No abstract available

[en] It is explained that the use of nuclear energy has to be accompanied by a modern and adequate law relating to damages. a) Unlimited liability and financial security. Arguments against the limitation of liability in terms of sums are the following: protection of the population, the high safety degree of German nuclear installations, the polluter-pays principle co-responsibility of the state and thus the social order in the Federal Republic of Germany in general. b) Adequate settlement of claims for damages. The optimum principle laid down in the Atom Energy Law ought to cover subsequent appropriate measures for compensation. The unavoidable, negative effects following nuclear incidents ought to be kept endurable by taking risk-specific and adequate measures. Arguments against such a normalization of liability and financial security are considered to be relative as far as they have become known. (orig./HP)

[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] The author reports on the documentation which has risen to 160 000 documents. It is devided into the following three pools: jurisdiction, bibliography and standards. In the jurisdiction pool, relevant jurisdiction related to social security, to the new family law and to the Federal Fiscal Court (approx. 12 000 documents) is ready for call-up. 66 000 references to articles including all relevant articles on social security law are stored in the bibliography data bank. The standards data bank containing 3000 documents pertaining to judicial organisation is being set up. (HSCH)

[en] Leading sentence: The order of a responsible superior that prohibits the soldiers from carrying visibly at their motor vehicles any stickers saying: 'Nuclear power - no, thanks' within official quarters and plants is lawful. (orig.)

[en] The author analyzes critically the chain of reasoning the Federal Constitutional Court followed in its decision on the Muehlheim-Kaerlich Reactor. He comments on the grounds delivered for the admissibility of the complaint of unconstitutionality, on the mandatory obligation of the state to protect life and health as laid down in Para. 2 of Art. 2 of the Basic Law, on the possible, joint responsibility of the state for nuclear risks. The author stresses that the nullification of licences granted according to the Atomic Energy Law is not to be decided on the grounds of Para. 2 of Art. 20 of the Basic Law. No reference should be made to Basic Law constructions which are of a generalizing, dogmatic nature and might blow up our system of basic rights because of a supposedly special situation in the Atomic Energy Law. (HSCH)

[en] The complainant brought action to set aside three partial licences granted in 1976 under the Atomic Energy Law, and to set aside a decision of July 24, 1980 by means of which former licences were partly modified. His motion to stay proceedings filed according to sect. 80 para. 5 of the Rules of Administrative Courts was also unsuccessful in the second instance. Among other things, the complainant based his motion on the fact that the licences were granted without involving the public, with an offence being committed against procedural law. The main reasons underlying the decision of the court are given in full detail. (orig./HP)

[en] The author analyses the immediate impacts of preliminary legal redress and the time schedule of administrative procedures. Tables are presented to show the time lag caused by legal procedures in case of individual nuclear power plant construction. The indirect consequences emanating from administrative court proceedings are studied and more deeply lying causes of delays are explained. The author concludes by calling for better standardization as a basis for licensing procedures, for instance by working out a reactor safety ordinance. (HSCH)

[en] The author explains legal regulations to be found in administrative law and in the drafted version of rules of administrative procedures on the calling-in of third parties, on common attorneys, on the publication of service etc. and on other simplifications of proceedings with the aim to make mass proceedings administerable. As a result, the author considers these special regulations to be largely dispensable and risky with regard to constitutional law. An extension of constitutional guarantees pertaining to administrative procedures is necessary in order not to overburden Courts by tasks which may be fulfilled in a better way by federal agencies. The solution is to be found in substantive law: if necessary by admitting the so-called participation of associations or, even better, by introducing an agent safeguarding public interests in administrative procedures. (HSCH)

[en] The author states that there are only minor differences between the Atomic Energy Law and the Pollution Law with regard to the provisions concerning licencability (licensing quality) and the duty to reduce the remaining residual risk. With a view to the authorities' scope of discretion, the Atomic Energy Law goes much further than the Pollution Law. The author regards indispensable and legal safety requirements as being of the same value. Different requirements are generally based on different factual situations. Under the same circumstances, further safety requirements made on nuclear installations will only be considered if they can be justified by the mere purpose of allowing discretion in paragraph 2 of sect. 7 of the Atomic Energy Law. (orig./HSCH)