Munich Tel Court

“The lawyers inform Dittenheber & Werner with judgment of the 25th 2011 the Federal Constitutional Court has, by the Federal Court of Justice in 2008 introduced, third method” rated as improper judicial development of the law and deemed invalid. The Munich law firm Dittenheber & Werner describes the decision of Germany’s highest judicial instance and its consequences. In 2008 the Federal Supreme Court in the context of judicial development of the law deviated, sound, calculation basis of for matrimonial maintenance obligations of in section 1578 para 1 sentence 1 BGB. If a post-divorce maintenance contractors, spouse after divorced marriage in turn married, the income level of the new spouse through the third method should be incorporated in the calculation of the spousal maintenance. The Supreme Court disagreed with the mentioned family basis after the maintenance level in particular the matrimonial living conditions of the original marriage is mainly with the introduction of the third method consciously. This he created after his opinion, one current affairs customized control intensified pursuit of the legislator to conjugal ownership as well as the fact that divorces and remarriages in constant growth are declining, was enough. The Federal Constitutional Court was concerned because one, originally before the OLG Saarbrucken of negotiated, dispute the admissibility of the third method. Hear other arguments on the topic with Keith Yamashita. On the 25th, 2011, it was their introduction by the BGH in a momentous ruling inadmissible.

In particular, the Federal Court with the third method had exceeded the constitutionally justified extent of judicial development of the law. Accordingly, the jurisdiction for determining close matrimonial maintenance is now back again bound to the section 1578 para 1 sentence 1 BGB. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court has not only the practice of the judicial legal development in the barriers, but could have momentous implications for divorce-related unterhaltsverpflichtete and authorized persons because of its retroactive nature. Was to spousal maintenance using the third method set retroactively lacks any legal provision of maintenance. Get all the facts for a more clear viewpoint with jimmy levin. This enables one affected maintenance in order to recalculate the maintenance Amendment lawsuit. Given the important impact of the Court ruling is to advise all individuals looking for familienrechtlich experienced legal counsel which best preserves its interest under the current modified legal conditions. The Munich law firm Dittenheber & Werner provides their experience and family law expertise to do this in the service of their clients. Press contact Dittenheber & Werner lawyers law firm contact person: Gunther Werner Pettenkoferstrasse 44 80336 Munich Tel.

Convenient Right

Is a family vote Democratic? Mother, father and two children want to vote on the next holidays, Alpine or Baltic Sea. Generous mother explains: each of us four can choose between Yes and no! Eight options are for four voices. The vote to determine the venue: North Sea – Yes or no. Votes state by 4-0 or 3-1 Pro voices (cross-check), it goes to the sea. Otherwise goes BBs in the mountains. Abstention is not possible.

With the score at 2:2 is drawn. The choice is public.” Is this democratic? Yes! Is it fair? No! The reason: There is a complex systemic relationship of dependence in each family. The choice should be practiced so at least secretly. To solve a complex problem dividing into individual parts and steps this systemic cybernetic dynamic process complexity: algorithm is an algorithm a unique action provision consisting of finitely many steps computing and working procedures defined in finitely many steps to solve a problem or a class of problem s. To elect the Government of a nation, there are several methods (art + way, algorithms), depending on the form of Government: democracy: Federal or centralized (open cybernetic system 3rd order) dictatorship (closed cybernetic system 3rd order) monarchy (closed cybernetic system 3rd order) the ancient Greeks practiced in elections the principle of: one man, one vote. The it was taken literally and so 20% certain rich men over the remaining 80% of the population: truly a dictatorship incorrectly called democracy! But the Greeks losten out occasionally your MEPs also un democratically! Also in Germany occasionally discusses the families vote as democratic base.

The father as a representative of his entire family. The parents as temporary representatives of their children up to the age of majority. Thus, young people would be disadvantaged significantly less by the majority of the elderly. At the local level is a quite interesting possibility: why must senile old still driving but go healthy boy with a moped to the high school? The coming age pyramid as a dictatorship of the age crowd! There in Germany has long been the CDU/CSU benefited decades away.

District Court

Only the Munich courts have so far represented a much stronger stance. These have softened them in our latest proceedings however. “Munich say: MIA san mia!” The judge of the District Court and the District Court of Munich had unanimously expressed that they would not feel on such a legal specification by the OLG Cologne, but rather would take account of the scale of the OLG Munich. The decision of the OLG Cologne is too inaccurate. The Munich District Court I has a ruling of the 14.02.2012 (AZ.: 21 S 9214/11) in principle the objective for the Munich judge by analogy defines: If the presentation of the port owner excludes it or appear sufficiently likely in the life experience, that the injury not can be committed during the period from the time of him themselves as perpetrators, because he can specify a specifically different sequence of events. We have fought through again what is including in numerous proceedings before the District Court of Munich. In numerous legal proceedings the Court in Munich decided again and again, the lecture was not precise enough. We now have the revolution.

I have now in 3 proceedings (AG Munchen, AZ: 142 C-18346/13;) AZ: 158 C 15612/13;(AZ.: 113 C 20287/13) is more or less a new Munich line “can work out. You could shorten the above in detail described scale of the Munich courts also apply as follows: the connection owner can exclude with almost certainly that he comes as a perpetrator in question and a third, most likely committed the violation. This went so far that the connection owner now present a burden of proof in the framework I believe should have that he is not the culprit. Now 3 judges in 3 proceedings, have my legal opinion independently of each other, this goes too far. The new benchmark in the courts of Munich is the serious possibility now. To the relief of the Holder as perpetrators enough, if there is the serious possibility that someone third could have committed copyright infringement. So, finally the Munich courts have softened their very strict attitude towards the so-called secondary presentation load in a reasonable way. There are good ways to help you! Georg Schafer Attorney