[en] With the decision of October 5, 1982, the preliminary appraisal committee of the Federal Constitutional Court did not accept for trial the appeal on constitutional grounds against the judgment of December 22, 1980 of the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwGE 61, 256), which dismissed the action for anulment of the 7th part-construction permit for Stade nuclear power plant launched by the apellant domiciled at a distance of about 25 km from said power plant. The committee states that there are doubts even as to the admissibility of the appeal. There is no infringement of Art. 19, Para. 4 of the Basic Law, the court says, and explains the requirements to be met by the statement proving one's case. The apellant did not explain why Art. 3, Para. 1, 2 Para. 1, or 103, Para. 1 Basic Law present a reason to commence legal proceedings, and the court comes to the conclusion that even assuming admissibility on other grounds, the action would most likely be unsuccessful. The court does not accept the opinion stated by the apellant, that the Fed. Adm. Court demanded too stringent requirements for proving one's case, in this particular case the right of third parties affected to call for legal protection. The court furthermore states that there is not sufficient reason to appeal against the preclusion of the apellant's complaints in accordance with section 7 b of the Atomic Energy Act, or section 3(1) of the Nuclear Installations Ordinance. (HP)

[en] Regulations of the administrative procedure law prescribing the exclusion of objections in that procedure infringe the constitutional principle of due process of law (Art. 103 para 1 Basic Law), provided that objections pleaded in time are only permissible under conditions which are not compatible with a fair procedure as required by the principle of due process. (HP)

[en] After having given an account of the rights of avoidance of third parties and their foundation in the law the author cites an atypical example of a right of avoidance, i.e. the corporation suit in the environmental protection law in the German Laender Bremen and Hesse. The corporations can only denounce the violation of the environmental protection law. These regulations constitute the protection law, namely in favour of the interests of nature protection, i.e. public interests. It is natural that the corporation has only be concerned an independent right of conducting a case. The (altruistic) corporation suit is therefore a complaint suit aiming at administration control and not a means of an individual legal protection. (HSCH)

[en] The decision deals with the refusing of an application to establish a parliamentary investigation committee concerning to the reprocessing plant Wackersdorf. Pursuant to Art. 25 para. 1 of the Bavarian Constitution especially the principle of separation of powers (Art. 5 Bavarian Constitution) and the rule of law (Art. 3 para. 1 Bavarian Constitution) have to be regarded, according to which the central part of the executive power is not subject to parliamentary control. (WG)

[en] Is optimum and effective work done in administrative jurisdiction. The author describes the general situation prevailing in administrative jurisdiction. He gives tables on the number of subjects received per annum, of judges administering justice and figures on executed and non-executed proceedings. He reports on districts of jurisdiction, personnel, court administration and the amount of work. The investigation into administrative jurisdiction has shown accomplishments for 1978 which are not bad at all. Sporadic administrative shortcomings are to be realized and put to an end. (HSCH)

[en] This article deals with the tolerance test the constitutional system (Basic Law) of the Federal Republic of Germany is currently put to as a consequence of the resistance to the power structure of this country, which is expressed in the name of protection and defense for the environment and world peace. This biopacifistic resistance movment, the author says, has nothing to do with the legal right to resist, as laid down in art. 20 (4) of the Basic Law. According to the author, this attitude is an offspring of fear of the hazards of technological progress, primarily of nuclear hazards. Practical resistance, the author states, is preceded by theoretical resistance in speech: De-legitimation of the democratic legality, of the parliamentary functions, of the supreme power of the government, and denial of the citizens duty of obedience. The author raises the question as to whether this attitude of disobedience on ecological grounds marks the onset of a fourth stage of development of the modern state, after we have passed through stages characterised by fear of civil war, of tyranny, and of social privation and suffering. There are no new ideas brought forward by the ecologically minded movement, the author says, for re-shaping our institutions or constitutional system. (HP)

[en] This article presents some features of the French nuclear law. It can cover very long periods of time because for instance the radiological risks of radioactive waste disposal concern several generations. Nuclear law is a practical law that imposes to radioactive waste producers to cover the costs of future geological disposal. Nuclear law has given to nuclear facilities a protection against the risk of intrusion. The indemnities of victims from the French nuclear tests has been improved through the 2009 bill that gives a list of radiation-induced diseases and gives a presumption of causality to the victim unless the risk is negligible and extends the warranties to the civilian population. (A.C.)

[en] The Federal Constitutional Court postulates in its Kalkar decision a 'dynamic protection of basic rights' with regard to the effects of nuclear technology. In the opinion of the court this optimization requirement is met by an interpretation of the atomic energy law which expressly includes the time factor. The author examines the question as to which concept of technology control by legal provisions can be found behind this principal decision. Contradictions which come to light, induce the author to look for new forms of risk assessment. (orig.)

[en] The question of the necessity of an 'environmental basic right' is to be seen in connection with the doctrine of the duty of the State to protect the basic rights. Under the present law this obligation of the State applies only to third party intervention, it does not take effect if it is a matter of protecting the environment as such. Therefore the introduction of an 'environmental basic right' is necessary. (WG)

[en] The author of this contribution comes to the conclusion that a decision taken by the administrative court in accordance with Sec. 80, Subsec. 5 and 6 of the VwGO is to be regarded as legally binding only with respect to the facts to be considered and the present legal situation at the time the decision is being passed. This means that a public authority that issued the executive order and entered a protest against a decision in court has the right to renew its executive order subsequent to a change of facts and of the legal situation even after the decree of the court for the restitution of the suspensive power of a protest lodged by the opposing party. (HSCH) 891 HSCH/HSCH 892 HIS