Die gegenwärtige Situation der Schadensersatzhaftung bei Atomunfällen in Japan
Abstract
The contribution discusses legal liability for nuclear damages in Japan, with special emphasis laid on the attempts to cope with the consequences of the 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima. There are already numerous decisions by lower courts dealing with this issue. The Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage provides for strict and unlimited liability for nuclear operators. A disputed question is which kinds of damages fall under this liability, and in this regard reputational damages and the various damages resulting from post-disaster evacuations pose a special challenge. The court rulings presented in the contribution highlight the importance of the pertinent doctrinal discussion in resolving these questions.
Nine years after the nuclear accident, the situation in Japan is as follows: As of 2020, more than 48,000 persons were still living under evacuation conditions. TEPCO, the operator of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, refused to recognize many of the proposed decisions issued in corresponding ADR proceedings as these are not binding on the parties. Consequently, the victims have been forced to seek relief in the courts. As of 2020, more than 30 collective actions involving a total of more than 12,000 plaintiffs had been filed with the Japanese courts. Ten of these actions have already been decided by the lower courts. In some of the collective actions the plaintiffs argue for state liability in addition to the liability of the operator. Seven lower court decisions have already confirmed such an additional liability of the Japanese government.
The plaintiffs in the collective actions are seeking compensation for material as well as for immaterial damages. Their claims are based on a violation of the individual right to a peaceful life, which is perceived as a fundamental interest of life. Especially damages caused by the loss of or by far-reaching changes in the foundations of life – so-called “damages caused by a loss of home” – pose a new legal challenge.
(The editors)
