The plaintiff, an owner of real estate in Austria near the former Czechoslovakia, brought action in Austrian courts seeking to prevent the construction of a nuclear power plant 115 kilometers away in Czechoslovakia. The plaintiff alleged that the plant had not been properly licensed and that the effects of radionuclides generated during the plant's normal operation, as well as those that would be released in a nuclear accident, threatened his real estate. The plaintiff alleged that the plant could not operate without emitting radioactive-contaminated water vapor and excessive warmth.
The Court of First Instance denied the plaintiff's claim, holding that it lacked jurisdiction ratione loci- geographic jurisdiction over the matter. On appeal, the Court of Second Instance affirmed the lower court decision. The Oberste Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of Austria, however, disagreed with the courts below it.
1. What is the major difference between this case and the Pulp Mills case?
2. How did the Austrian court justify getting jurisdiction over a matter over 100 kilometers in the territory of another country?
3. If an Austrian court issues a judgment and the Czech party refuses to comply, how do you think that the plaintiff will seek to enforce the judgment?