobyl Catastrophe of Ukraine is also entrustedwith the function of organizing of notification of the population on threat andarise of radiation situation, control over functioning of the territorial and localnotification systems (para. 5.4 of Response Plan to Radiation Accidents, jointordinance of the SNRCU and the Ministry for Emergencies and Public Protectionagainst Consequences of Chornobyl Catastrophe of Ukraine N87/211 dated May,17 2004).


Legislation of Ukraine does not stipulate for communicating such information.


It is within Ministry of health protection competency to collect, summarize, analyze andreport to unified state system data on victims and injured in the emergency situationsareas (Annex to Regulations on the unified state system of prevention and response toemergency situations of man-made and natural character, approved by Joint Ordinance

178

of the SNRCU and the Ministry for Emergencies and Public Protection againstConsequences of Chornobyl Catastrophe of Ukraine N 87/211 dated May, 17 2004).

Legislation of Ukraine does not stipulate for listing of persons who suffered propertydamage.


Procedure of rendering assistance in this field is not stipulated by the state.

Ukraine ratified the Vienna Convention of 1963 and as a result of this Ukraine has notobligations with regard to secure for victims the possibility to protect theircompensation rights without taking individual proceedings (Article 5В of the ViennaConvention of 1997).











Legislation of Ukraine does not stipulate for the procedure of claimsmanagement.


179


For such evaluation the loss approach with method of direct reproduction may beused (item 39 of the National Standard №1 „General Regulations of Evaluationof Property and Property Rights”, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers ofUkraine Regulation N1440 on September, 10 2003).


If a given kind of damage is subject to indemnity in accordance with the law ofthe competent court, then so.




Foregoing claims may be brought but it depends on the competent court whetherthey will be accepted for consideration and/or satisfied.




Article 13 of Vienna Convention of 1963, ratified by Ukraine and whichexecution is mandatory foresees that this Convention and national legislationsubject to use under the Convention are applied without discrimination on thebasis of nationality, permanent or temporary residence.

Consequently, citizens of Ukraine, who reside on the territory of another state onthe temporary or permanent basis, shall have the same rights as other citizens ofUkraine.


Legislation of Ukraine does not stipulate for drawing up national inventory with thepurpose of compensating transboundary damage.


Legislation of Ukraine stipulates for (Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine “On CivilLiability for Nuclear Damage and Its Financial Coverage” N2893-ІІІ on December, 13

180

2001), the state (Ukraine) provides funds for nuclear damage coverage, if executivedocument on nuclear damage indemnification has been returned to the plaintiff in casewhen the debtor does not possess property, on which a penalty may be imposed in orderstipulated by the law of Ukraine „On Executive Proceeding”.

Pursuant to the Law of Ukraine „On Executive Proceeding” N606-XIV on April, 211999 decisions are implemented on the territory of Ukraine, that is to say as in our caserelative only to Ukrainian nuclear operator. Pursuant to Article 83 of this law itsprovisions are applied to foreign juridical persons only in case when they are registeredon the territory of Ukraine or possess property there, including property they ownjointly with other persons.

Hence, the state (Ukraine) will provide additional compensation only in case ifUkrainian nuclear operator is considered to be liable for a nuclear damage.





In Ukraine there are no joint emergency plans with other states. See answer (b) Title II.


See question (а) Title II.


These workers shall make their claims in accordance with the generally acceptedprocedure.



The Joint Protocol also provides that if a nuclear incident occurs during transport, theapplicable Convention is the one to which the State, on whose territory the liable operator’sinstallation is situated, is a Party. This means that for Scenario 2, the Paris Convention willapply but the applicable national law will be that of Hungary.



181

On 2 August 2001 Ukraine and the Republic of Hungary concluded the Agreement onlegal assistance on civil cases, pursuant to its Article 21, Contracting Parties exchangethe information on the acting legislation and the practice of law applying on theterritory of each state. Agreement on partnership cooperation was concluded betweenthe Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and Ministry of Justice of Slovak Republic on 8 June2000. Article 1 of this Agreement stipulates for the Contracting Parties encourage theexchange of information and experience especially in such specific areas as legalinformation.


Special procedure is not foreseen.

One of the main objectives of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine is the development ofthe legal informatization (Decree of the President of Ukraine N1396/97 “On Approvalof the Regulation On Ministry of Justice of Ukraine” dated 30 December 1997).


Legislation of Ukraine does not stipulate for such measures.






Pursuant to Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine N2860-III “On Recognition andEnforcement in Ukraine the Decisions of the Foreign Courts” on November, 29 2001 adecision of the foreign court is recognized and executed in Ukraine in case itsrecognition and enforcement is stipulated for by the international treaties of Ukraine orby reciprocity agreement ad hoc with a foreign state, which court decision shall beenforced in Ukraine.

A decision of the foreign court, which is not subject to mandatory enforcement, isrecognized in Ukraine, in case its recognition is stipulated for in international treaties ofUkraine or by reciprocity agreement ad hoc with a foreign state, which court decisionshall be enforced in Ukraine.

Question of issue of the permit for compulsory execution of the foreign court decisionon plaintiff application is examined by the Court of Appeal of the CrimeanAutonomous Republic, regional courts of appeal, city courts of Kiev and Sevastopol(hereinafter: the corresponding court of Ukraine) in the place of permanent ortemporary registration or residence (stay) of the debtor.

In case if a debtor has no permanent or temporary place of residence or stay (location)on the territory of Ukraine or when his place of residence or stay (location) is unknown,question of issue of the permit for compulsory execution of the competent court

182

decision on plaintiff application is examined by the corresponding court of Ukraine inthe place of location of a debtor’s property in Ukraine. (Article 4 of the Law of Ukraineunder N2860-III „On Recognition and Enforcement in Ukraine Foreign CourtsDecisions” on November, 29 2001).

Pursuant to Article 16 of the Agreement between Ukraine and the Republic of Hungaryon legal assistance in civil cases in the presence of conditions, stipulated for by theAgreement, one Contracting Party recognizes and executes such court decisions of theother Contracting Party, in particular, decisions on civil cases relative to propertylegislation, including the decisions, that endorse the adjudication agreement of theParties.

183

United Kingdom_______________




The UK Government Department responsible for agriculture is Department forEnvironment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), and industrial activities, import/exportissues are managed by Department of Trade & Industry (DTI).


Through formal channels (Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Embassies),ECURIE/EURDEP, and the IAEA Emergency Response Centre.

(c) Are counter-measures coordinated with neighbouring states

The UK has bilateral arrangements with …..France and the Former Soviet Union, and isparty to the IAEA Conventions on Early Notification and Assistance. The UK NationalResponse Plan specifically does not provide for immediate counter-measures (ie,sheltering, evacuation or taking of potassium iodate tablets) within the UK in the eventof a nuclear accident overseas.





Government Departments and Agencies would issue Press Statements and publicinformation bulletins to relevant bodies, including the media, for widerdissemination. The content of the information would, as far as possible, be co-ordinated by Defra as Lead Department to ensure consistency.



184

No provision for such an inventory is currently in place, but Government would not ruleout such an approach – it would depend on the circumstances and the extent of damagesuffered.


See above.


As the UK is not party to the Joint Protocol victims only have the option of suing in tort; andas far as UK law is concerned, this will involve showing fault. The following questions askhow certain claims will be dealt with and the short answer is “By the claimants bringing anaction in the courts.” It would be for the claimants to decide whether to bring an action in theSlovak Republic or the UK. As it is for the courts to determine questions of applicable lawand the rules are not rigid, a few of the answers below are speculative in nature.



(a)(i) - the farmers, wholesalers and retailers would have to sue the Slovakianoperator (or anyone else who appeared to have caused the damage) in tort. Underthe Brussels Regulation (in full - "Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgmentsin civil and commercial matters"), they could sue either here or in the SlovakRepublic. This is because, although there's a general rule in the BrusselsRegulation that a defendant must be sued where he is domiciled, this is subject toan exception (in Article 5(3)) which allows tort claims to be brought in thecountry "where the harmful event occurred". This has been interpreted by theEuropean Court of Justice (ECJ) as giving the claimant the option of suing eitherwhere the damage occurred or where the event occurred which gave rise to thedamage. The event occurred in the Slovak Republic and the damage occurredhere. If the farmers, wholesalers and retailers were to sue in the UK, the courtwould decide under Part 3 of the Private International Law (MiscellaneousProvisions) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) whether UK or Slovakian law applied tothe claim. The general rule in section 11 of the 1995 Act is that, for a claim inrespect of damage to property (which is what this would be), the law whichapplies is the law of the country where the property was when it was damaged -in this case, the UK.


(a)(ii) - see previous answer. Assuming some damage was suffered (i.e. somephysical change which has detrimental consequences in practice), procedurallythe answer to this question is the same as the answer to the previous question, andthe claimants would have to claim in tort, there are more difficult legal questions

185

here about whether the claimants could actually succeed in a UK court wherethey suffer loss because of what people think about their (damaged) productsrather than because they can't legally sell them.



(a)(iii), first bullet - the industries could, in theory, sue here or in theSlovak Republic because this would be a tort claim within the (wide)meaning of the Brussels Regulation. Beyond that, however, theposition cannot easily be predicted. For a claim in a UK court, theapplicable law would (under section 11 of the 1995 Act) be the law of thecountry "in which the most significant element or elements" of the allegedtort occurred. This is a matter for the court to assess. If English law wereto apply, then the claim may fail if the industries could not prove damage totheir property which caused this loss (which presumably they might not beable to do). The claim would be for pure economic loss and probablywould not succeed. The position maybe different if Slovakian law wereheld to apply by a UK or Slovakian court.


Question 3(a)(iii), second bullet - the question does not say who the rawmaterials belong to when they are damaged. If they belong to the industriesin question, then the answer here is the same as the answer to Question3(a)(i). But the point may be that the industries can't buy raw materials ofthe necessary quality from others, because of contamination of thosematerials in the hands of those others. If that were the case, then theanswer would be the same as for the first bullet.


Question 3(a)(iii), third bullet - the answer is the same as for the firstbullet (pure economic loss again).


Question 3(a)(iv) - the employees could attempt to bring an unfair dismissalclaim against their employer in a UK employment tribunal. This, however,would only be a claim about whether the reason for their dismissal by theemployer was fair in the circumstances. The other avenue (and the one which thequestion is probably getting at) would be to attempt a tort claim against theSlovakian operator, either here or in the Slovak Republic. As above, this is pureeconomic loss.


186

Question 3(a)(v) - the same principles apply here as explored above. In theorythere's the option of suing here or in the Slovak Republic, but everything elsedepends on whether there's damage to property and whether the property inquestion is the claimant's property. The question isn't specific about whether thebusinesses lose money because their own property is damaged or whether there'sjust environmental contamination generally.




(b) In general terms the UK Government does not obtain insurance and covers itsown losses. The Government’s approach would depend on the nature and extentof the damage suffered.




(c) - the question is whether the airlines could claim compensation. If they wereto sue in the UK courts, then the answer must be that it's extremely unlikely (pureeconomic loss again). It is possible that, under the Brussels Regulation, theairlines might not be able to sue in the UK courts at all, because it seems arguablethat both the harm-causing event and the harm itself are suffered in the SlovakRepublic. In other words, it seems arguable that the loss of revenue etc are theeconomic consequences of harm suffered in the Slovak Republic as a result of theclosure of the principal airport there.




(d) - They would have to sue in the Slovakian courts because both the eventcausing the damage and the damage itself occurred in the Slovak republic, sothere's no option other than to sue the defendant (i.e. the Slovakian operator, orwhoever caused the damage in the Slovak Republic) where the defendant isdomiciled. And the question of applicable law would have to be resolved underSlovakian law.

(e) If the answer to either part of (d) is “yes”, how would those persons enter claims?Would your State include them under its "national inventory" for the purpose of

187

compensating transboundary damage or would they be required to claim as if they werecitizens of the Accident State?

(e) - see previous answer.


(f) - The UK Government’s response would depend on the circumstances of thesituation.




See answer to 3 (f) above. Claimants would be free to sue in either the UK or Slovakiancourts as outlined in the answers above.

OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCY …

Documents

Transcript of OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCY …