Zatímco primární právo Evropské unie (včetně jejích předchůdců: Evropského hospodářského společenství a Evropského společenství) prošlo od r. 1957 řadou klíčových změn, zůstává primární právoEuratomu i dnes v zásadě identické, jako tomu bylo před 55 lety. S ohledem na tuto skutečnost je Euratomčasto předmětem kritiky. Kritika je směrována nejenom vůči cíli, pro nějž byl Euratom zřízen, ale i ve vztahuk řadě obsoletních ustanovení primárního práva a způsobu vydávání právních předpisů, ve kterémEvropský parlament dodnes nedisponuje spolurozhodovací pravomocí.V této souvislosti se mluví o demokratickémdeficitu a Evropské společenství pro atomovou energii je označováno jako „fosilie“. Na stranědruhé ovšem došlo zejména pod vlivem judikatury Evropského soudního dvoru k rozsáhlé legislativní činnostiEuratomu, která se opírá o (původně marginální) Kapitolu třetí. Tyto posuny je možné chápat i jakosoučást šířeji koncipovaného fenoménu „europeizace mezinárodního práva“, tj. absorbování ustanovení mezinárodních úmluv v předpisech evropského práva. Příspěvek se věnuje otázce, jaká je role legislativyEuratomu v novém miléniu a jaké jsou perspektivy tohoto společenství tváří v tvář důsledkům haváriev japonské jaderné elektrárně Fukushima Dai-ichi. and The Euratom Treaty has largely remained in its original 1957 form up until today, whilst the EC Treaty and the EU Treaty have been amended several times with many substantive changes and additions. Given its age and its largely unamended state, the Euratom Treaty has often been called a fossil, particularly by those who wish to phase out nuclear technology as a source of energy generation altogether. There are also some features that are open to more general criticisms, regardless of the position one takes towards nuclear technology. These include provisions which do not seem to meet today’s requirements, such as the Treaty objective to promoting the ‘speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries’, the existence of provisions which have never been applied as intended by the authors of the Treaty and Euratom’s democratic deficit and ensuing lack of legitimacy.However, the new millennium opened a considerable shift in the Euratom legislation: Following the ECJ judgement concerning Euratom’s accession to the Convention on Nuclear Safety (2001), Euratom enacted several directives regulating transport of nuclear materials, nuclear safety and radioactive
waste management. This reflects the phenomenon, described as “Europeanization of International Law”, where the European law absorbs provisions of international treaties. Thus, the paper deals with the issue of Euratom’s ability to cope with the most recent challenges and with the perspectives of this Community after the accident in the Japanese nuclear power plant Fukushima Dai-ichi.
The coordinated administrative decisions, introduced most recently by the EU legislation, do represent a new phenomenon in the framework of European Administrative Law. While being issued by the competent administrative authorities of the Member States, the applicable Union’s legislation stipulates for coordinated administrative proceedings to be conducted and for decisions of the competent national authorities to be issued at the same time. Consequently, the EU law provides for mutual transnational effects of coordinated decisions. At the same time, the Union’s legislation provides for a competence of an executive agency to issue a decisions in the case, national administrative authorities will not provide so. However, the applicable Union’s legislation remains silent concerning several crucial aspects of the application of national procedural law vis-á-vis these coordinated administrative decisions. In practical terms, the concept of mutual transnational effects implies several serious questions regarding the legal effectivity of these decisions. Further, there are further serious questions regarding the legal consequences of cancelling or amendment of these decisions by any extraordinary means of the administrative review. Consequently, answers are to be found in the provisions of national law governing the administrative proceedings. This article aims at identifying the most serious issues arising from this new model of administrative decisionmaking.