[en] The report gives an account of the 7th German Atomic Energy Law Symposium held on March 16-17, 1983 in Goettingen. The papers presented on the four sessions are briefly dealt with according to the subject fields selected for these sessions: 1) Safety measures to prevent incidents and accidents, 2) Nuclear waste disposal, 3) Provisions of the Atomic Energy Law and other regulations under public law governing the licensing of nuclear installations, 4) Technical plants near frontiers. The paper by Sellner on ''Technological progress and risks in the light of the jurisdiction'' was the concluding lecture of this meeting. (GK)

[en] Reprint of very large parts of the judgement covering 548 pages in the original version, given by the Superior Administrative Court of Baden-Wuerttemberg at Mannheim, on March 30, 1982. This judgement overrules the decision of the Freiburg Administrative Court of the year 1977, concerning the part-construction permit for Wyhl nuclear power plant, and thus dismissed the complaint. The wording of the judgement gives the opinion of the Court on problems relating to preliminary licence, part-construction permit, binding force, preliminary overall judgement, concept and definition of ''industrial plant'', effective date of the delivery of a judgement, accident prevention and safety engineering, risk prevention and financial security, burst protection. (HP)

[en] The order concerning payment in advance for ultimate storage meets with aggravating constitutional objections in multiple respects. First of all, there may well be an infraction of para. 1 of art. 3 of the Basic Law in the regulation on distribution of sect. 6 of the order. In addition, there is an infraction of para. 1 of art. 3 of the Basic Law, due to the anticipated duty of later operators of reprocessing plants to pay in advance, regulated in no. 2 of para. 1 of sect. 2 of the order concerning payment in advance for ultimate storage. Insofar as sect. 10 of the order concerning payment in advance for ultimate storage also records costs accrued from January 1, 1977 on, there may well be an infraction of the principle of constitutionality (para. 3 of art. 20 of the Baisc Law). The order concerning payment in advance for ultimate storage violates at higher-ranking law and is ineffective. A valid legal basis for the anticipated decisions of the Federal Institute for Physics and Technology is lacking. (orig./HSCH)

[en] The article discusses the difficulties encountered in State supervision of the energy industry in the Federal Republic of Germany, emanating from the federative structure. Difficulties arise predominantly in cases where an electric power station is to be erected in a federal Land with financial aid of electric utilities from this particular Land and from another Land, with electricity to be supplied to both Lands involved. According to section 4, sub-section (2) of the Act on the promotion of power-supply industry, (EnWG), of 1935 the power station may only be built if it will not adversely affect the common welfare. In case of doubts thereon, protest against such a project has to be filed, which may issue in the project being forbidden. The author concludes that there is no competence of one federal Land to supervise investment by electric utilities of another federal Land. Exclusive competence in this respect lies with the authorities of the Land on whose territory the power station is to be built. Although supervision of investment activities is of superregional importance, the author says that there is no competence of the Federal Government to become active as long as the Government fails to use its rights for establishing a federal office for supervising the power-supply industry. Neither does the atomic energy law governing the licensing of nuclear power stations define any Federal competence in this respect. (HP)

[en] The appeal judgment of January 20, 1982 of the Lueneburg Superior Administrative Court partly rescinded the decision of the Administrative Court of Sept. 2, 1976, which dismissed the action against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd partial licence for Kruemmel nuclear power plant. The first partial licence cannot be appealed against for lack of right of action. As to the action against the second, appeal is justified in that there are defects in terms of law in the approval of the conceptual design. The Court first theoretically explains the legal status and legal effect of a licence in approval of the conceptual design. The judgment then states among others that the apellant's appeal against this approval comprised in the 2nd partial licence is to be accepted although the 2nd partial licence as a whole is to be regarded as incontestable, and no preclusion being created according to section 3 of the Nuclear Installations Ordinance or section 7b of the Atomic Energy Act. The Court in its decision also discusses the relevant time at which a court decision has been taken (last administrative decision), and with the legal protection of third parties' rights as comprised in section 7, sub-section (2), no. 3 of the Atomic Energy Act. (HP)

[en] The provisions clearly state that a given federal Land of the FRG has no competence of supervision of electric utilities in another federal Land. Exclusive competence lies with the Federal Land on whose territory a power plant is to be constructed. All activities by a Land directed against an electric utility with legal domicile in that particular Land, wishing to cooperate in a project to be realised in another Land, are inadmissible. Although supervision of investment activities in accordance with section 4, sub-section (2) of the EnWG (Energy Industry Law) is of supraregional significance in the light of the interconnected energy supply system, there is no competence of the Federal Government in this issue as long as the Federal Government fails to establish a federal office for this purpose. (orig./HP)

[en] The headnotes of the court decision read as follows: There is no legal basis supporting the demand for a general nuclear power phaseout. There is a defined relation between an optional revocation according to section 17, sub-sec. (3), no. 2 AtG (Atomic Energy Act), and the obligatory revocation according to section 17, sub-sec. (5) AtG. Application of section 17, sub-sec. (5) AtG requires proof of the fact that operation of the nuclear power plant involves an imminent danger to the group of persons defined in that section. Higher Administrative Court of Muenster, decision 21 AK 8/88, of December 19, 1988. (orig.)

[en] In the judgement of July 29, 1986, the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Wuerttemberg rules that sec. 7 para. 2 no. 1 of the Atomic Energy Act has the only object to protect the public interest. But the regulations in sec. 4 of the Nuclear Installations Ordinance have individual third party protection effects, if an involvement of own rights is particularized. (WG)

[en] A licence of a concept is not a partial licence pursuant to sec. 7 Atomic Energy Act, but, due to its determining character, a preliminary licence according to sec. 7a Atomic Energy Act. The binding force of a preliminary licence can only be avoided by sec. 17 Atomic Energy Act. Administrative Courts are not allowed to annex reservations to a preliminary licence but have to follow up any doubts until the matter can be decided. (CW)

[en] The Essen Superiour Court decided by judgement published on September 24, 1982 that an electricity supply company is not, by the supply contract, obliged to his customers to do without electric energy generated from nuclear energy. Even though the basic rights of the constitution may influence the contractual relations between the electricity supply compagny and the customers, the basic rights of freedom of conscience and the right of free speech do not entitle the customer to interfere with the lawful performance of the freedom of entrepreneurial activity of the electricity supply company. (WB)