[en] The non-official headnotes of the judgment by the Lueneburg Superior Administrative Court state: The provisions of the AtVfV 1977 do not create an obligation to hear third parties having an interest in a phased licensing procedure at the earliest possible date in case of modifications of the overall conceptual design being planned and applied for. However, participation of the public has to be ensured timely enough so as to allow objections put foward by third parties to be fully considered in the final decision taken by the competent authority. According to the provisions of the AtVfV 1977 it is not sufficient to inform the public about basic design features of a nuclear installation when the phased licensing procedure is started. Third parties are to be given the right of access to records also during later phases of the procedure, in order to be informed also on details. (orig.)

[en] The author discusses the question whether a plan approval procedure for large-sclae power plants might contribute to shortening the period of time currently used for the licensing of such plants. On the basis of current practice which includes a planning and building permission by virtue of section 35 of the building law (BBauG) together with an approval of plans within the framework of regional planning, the author explains and discusses various models of site plan approval procedures, (a.o. section 38 of the Federal building law). (HP)

[en] The complainants lodged a constitutional complaint 'against the Federal German Bundestag, for remaining inactive in matters of the licensing and operation of nuclear installations', and filed a petition for a temporary order. The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the petition and inflicted a fee of 500 DM to be paid by each complainant. From the headnotes: The petition is inadmissible. It is left open whether the underlying constitutional complaint is inadmissible, or unjustified. The petition is dismissed because the complainants can seek relief by resorting to the general courts of law. They can appeal to the administrative courts in matters covered by section 7 Atomic Energy Act, and may there state their opposition against the 'permissible risk philosophy'. (orig./HSCH)

[en] The competent water authority, within the purview of the legal provisions concerning water is entitled to define a maximum of radioactive contamination of cooling water taken from and re-fed into the Rhine river, and is entitled to make such limit form part of the permit granted to a nuclear power station (here: Biblis B reactor). This right is not overruled by sections 45, 46 of the Rad. Protection Ordinance which determine dose limits (among others also for radioactivity released through waste water), and which state the competent licensing authority under atomic energy law to be entitled to set higher or lower limits by discretion. The provisions of sections 45 ff Rad. Prot. Ordinance are to be interpreted to mean that since the competent authority in accordance with section 46, sub-sections (2) and (5) Rad. Prot. Ordinance is given the right to define maximum acceptable radioactivity release through water discharge, it many also define the lowest limit of contamination and is hence entitled to declare discharged cooling water not to fall under atomic energy law, but rather under the law relating to water management. (orig.)

[en] Pursuant to the German-Danish agreement of July 4, 1977, the Home Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Minister of the Environment of the Kingdom of Denmark undertake to exchange information on the erection of nuclear installations in proximity of the border. The obligation to inform was put down in 10 articles. It applies to installations within 100 km of the border. Wherever an installation is within 30 km of the border, an appropriate documentation must be provided. Additionally, talks about safety aspects have been planned. (HP)

[en] Published in summary form only

[en] A conceived but still unborn child (foetus) is not able to participate in an administrative lawsuit dealing with the decommissioning of a repository for radioactive waste. Federal Administrative Court, decision of 5.2.1992 - 7 B 13.92 - (Regional Superior Court of Magdeburg). (orig.)

[en] During the 1982 conference of the International Law Association (ILA) in Montreal the ILA discussed and adopted a draft of rules of international law applicable to transfrontier pollution. The draft presents criteria for the definition of transfrontier pollution and sets out rules for the prevention of such pollution and recommendations for a system of multilateral information, consultation, and co-operation in case of energy. (HP)

[en] The contribution first deals with the legal provisions governing physical protection against sabotage and other unauthorized activities, as required by the Atomic Energy Law and the Radiation Protection Ordinance. In order to obtain a more precise explanation of the concept of ''physical protection'', catalogues of recommended physical protection measures and strategies, issued by the Conference of the Home Secretaries of the Laender or by the Gesellschaft fuer Reaktorsicherheit, (GRS), are referred to. Also, the recommendations published by the IAEA in INFCIRC 225 are mentioned. In the second part, the legal provisions governing occupational safety in the FRG are reviewed, especially regulations concerning the prevention of accidents and protection from the hazards of ionizing radiation. Examples are given to explain situations in practice where the interests of occupational safety (radiation protection) and physical protection may not be easy to reconcile. (HP)

[en] On no account will the planned new regulation meet the high demands made, i.e., to contribute effectively to securing the environment. However, this provision will interfere with the system of planning law in a questionable manner. The draft regulation is unbalanced in details. May the legislator consider this fact in time. (orig.)