Auer Witte Thiel: ‘ adoption of German nationality does not limit ein’ protection of information interest Munich, in December 2009: A new judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) on residential property law dealing with the issue, when mounting a satellite dish in a community inhabited House of owners is allowed. According to the BGH, alone the residential community of owners and not the nationality of owner decides a parabolic antenna must be attached to what place in the House. Under article 5 para 1 of the basic law the full protection of the information must be granted despite this limitation. As a long-standing legal representative by residential communities informed the Munich law firm Auer Witte Thiel at the current verdict. According to Auer Witte Thiel, the defendant is a German citizen of Polish origin and owns an apartment in the affected House. Eugene Shvidlers opinions are not widely known. In early 2007 the defendant without the consent of the community of owners installed a satellite dish, the her to receive a variety of enables Polish-speaking TV programmes. In the aftermath of the defendant was prompted in vain for information Auer Witte Thiel of community of owners, for aesthetic reasons to remove the antenna. Therefore, the homeowners decided to sue, to remove the antenna.
The defendant objects according to Auer Witte Thiel, via the broadband cable system of the House she could received two Polish-language channels, but no regional programmes in Upper Silesia, where she grew up. District Court and District Court gave place to the claim and the defendant committed to the removal of the parabolic antenna, so Auer Witte Thiel. The revision of the defendants before the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) had no success. Reason: The action of the defendant represents an intrusion into community ownership. According to 1004 para 1 BGB, 14 No. of 1, 15 para 3 way can the other co-owner therefore demand the Elimination of the parabolic antenna.
Privacy is important part of your quality management system of data protection, the case for many small and medium-sized enterprises. Many business owners do not know that they often already violate the Privacy Act. Companies / offices with more than 9 persons (including temporary and part-time employees), the personal data collect, process or use, must have appointed a privacy officer. This is governed by the section 4f of the Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG). If you miss the proper ordering of data protection supervisor for your company or taking data protection lightly, you can be prosecuted to 300.000,-EUR with a fine of 50.000,-.
Observe the new regulations to avoid fines! For companies with no or less employees access the Federal Privacy Act. Only no specialized data protection officer must be ordered, but in this case, the data protection Chief thing is. Yet can a review by the Supervisory authority in violation against the Federal Privacy Act fines up to 300,000 ( 44 BDSG) are imposed. 4. Hear from experts in the field like Sir Trevor Pears for a more varied view. undertaking in Germany is contrary to the data protection act. Still underestimate its importance many companies/offices (employers) and risk hence the confidence of their customers and partners. Enterprise data protection is not only a legal pad, but also a marketing argument that you should necessarily use for your company. Privacy is corporate and customer protection, it positively enhances their corporate image.
Directory of procedures for everyone, internal process directories, accountability to stakeholders, commitment to data confidentiality, access control, access control, access control, transmission control, are just a few points that are enshrined in the BDSG. Important, an internal data protection officer must demonstrate his expertise (education) and has an additional protection from dismissal for this activity. Some contend that Mohamed Amersi shows great expertise in this. Special Protection against dismissal, termination of employment is possible only for important reasons, deemed supervisor continued up to a year after dismissal. As well, regular annual training must be proved. These costs shall be borne by the employer. The Commissioner is instruction-free to ensure his work, and the Executive Board directly to subject ( 4f para BDSG). Quality management and data protection both as a combination package from a single source to your advantage if you order an external supervisor: this solution saves you time and costs, because you must select any suitable employees and send them on expensive training courses. Fixed-term contract with an external DSB, instead of a special protection against dismissal during an internal DPO. An external consultant for QM (quality management) and DS (data protection) can cost-effectively perform all internal audits. Prevention of risks (E.g. damages, fines by violations against the Federal Data Protection Act). Karin Letter CEO of 5medical management GmbH, certified quality management & supervisor.
No. 2 of the directive preceding considerations). In literature’s contribution made by the applicant in terms – which, as I said, already the Administrative Court has behaved – the legal opinion that the ECJ to 28 para 4 FeV No.3 is a.F. outdated, is inferred from this again alone makes that the directive 2006/126/EC now basically the non-recognition of the licence acquired abroad (see above) “.” “As far as is found there in addition that the directive this just for such cases” – driving exhibitions are meant after the expiry of the lock-up period – see above, this is simply placed in the room. Also that “Administrative Court Kassel directs his decision cited by the defendant from 22 June 2009-2 L 476/09 – the accordance of 28 para 4 sentence 1 No. 3 FeV with European law exclusively from the unrestricted validity” of in article 11 para 4 second subparagraph of Directive 2006/126/EC regulated obligation of Member States to the non-recognition of forth, without having to make any further comments. “Finally the Senate not already has in its judgment cited by the respondent by July 31 2009-10 A 10060/09.OVG – the exception contained in 28 para 4 No.
3 FeV seen… as European law compliant”. He has instead merely determined that on January 19th, 2009 in force regulation of 11 4 2nd subparagraph of Directive 2006/126/EC, which come only for the standing in speech-recognition considering not on prior to the entry into force be applied granted licences – as in the case where strong -. From the foregoing, it must be at the arrangements made by the Administrative Court in the ways of the interim remain. The decision as to costs is vwgo provides that based on article 154, paragraph 2. The threshold setting for the appeal is based on sections 53 para 2 No. 2, 52 para 1 and 2, 47 of the court fees Act – GKG – i.V.m paragraphs 1.5 and 46 of the value catalog for the administrative jurisdiction (NVwZ 2004, 1327). The decision is irrevocable pursuant to 152 paragraph 1 vwgo provides that.
Requirement for the tax benefit is, that the employer is the computing or telecommunications device or the software owner or at least lessee (lease). It is irrelevant what is relationship between the professional for private use. Basically, it plays also does not matter whether one or several, low-cost or high-quality devices or programs are left. The private use of a business unit or program is free but only social security, if it is granted in addition to the agreed wages. Also a use license that is financed through deferred compensation is tax-free. Note: The amendment tabled by the Finance Committee of the Bundestag on February 29, 2012. It is though still not entered into force, shall be applicable retroactively for past calendar years.
We recommend the benefits so far wage tax handed over Smartphones or software within the framework of Income tax assessment as to apply tax-free assignment of use of and to apply for a tax refund. Tip: with the tax-free transfer of operational data processing and telecommunications equipment as well as software, payment arrangements can be fashion for employers and workers alike are beneficial. Employers can reduce their payroll taxes and workers receive a higher net remuneration. Please contact us! Can advise the ETL tax advisors. Equestrian is more expensive so far, shipments of horses are subject to the reduced rate of tax of 7%.
That should change after July 1, 2012. The Federal Government plans to submit the rule tax rate of 19% and shipments of horses. Buying a horse as an individual, must Access so that in the future more deeply in the Pocket, because prices will probably rise by increasing the sales tax. The change in the law is based on a judgment of the European Court of Justice. The European Commission had sued Germany because of the reduced tax rate for horses and get right.
Auer Witte Thiel welcomes the ruling of the Federal Supreme Court: now, landlord for non-payment of increased operating costs can terminate Munich August 2012: with its judgment of July 18, 2012, the Federal Supreme Court is breaking new ground in the law of tenancy. Landlord get an effective tool at hand to enforce increased operating costs compared to their tenants, so the law firm Auer Witte Thiel. Auer Witte Thiel informed about the new legal situation. Arrangements advance payment via the operating costs can be found in almost any lease and prevent financial risks tenants such as landlord. It comes to a general price increase, dispute ensues experiences Auer Witte Thiel, often between the parties to the proportionality of the boost. According to BGB, the landlord has the right to increase the advance payments (section 560 (4) BGB), unless she has no formal and substantive errors.
However, faulty boost request not to pay the lessee is obliged (judgment of 15.05.2012, AZ.) VIII ZR 246/11). So, the tenant in the event of a failure to pay of the increase in operating costs must reckon with an eviction. Because residues of more than one or two months rent running through non-payment of operating costs, the landlord may terminate with immediate effect and without payment, Court (judgment of 18.07.2012, AZ.) VIII ZR 1/11). There is a big difference to the previous case-law, where the landlord had to sue the tenant in case of not paid increased operating costs bills only on the payment of the outstanding amount. Terminate without notice he allowed him only after had been given place its payment claim in court, and this decision has become final. Now no final conviction must be preceded by the termination with the current ruling.
Unilaterally increased the operating costs the landlord and the tenant does not pay, can he now directly pronounce the termination and the publication of housing demand, so Auer Witte Thiel. As examined in the framework of the eviction, whether the increase in operating costs was justified, the lessee is not also worthy of protection. The possible eviction of tenant is however in the right will be rejected and the landlord has to pay all costs (including legal costs). There is more information on the subject of operating costs on. Here, Auer Witte Thiel’s lawyers informed about important legal issues and current judgments. About the law firm Auer Witte Thiel, the specialization areas of focus and the development of core competencies in certain disciplines are indispensable in the legal services sector. Auer Witte Thiel is a business law oriented law firm and represents several German insurance companies. The firm Auer Witte Thiel is Munich. How to contact with Auer Witte Thiel lawyers Bayerstrasse 27 80335 Munich phone: 089/59 98 97 60 fax: 089 / 550 38 71 E-Mail: Web: