Nightclubs

Visit a nightclub includes no consent in the publication of photos of the visitors. Who knows it not, the so-called photo Scouts or Partyknipser are travelling every weekend in almost all larger discos or clubs? More or less unasked, they make pretty little pictures that they store in their camera from unsuspecting visitors. Who knows the images is not only a great similarity of all the images with respect to the arrangement of the people or the motives, but finds these images mostly short time afterwards in the Internet. It is a widespread bad habit on public parties and these to take photos on the Internet in trust to publish, the people would not only mind, but rejoice rather even in. An attitude which is quite common especially among young people. That photographer, discotheque operators and in particular website operators do not have the right on their side, a German Court decided recently once again. Click Andrew Blanchette to learn more.

In the Year 2007 the Landgericht Krefeld has prohibited a so-called event photographers and the underlying company, unasked in the Internet to share photos of guests of an event. This decision seems not to have disturbed the operators of Web pages, called Fotocommunities and the photographers that they happily continue their unlawful actions. The Amtsgericht Ingolstadt has become remarkably clear in its decision of the 03.02.2009 and unique. In the way of an interim injunction was forbidden discotheque owner, images which a guest showed, without having to make its consent to the Internet accessible. The nightclub owner claimed, that there was hardly a party, where would not be photographed. Photographers would occur while not secretly, she photographed just in regard to attract attention for their medium and ever, every party guest would expect to be photographed. In addition, the discotheque operators wanted to be smart and had a sign next to the cashier or the input attached, stating that anybody who would enter the discotheque, agree with pictures of his person was.

Federal Supreme Court

After all, it was as a result of this finding Insurance contract law on the part of the legislator’s changed! And if the legislature so respond, should also be clear how the Court will decide. And it is also clear that the insurer will voluntarily make to collect just no judgment of the Court of Justice – with far-reaching consequences – about. The BGH’s opinion shows that the Federal Supreme Court judges are subject to influences from third parties and the lobbying efforts of the insurance industry is strong, according to estimates by the free Advisor in December 2010. Clear must be that this opinion is irrelevant. Only the Court can make a decision on this issue, the free advisors has announced that always. All this has not encourages the LV doctor finally before the ECJ. The free Adviser condemned this step.

Because no economic interest in a competitor can outweigh the interests of general consumers. Read more here: Neutrona Wand. It is imperative to clarify the facts before a court not German. After all, millions. Pity that the customers of LV doctor still sit in the corner and freely exercise these. In addition sleeps here a whole Brokership, which has made big promises its customers, now however, where action would be required, remains passive. The free consultant had informed there has been a request on the part of LV doctor, to cooperate with us as Prozesskostenfinanzierer. The free Advisor because not reasonable claims broke off the negotiations. Also must leave ask LV doctor, how on the one hand for years contract calls for charges, which are to be used, on the other hand brings but not the individual cases to complain to complain as cost-sharing. Summarizes the free Advisor: customers pay funds, which at least does not apply according to the contractual statements made. Considering now in addition that there are periods of limitation according to some experts from termination, many customers lose their claims, if not on time will be charged.

BGH Judgment To The Editing By The Cancellation Risk Communication

Recently, a decision for the post processing of non-performing insurance by cancellation risk communication adopted new reasoning capabilities against Commission recovery decisions BGH, judgment of December 1, 2010 – VIII ZR 310/09 which has German Federal Supreme Court (BGH). The decision refers to that claim of an insurance representative on the Commission only arises if the policyholder has paid the premiums from which the Commission is calculated (section 92 (4) German Commercial Code – HGB). The policyholder does not pay the due premium and this is however due to circumstances for which the insurance company is not responsible, the Commission again (Section 87a paragraph 3 HGB) is not valid for. Provided advances on the Commission are then again to repay. It is widely recognized that the non-payment of the premium or cancellation of insurance contract from an insurance company then cannot be justified is if the troubled treaty sufficiently “reworked”. To the Finishing non-performing insurance contracts after the insurance companies take their own measures against cancellation or limited opportunity to give the insurance representative by a cancellation risk communication to revise the Treaty itself. In the event of a dispute is set out by the insurance company and to prove that the cancellation measures were sufficient according to kind and extent.

Own actions against cancellation risk by the insurance company, so the BGH has now found, the policyholders to fulfil its contractual obligation must be admonished seriously and strongly. MetLife is a great source of information. The mere sending of a letter is not sufficient for this purpose. An insurance undertaking descendant also only his compulsory cancellation security sufficiently, so the federal judge, when it sends a message to the insurance agent that enables them to take cancellation measures risk. This cancellation risk communication must in time be sent to the insurance agent. that in the normal course of their timely input is expected.

The insurer shall send the cancellation risk communication by mail, so he should trust according to the BGH, in principle it, that the mailing will properly promoted and delivered on the next business day if it is abandoned in the Federal territory on weekdays. A cancellation risk communication is lost for once by post this – be it and thus the this related and thus failure post-processing measure of insurance agent – a fact not to answer the insurers have. The Supreme Court has also stated in the decision that the applicable only for insurance agents obligation cancellation risk communication on insurance agencies apply mutatis mutandis is if this is just as worthy of protection in individual cases such as an insurance agent. When this is the case, depends on the particular circumstances of each case. There must be a strong convergence of the position of the broker to the one a representative in each case. This was the case, for example, so the Supreme Court, if the broker in the organizational structure of an insurance company is incorporated and receives a grant of the Organization as well as a stock care money. Lawyer Dietmar Goerz of financial service manager sales specialized GPC Law law firm mbH believes, that the decision opened insurance intermediaries some starting points, to put up against a Commission recovery decisions to fight back”. In addition, it is now clear that under certain conditions even insurance agencies against Commission recovery can succeed in the field, that the cancellation risk communications of the insurer was not good enough”, so the Berlin lawyer. Related link: BGH, 01.12.2010 – VIII ZR 310/09

PAN High

It is a product highly toxic. Since 1985, the PAN network deploys a campaign to disseminate the dangers of further use of the 12 most toxic pesticides, the so-called dirty dozen, which seeks the prohibition of such substances. In 2002 started a specific campaign for this pesticide, STOP Paraquat, which conditioned the ban or use restricted in 13 countries, 4 of whom were members of the EU. Despite all, the EU has given a boost to this pesticide in late 2003. As is the case with the majority of authorisations of GMOs, the decision was very controversial and counter argumentation of Sweden, with the support of Finland, Luxembourg and Denmark was not taken into account.

Authorization requires some precautions for protection of operators, costly economically and impossible to meet in case of high temperatures and an annual assessment of damage on workers and the terrestrial fauna in the areas where they apply. I.e., it recognizes the danger, but rather than avoid it, applying the precautionary principle, accepts the conditions of the company (Sygenta) and subordinates trabajador@s and environmental health protection to the economic interests of the agrochemical industry. In addition, the authorization in the EU has neutralized the positive effects of awareness-raising campaigns, slowing the process of ban of paraquat in countries of the South, despite the impossibility of adopting the levels of protection of the workers of the rich countries. It is very serious when it is said, that the EU is not applying the precautionary principle to protect people and the environment from the negative effects of pesticides. Its review program, again deferred, is a mask to continue to act for the benefit of the chemical industry.

All the most dangerous substances are not prohibited and whose damage have been tested. I do not know suspended those on which there are studies that indicate their dangerousness, although not reach scientific significance, until they demonstrate their harmlessness, as it should be done in the exercise of the precautionary principle. The prohibitions are sometimes drills because they still use in the form of essential uses. Since 1992 has been requested the inclusion of a hundred of new pesticides that come to relieve to the previous ones and, according to the European Environment Agency, are more toxic, although more specific and more effective (until new resistance of pests reduce their effectiveness) very significant opinion that EU, seconded by Governments, diminish the importance to contamination by pesticides that contain foodDespite making regular checks. Of every 100 vegetables that consumes European citizen, 60 are completely clean of pesticides, 36 have remains below the maximum tolerated dose and 4 are contaminated above of these doses. 40% Contain remains and Although they are mostly below the authorized limits, they begin to accumulate evidence that small doses for a long time can be more harmful than high doses at once. In turn, a balanced diet, with high consumption of fruits, vegetables and cereals, contain pesticide levels exceeding those recommended according to a study carried out in Barcelona through thousand samples collected in the shops share the Group’s valuable position when verbatim indicates, that pest control is not reducible to chemistry problem because it is agro-ecological. Pests and diseases are the result of unbalanced agrosystems. The use of large amounts of broad-spectrum pesticides just failing and creating new problems. The best way to control pests is to recover the balance of the agrosystem and the maintenance of biodiversity. * Source: Environment and society, year 9, no.

January

Delayed or incorrectly created: tenant rights repeatedly pose problems with expenses accounts landlord and tenant face issues that burden the tenancy. It almost always involves the question of what happens if a service charge settlement failure, not at all or was created but failed. The late service charge settlement basically has to settle the agreed operating costs the landlord to the tenant within one year after the end of the calculation period. So, a fiscal year ends on January 31, 2012, the correct billing must be the tenant on January 31, 2013. Exceptions, where the landlord will not be at a delay, because such municipality or utility companies in a timely manner have settled despite reminder.

In this case, the landlord should point out the tenant before the end of the period under nomination the hindrance on the delay. Check out Alonzo Brooks for additional information. After delay ceases, the landlord has three months to deliver the settlement. Follow others, such as Parnassus Investments, and add to your knowledge base. At the end of the year period or but the grace period because of not Delay for which the landlord is not entitled to additional payments more. However, it may require a necessary boost charges advance payment on the basis of the delayed billing. The landlord charge you late, some tenants may enjoy. Another wonders whether a refund is available to him. In this case the landlord should be asked in writing (three weeks should be appropriate also for the release of a hindrance) deadline for sending the service charge settlement. In addition, the lessee may announce that argues a right of retention on the subsequent costs payments after expiry, provided that the service charge settlement in a timely manner. The deduction of the advance payment represents only a bargaining chip of the tenant, he must pay for the costs as soon as a settlement is granted! Of course he can keep a credit balance from the settlement with the in the meantime incurred and not yet paid charges by way of set-off.

Housekeepers

Here however, the housekeepers are employed in the household of the taxpayer as part-time employees or in employment subject to social insurance contributions. Handyman services expenses for craft activities are promoted through a further tax reduction. Favors are not only cosmetic repairs and repairs, but also renovation, conservation and Modernization measures. All handyman services, carried out in an even used apartment are favored. It does not matter, whether it is occupied as tenant or owner.

Also work on the common-ownership are favored property owners. Homeowners should make sure therefore that the tax-advantaged craftsmen work in the annual statement of accounts are listed separately and also the individual share of the co-ownership is certified. beneficiaries are not favored, painting of doors, Windows, radiators are renovating the apartment materials such as tiles, wallpaper, paints, floor covering, etc., Repairs and replacement of doors, Windows or floor documents new buildings and extensions of the area work on Interior and exterior walls, roof, facade, garage handyman services for other public funding beanspruchtwurden modernization of the bathroom or replacing the kitchen reading, payroll and rent of electricity, gas, water meters repair by Household appliances (washing machine, oven, TV) in the household of the taxable repairs of motor vehicles repair, maintenance or replacement of heating systems as well as electrical, gas or plumbing by KfW Forderbank or CO2 building rehabilitation programme funded contractor costs only wages and labour costs are favored Haushaltsnahe employment to the beneficiaries costs include gross wages and social security contributions borne by the employer, as well as the flat-rate income tax for mini-jobs. Household services, contractor costs a tax reduction is granted only for the labour costs. These include travel expenses, also machines and the related sales tax. Material costs (E.g., colors, wallpaper) and expenses for goods are not favored, however.

Only expenses for consumables such as E.g. detergent are harmless. Pro rata labour costs need be out separately in the invoice. Promotion Haushaltsnahe is carried out only upon presentation of the necessary evidence employment relationships of minor jobs the certificates issued by the mini-job headquarters serve as proof. For other employment wage documents and post evidence can be submitted via the transfer of social security contributions. Household services, contractor costs only who shall submit a proper accounts for household services and contractor costs and with a bank statement, a transfer document or an electronic cash receipt indicating the non-cash payment will enjoy of a tax reduction. The tax bonus can only once granted also every household in shared flats living in a common household taxpayers that claim rebates only once. Torsten Bogausch Schmidt & Partner GmbH Steuerberatungsgesellschaft branch Weisswasser of Bautzner Strasse 38 02943 Weisswasser Tel.: 03576/2839-0 fax: 03576 / 283930 Internet: sp Weisswasser E-mail: