[en] The article also is intended as a response to a book published by Alexander Rossnagel (editor), 'Law and technology in the field of tension of the nuclear controversy'. The author analyses the situation of technology control by technical expertise, as well as affirmative and critical law governing technology, the miserable situation of the judicial control of technology, and aspects such as restrictions in connection with an ecological theory of law. All considerations regarding a re-organisation of political control of technology, the author says, will most probably enhance or improve the problem-dealing capacity, but are unlikely to lead to legal decisions more suitably tailored to environmental interests. Democratisation is stated to be a possible way out of the dilemma. But essential and vital problems are bound to push the majority principle to the limiting mark. (HSCH)

[en] The article critically reviews the new Act on Preventive Radiation Protection of the year 1986, discussing provisions and their intended effects, the legislative procedure, and the following items: Principle of minimization - Methods of calculating radiation doses - Monopoly of information/position of Laender governments - Role of the SSK (Radiation Protection Commission) - Liability aspects - Impacts on nuclear power plant operation. The authors judge this new act to belong to the type of technology-related laws that merely control and handle accident consequences without really offering a basis for prophylactic activities. Therefore, they suggest to create in addition an alternative law on radioactivity monitoring which would allow for transparency, public discussions, evaluation of measured data by the public, and definition of maximum permissible dose. (HSCH)

[en] The author who is the legal representative of a plaintiff from the Netherlands who took legal action against the licensing of the Emsland nuclear power station, explains the main reasons brought forward by the plaintiff. The argumentation is that human failure in the operation of a nuclear installation cannot be excluded in practice, despite the safety provided by the fairly automated, engineered safety system of such plant. The next question then arising is whether and to what degree human failure is predictable, or assessable in frequency, and whether such failure can be offset by appropriate technological measures, or mastered by engineered safety systems. The author's conclusion is that there is a deficit of investigation and available knowledge of the problem, for appropriate evaluation of the issue both at the licensing and the technical administrative level. The consequences of leaving the problem out of consideration are shown, together with improvements to be gained by dealing with the problems. (RST)

[en] The author has the opinion, a plebiscite means only a limited enlargement of democracy. The plebiscite should be formed out as a right of veto, which prohibits concrete political measures of the government or legal projects (Kalkar, Wackersdorf). The winning of time to continue the discussion is an advantage. Finally a general change of consciousness is possible. (CW)

[en] The review concentrates on administrative law aspects in the discussion of problems relating to the licences and preliminary notices of approval issued for the Hanau nuclear industry. The authors deal with the licences granted in 1974 (according to sec. 9 Atomic Energy Act), with the extended licensing requirements of sec. 7 Atomic Energy Act as amended by the 3rd amendment (concerning fabrication and handling of nuclear fuels), and the criminal court proceedings examining the conduct of the Alkem management and senior officers of the Hessian Ministry of Economics. Specific aspects investigated in the review include continuation of existing operations in accordance with transitory provisions, replacement of existing by new installations, and preliminary notice of approval. The preliminary notices of approval given up to the date of December 31, 1977 are said to have been illegal and extinct at that date, but the court's decision to abstain from punishment is accepted. The authors outline some possibilities of giving more concrete shape to the judicial control by administrative courts. (RST)

[en] The author investigates the question of whether the North-Rhine Westphalian Government would have any chance to prevent the commissioning of the SNR on the basis of substantive law inferring on to the Land Government competences to do so within the meaning of the Atomic Energy Act, and the power industry legislation. The first issue investigated refers to the question of whether the licensing authority can in principle deny any operating license for a nuclear installation, implying that no construction licence has been issued. The author's conclusion is that any refusal to grant an operating licence should be justified by reasons such as uncertainties in plant safety engineering, lack of demand in the power industry sector, and lack of appropriate waste disposal facilities. Directives of the Federal Government to the contrary would be unlawful. This statement is in opposition to the dominant opinion, supporting the Federal Government's competence to issue directives as explained above. In the following, the author examines whether the reasons given for denial of the operating licence would justify such denial in the presence of construction licenses issued before, and states that the licensing authority has the possibility of freeing itself from its commitment by cancelling the preliminary license. A directive by the Federal Government, demanding the operating license to be issued by the Land Government, would have to be based on facts showing breach of duty, or otherwise would be contrary to the law. (orig./HSCH)

[en] The article discusses the regulatory deficits of the Atomic Energy Act and their consequences, particularly with regard to the prevention of damage, and how the Federal Administrative Court interprets the existing provisions in this context. The concept of damage prevention as defined by the Act is analysed in the light of the not well understood concept of providing protection from ionizing radiation, laid down in the 1976 Ordinance on Radiation Protection; it is also discussed in the light of the emancipation of sec. 7, sub-sec. (2), no. 3 Atomic Energy Act away from the danger concept as understood by police law, and of the specification of legal provisions by the administration, and the prerogative of the executive power. The Wyhl judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of December 19, 1985 has revealed the de facto augmentation of power held by the administration in the field of atomic energy law and radiation protection law. With the reduction of control by the courts now evident, the author's prognosis is that future will not see any court judgment on main issues that will cancel a licence for a nuclear power plant. (HSCH)

[en] The author describes the background of the ALKEM law suit in Hanau. He discusses the Atomic Energy Act, the depository in Hanau, the provisional licences and finally the suit against the managers of RBU and 3 officers of the atomic authority of Hessen. (CW)

[en] The article deals with new Law on Preventive Radiation Protection of 1986. According to section 6 I No. 3 only the Federal Ministry of Environment is competent to evaluate radiation and to inform about standards. The authors assess the order of minimization, procedures of calculating, the monopoly of the Radiation Protection Commission, and questions of liability. (CW)

[en] The author is doubtful about the judgement of the Superior Administrative Court Lueneburg of October 28, 1986 relating to the nuclear power plant of Brokdorf. Fundamental rights of citizens who live in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant are not guaranteed. The protection of life according to article 2 of the German Constitution should have priority over legal protection of atomic power plants pursuant to art. 14 of the Constitution. (CW)