natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ж. като има предвид, че според позицията на Съда главата за здравеопазване и безопасност от Договора за ЕОАЕ установява „единна система, предоставяща на Комисията широк обхват от пълномощия с цел да се осигури защитата на населението и околната среда срещу опасността от ядрено заразяване”
G. whereas the Court of Justice has held that the EAEC Treaty Chapter on Health and Safety forms a "coherent whole conferring upon the Commission powers of some considerable scope in order to protect the population and the environment against the risks of nuclear contamination"
Дело 187/87 Saarland [1988] ECR 5013, параграф 11. и като има предвид, че Съдът даде също така широко тълкувание на тези разпоредби с оглед „да се осигури постоянна и ефективна защита на здравето на населението срещу опасностите от йонизиращи лъчения, независимо от техния източник”
Case 187/87 Saarland [1988] ECR 5013, paragraph 11. and whereas the Court has also upheld a broad interpretation of the provisions of that Chapter in order "to ensure the consistent and effective protection of the health of the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiations, whatever their source"
Дело 70/88 Парламентът срещу Съвета [1991] ECR I-4529, параграф 14. ,
Case C-70/88 Parliament v Council [1991] ECR I-4529, paragraph 14. ,
З. като има предвид, че Комисията и Кралство Дания последователно отказват да признаят приложимостта на Договора за ЕОАЕ и приетото вторично законодателство по отношение на последствията от катастрофата в Туле,
H. whereas the Commission and the Kingdom of Denmark have consistently refused to recognise the applicability of the EAEC Treaty and secondary legislation adopted thereunder to the after-effects of the Thule crash,
Отбелязва, че съгласно установената съдебна практика на Съда, новите правила на общностното право са по принцип приложими към бъдещи последици от ситуации, възникнали преди влизането в сила на новото правило;
Notes that, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, new rules of Community law apply, as a matter of principle, to the future effects of situations which arose before the new rule entered into force;
Заключава, че Договорът за ЕОАЕ е пряко приложим и обвързващ за Кралство Дания от датата на неговото присъединяване, в резултат на което той е приложим към бъдещите последици от ситуации, възникнали преди присъединяването на Кралство Дания към Общностите;
Concludes that the EAEC Treaty was immediately applicable and binding on the Kingdom of Denmark from the date of its accession, with the result that it applied to the future effects of situations arising prior to the Kingdom of Denmark's accession to the Communities;
Отбелязва, че Договорът за ЕОАЕ се прилага за Гренландия в продължение на 12 години, считано от присъединяването на Дания през 1973 г. до влизането в сила на 1 януари 1985 г. на Договора за изменение на договорите за създаване на Европейските общности по отношение на Гренландия; счита обаче, че тъй като този договор няма обратна сила, Кралство Дания продължава да бъде обвързано с всички съществуващи правни задължения по отношение на събития, възникнали на територията на Гренландия преди 1 януари 1985 г., както и че последствията за човешкото здраве по отношение на катастрофата от 1968 г. не са ограничени до територията на Гренландия, тъй като е очевидно, че много от работниците, включително европейски граждани, са се преместили впоследствие на територията на континентална Дания;
Observes that the EAEC Treaty applied to Greenland for twelve years from Denmark's accession in 1973 to the entry into force on 1 January 1985 of the Treaty amending, with regard to Greenland, the Treaties establishing the European Communities; considers, however, that since the latter Treaty has no retroactive effect, the Kingdom of Denmark remains bound by any existing legal obligations relating to events having occurred on the territory of Greenland before 1 January 1985 and, furthermore, that the after-effects on human health of the 1968 crash are not confined to Greenland, as it is apparent that many of the workers, including European citizens, have since moved to mainland Denmark;
Отбелязва, че по смисъла на съдебната практика от последните години Договорът за ЕОАЕ „не се прилага при използване на атомна енергия за военни цели”
Takes note of the recent case-law to the effect that the EAEC Treaty "is not applicable to uses of nuclear energy for military purposes"
Настоява, че позоваването на гореспоменатото ограничаване на действието на Договора за ЕОАЕ не трябва да бъде използвано за избягване на прилагането на законодателството в областта на защитата на здравето и безопасността в ситуации, за които предполагаемите военни цели засягат трета страна, при които използването на атомна енергия е в нарушение на международно споразумение и при които единствената потенциално съществуваща връзка с интересите на отбраната на държавата-членка е, че изпускането на радиоактивен материал е станало на нейна територия;
Insists that the aforementioned limitation on the scope of the EAEC Treaty should not be invoked to avoid the application of health and safety legislation in situations where the alleged military purpose concerns a third State, where the use of nuclear energy is in breach of an international agreement and where the only feasibly present connection with a defence interest of a Member State is that the release of nuclear material occurred on its territory;
Отбелязва, че член 2, параграф 3 от Директива 96/29/Евратом е приложим в случаи на продължително облъчване в резултат на вторично въздействие от радиационна авария;
Notes that Article 2(3) of Directive 96/29/Euratom applies to cases of lasting exposure resulting from the after-effects of a radiological emergency;
Призовава Кралство Дания, в тясно сътрудничество с властите на Гренландия и в съответствие с член 38 от директивата, да вземе мерки „за започване на наблюдение и намеса” във връзка с продължаващите вторични въздействия от катастрофата в Туле и във връзка с член 53 от тази директива да вземе „мерки за извършване на мониторинг на облъчването”, както и да приложи „необходимата намеса, като се отчитат действителните характеристики на ситуацията”;
Calls on the Kingdom of Denmark, in close cooperation with the Greenland authorities, and in accordance with Article 38 of the Directive, to "initiate surveillance and intervention measures" in relation to the continuing after-effects of the Thule crash, and, in accordance with Article 53 of that Directive, to make "arrangements for the monitoring of exposure" and implement "any appropriate intervention (...) taking account of the real characteristics of the situation";
Като счита, че основните права съставляват неразделна част от общите принципи на общностното право и като взема предвид позитивните задължения, установени от членове 2 и 8 от Европейската конвенция за защита на правата на човека и основните свободи, призовава държавите-членки, ангажирани в опасни дейности, които могат да имат скрито вредно въздействие върху здравето на хората, участващи в тези дейности, да осигурят установяването на ефективна и достъпна процедура, която да даде възможност на тези лица да се стремят към получаване на всяка относима и подходяща информация;
Considering that fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of Community law, and having regard to the positive obligations entailed by Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, calls on those Member States engaged in hazardous activities which might have hidden adverse consequences on the health of those involved in such activities to ensure that an effective and accessible procedure be established which enables such persons to seek all relevant and appropriate information;
Призовава държавите-членки своевременно да въведат и прилагат Директива 96/29/Евратом и настоятелно призовава Комисията строго да преследва всеки пропуск при изпълнение на техните задължения в тази насока;
Calls on the Member States to implement and apply Directive 96/29/Euratom without delay, and urges the Commission to pursue vigorously any failure to fulfil their obligations in that regard;
Изразява съмнение, че Кралство Дания е изпълнило изцяло задълженията си по Директива 96/29/Евратом във връзка с катастрофата в Туле и нейните продължаващи последствия;
Doubts that the Kingdom of Denmark has fully complied with its obligations under Directive 96/29/Euratom in relation to the Thule crash and its after-effects;
Изразява сериозна загриженост относно съществуващия понастоящем пропуск в защитата на общественото здраве по отношение на използването на атомна енергия за военни цели;
Expresses great concern at the current existence of a gap in the protection of the health of the general public with regard to the use of nuclear energy for military purposes;
Призовава Комисията да запълни тази празнота, като излезе с предложение, насочено към жизненоважните последици на използването на атомна енергия за военни цели върху общественото здраве и околната среда;
Calls on the Commission to come forward with a proposal addressing the vital public health and environmental implications of the use of nuclear energy for military purposes, in order to fill this lacuna;
Счита, че в основните разпоредби на Договора за ЕОАЕ не са внасяни съществени изменения от влизането му в сила и е необходимо той да бъде актуализиран;
Considers that the core provisions of the EAEC Treaty have not been substantially amended since its entry into force and need to be brought up to date;
Възлага на своя председател да предаде настоящата резолюция на Съвета и Комисията, както и на правителството и парламента на Кралство Дания.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Government and Parliament of the Kingdom of Denmark.
On 21 January 1968, a US B-52 bomber with several nuclear weapons on board crashed near the Thule Air Base in North-Western Greenland, releasing several kilos of weapons grade plutonium.
On 21 January 1968, a US B-52 bomber with several nuclear weapons on board crashed near the Thule Air Base in North-Western Greenland, releasing several kilos of weapons grade plutonium.
Six of the seven crew members were able to eject safely.
Six of the seven crew members were able to eject safely.
However, the plutonium contaminated the immediate snow and ice at the crash site and was carried by high winds and water over an extensive area.
However, the plutonium contaminated the immediate snow and ice at the crash site and was carried by high winds and water over an extensive area.
Over a thousand Danish civilian personnel were employed to provide maintenance and other non-military services at the air base.
Over a thousand Danish civilian personnel were employed to provide maintenance and other non-military services at the air base.
Danish civilian personnel, local Greenlanders and US personnel raced to the crash site to attempt rescue operations.
Danish civilian personnel, local Greenlanders and US personnel raced to the crash site to attempt rescue operations.
Subsequently, the US conducted radiation "clean up" operations in the area during which Danish workers volunteered to participate in the removal of contaminated material along with US personnel.
Subsequently, the US conducted radiation "clean up" operations in the area during which Danish workers volunteered to participate in the removal of contaminated material along with US personnel.
None of the volunteers had any experience or training in handling radiation-contaminated materials.
None of the volunteers had any experience or training in handling radiation-contaminated materials.
After the "clean-up" operations, the US military conducted regular medical monitoring of US Air Force personnel who served at Thule at the time of the crash and thereafter.
After the "clean-up" operations, the US military conducted regular medical monitoring of US Air Force personnel who served at Thule at the time of the crash and thereafter.
No similar medical monitoring was conducted by the Danish Government of the Danish civilian workers or the Greenlanders, many of whom continued to work at the Thule base and live in the area for several years thereafter.
No similar medical monitoring was conducted by the Danish Government of the Danish civilian workers or the Greenlanders, many of whom continued to work at the Thule base and live in the area for several years thereafter.
At the time of the crash, the petitioner was employed as a civilian worker (a shipping clerk) at the airbase of Thule, and continued to live and work there until 1971.
At the time of the crash, the petitioner was employed as a civilian worker (a shipping clerk) at the airbase of Thule, and continued to live and work there until 1971.
During this period, the petitioner visited the crash site from time to time and was involved in arranging for the removal of contaminated debris in "clean-up" operations.
During this period, the petitioner visited the crash site from time to time and was involved in arranging for the removal of contaminated debris in "clean-up" operations.
In addition, like many of the Thule workers, he used ice from a nearby fjord in beverages.
In addition, like many of the Thule workers, he used ice from a nearby fjord in beverages.
During the 1980s, the petitioner experienced a severe deterioration in his health and was later diagnosed with a cancerous condition in his oesophagus and stomach.
During the 1980s, the petitioner experienced a severe deterioration in his health and was later diagnosed with a cancerous condition in his oesophagus and stomach.
He has had eight major operations and a large number of one day admissions to hospital.
He has had eight major operations and a large number of one day admissions to hospital.
Most recently, he has been diagnosed with a thyroid condition.
Most recently, he has been diagnosed with a thyroid condition.
The petitioner complains that the Danish authorities failed to evacuate the workers from the site at the time, to warn them or to inform them about the extensive radiation, or to make the necessary follow-up medical tests and examinations.
The petitioner complains that the Danish authorities failed to evacuate the workers from the site at the time, to warn them or to inform them about the extensive radiation, or to make the necessary follow-up medical tests and examinations.
He alleges that his condition was linked to exposure to plutonium from the nuclear weapons carried by the aircraft that crashed in 1968.
He alleges that his condition was linked to exposure to plutonium from the nuclear weapons carried by the aircraft that crashed in 1968.
Accordingly, the petitioner demands access to existing data on the accident and its implications, as well as demanding that regular medical tests be carried out.
Accordingly, the petitioner demands access to existing data on the accident and its implications, as well as demanding that regular medical tests be carried out.
The main allegation in the petition is that the Danish Government has not respected the provisions of Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p.
The main allegation in the petition is that the Danish Government has not respected the provisions of Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p.
1; hereinafter the Directive).
1; hereinafter the Directive).
Early scientific reports released by the Danish Government, which indicated that there was no danger to human health or the environment, have been questioned in private medical reports and by a 2005 preliminary report of the Radiation Research Department of the Danish RISO National Laboratory on contamination in the Thule area.
Early scientific reports released by the Danish Government, which indicated that there was no danger to human health or the environment, have been questioned in private medical reports and by a 2005 preliminary report of the Radiation Research Department of the Danish RISO National Laboratory on contamination in the Thule area.
Due to the increasing number of deaths and illnesses amongst the former Thule workers from cancers associated with radiation exposure, the former workers established an Association in 1986, ( Foreningen For Straaleramte Thulearbejdere ) to investigate the possible effects of the 1968 air crash on their health.
Due to the increasing number of deaths and illnesses amongst the former Thule workers from cancers associated with radiation exposure, the former workers established an Association in 1986, ( Foreningen For Straaleramte Thulearbejdere ) to investigate the possible effects of the 1968 air crash on their health.
Since the workers had not been individually monitored at Thule for radiation exposure, the Association requested the Danish Government to give them access to the relevant environmental radiation records.
Since the workers had not been individually monitored at Thule for radiation exposure, the Association requested the Danish Government to give them access to the relevant environmental radiation records.
From these, they intended to estimate their probable radiation dosages and the possible consequences for their health.
From these, they intended to estimate their probable radiation dosages and the possible consequences for their health.
However, they have never received such records, despite numerous requests.
However, they have never received such records, despite numerous requests.
The petitioner states that the Danish Government made a prior political decision not to scientifically investigate the medical complaints of Thule survivors, and instead to offer them an ex gratia payment of money for psychological harm suffered.
The petitioner states that the Danish Government made a prior political decision not to scientifically investigate the medical complaints of Thule survivors, and instead to offer them an ex gratia payment of money for psychological harm suffered.
Such a payment was made to all persons who were in, or travelled through the proximity of the radiation contaminated crash site during the period from 21 January 1968 to 17 September 1968, excluding Danish Government scientists and United States personnel.
Such a payment was made to all persons who were in, or travelled through the proximity of the radiation contaminated crash site during the period from 21 January 1968 to 17 September 1968, excluding Danish Government scientists and United States personnel.
It is estimated that 2400 persons received this payment, which did not differentiate between participants in the "clean-up" operation and others such as local inhabitants or travellers who took no part in them.
It is estimated that 2400 persons received this payment, which did not differentiate between participants in the "clean-up" operation and others such as local inhabitants or travellers who took no part in them.
The Rapporteur has been provided with evidence in at least two cases that a patient's request for follow-up treatment in a clinic has been refused on the basis that such compensation settled the matter finally.
The Rapporteur has been provided with evidence in at least two cases that a patient's request for follow-up treatment in a clinic has been refused on the basis that such compensation settled the matter finally.
The Committee on Petitions declared Mr Carswell's petition admissible on 14 March 2003.
The Committee on Petitions declared Mr Carswell's petition admissible on 14 March 2003.
Temporal application of Community law to the facts contained in the petition
Temporal application of Community law to the facts contained in the petition
Can the Directive apply to the 1968 crash, which occurred before the entry into force of the Directive, and before the Kingdom of Denmark's accession to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (hereafter the EAEC Treaty)?
Can the Directive apply to the 1968 crash, which occurred before the entry into force of the Directive, and before the Kingdom of Denmark's accession to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (hereafter the EAEC Treaty)?
The Commission has asserted that Directive 96/29/EURATOM cannot be applied to the consequences of an accident that took place in 1968, at a time when the Kingdom of Denmark was not even a Member State.
The Commission has asserted that Directive 96/29/EURATOM cannot be applied to the consequences of an accident that took place in 1968, at a time when the Kingdom of Denmark was not even a Member State.
However, according to the settled case law of the Court of Justice, new rules of Community law apply, as a matter of principle, to the future effects of situations which arose before the new rule entered into force.
However, according to the settled case law of the Court of Justice, new rules of Community law apply, as a matter of principle, to the future effects of situations which arose before the new rule entered into force.
For instance, the Court of Justice has applied this principle to the application of a discriminatory procedural rule to facts predating the accession of Austria to the EU.
For instance, the Court of Justice has applied this principle to the application of a discriminatory procedural rule to facts predating the accession of Austria to the EU.
Case 122/96 Saldanha [1997] ECR I-5325, paragraph 14.
Case 122/96 Saldanha [1997] ECR I-5325, paragraph 14.
This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the ECtHR) has consistently upheld its jurisdiction and the applicability of Articles 2 and 8 ECHR to the after-effects of an exposure to radiation which pre-dated a State's acceptance of the ECtHR's jurisdiction.
This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the ECtHR) has consistently upheld its jurisdiction and the applicability of Articles 2 and 8 ECHR to the after-effects of an exposure to radiation which pre-dated a State's acceptance of the ECtHR's jurisdiction.
Thus, a claim by the sick daughter of an RAF serviceman exposed to radiation in 1958 on Christmas Island was not inadmissible by reason of the fact the United Kingdom only accepted the ECtHR's jurisdiction in 1966.
Thus, a claim by the sick daughter of an RAF serviceman exposed to radiation in 1958 on Christmas Island was not inadmissible by reason of the fact the United Kingdom only accepted the ECtHR's jurisdiction in 1966.
Case 14/1997/798/1001 L.C.B. v United Kingdom , Judgment of 9 June 1998, paragraphs 30 to 41.
Case 14/1997/798/1001 L.C.B. v United Kingdom , Judgment of 9 June 1998, paragraphs 30 to 41.
The EAEC Treaty was immediately applicable and binding on the Kingdom of Denmark from the date of its accession, with the result that it applied to the future effects of situations arising prior to the Kingdom of Denmark's accession to the Communities.
The EAEC Treaty was immediately applicable and binding on the Kingdom of Denmark from the date of its accession, with the result that it applied to the future effects of situations arising prior to the Kingdom of Denmark's accession to the Communities.
Consequently, it is immaterial that the crash occurred before Denmark's accession to the EAEC Treaty, provided that the effects of that crash persist.
Consequently, it is immaterial that the crash occurred before Denmark's accession to the EAEC Treaty, provided that the effects of that crash persist.
Given the long-term effects on human health produced by exposure to radiation (the latent period for radiation-induced cancers and illnesses ranges from 20 to 60 years), all of the present survivors remain at risk and urgently require proper medical monitoring.
Given the long-term effects on human health produced by exposure to radiation (the latent period for radiation-induced cancers and illnesses ranges from 20 to 60 years), all of the present survivors remain at risk and urgently require proper medical monitoring.