Expert opinion comparing handwriting in cases of doubt as to whether a will is authentic and holographic – Law of inheritance

Expert opinion comparing handwriting in cases of doubt as to whether a will is authentic and holographic – Law of inheritance

Expert opinion comparing handwriting in cases of doubt as to whether a will is authentic and holographic - Law of inheritance

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Last-Will-and-Testament.html Doubt as to whether a personally signed will is authentic and holographic can be removed with the help of an opinion comparing handwriting.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London www.grprainer.com/en conclude: In its decision of May 8, 2013 (Az.: I-3 Wx 47/12), the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Düsseldorf ruled that doubt as to whether a will is authentic and holographic must be removed by means of an expert opinion comparing handwriting.

Where there is any remaining doubt on the part of the expert, the appeal court should then, where necessary, be able to overcome this based on the probate court”s hearing of evidence and without a further expert opinion, which ought only to be obtained in exceptional cases.

The OLG had to reach a judgment in a case in which there was a dispute between the relatives of a testatrix concerning the validity of a holographic will. The testatrix had handwritten a document in March 2008 and added the heading, “My last will”. Moreover, the testatrix included her signature in the document. The District Court (AG), as probate court, considered the document to have been written and signed in the testatrix”s own hand after obtaining an expert opinion comparing handwriting. The decision was then upheld by the OLG of Düsseldorf.

Inheriting and bequeathing are more than simply legal matters. In addition to legal issues pertaining to the law of inheritance, inheritance almost always concerns emotions and internal family sensitivities. A lawyer versed in the law of inheritance can competently and sensitively handle this exceptional situation.

The German law of inheritance is well conceived but not made for laymen. Nevertheless, many testators draw up their will without professional assistance. The consequences: an invalid will and disputes among the heirs, since it is the law that determines the heirs in the event that there is no valid will.

A lawyer can prevent this situation, as the support of a lawyer versed in the law of inheritance when drawing up a will guaranties that it shall be irreproachable. If testators organise their estate with the help of a lawyer active in the field of the law of inheritance, they can be certain that the heirs respect the testator”s final will.

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Last-Will-and-Testament.html

GRP Rainer LLP www.grprainer.com/en/ is an international firm of lawyers and tax advisors who are specialists in commercial law. The firm counsels commercial and industrial companies and corporations, as well as associations, small- and mid-sized businesses, self-employed freelancers and private individuals worldwide from offices Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Stuttgart, Bremen, Nuremberg and London UK.

Kontakt:
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
02212722750
press@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com/en

Link To This Page
1. Click inside the codebox
2. Right-Click then Copy
3. Paste the HTML code into your webpage
codebox
powered by Linkubaitor

Unknown claims are not necessarily excluded upon confirmation of an insolvency plan – Insolvency Law

Unknown claims are not necessarily excluded upon confirmation of an insolvency plan – Insolvency Law

Unknown claims are not necessarily excluded upon confirmation of an insolvency plan - Insolvency Law

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Insolvency-Law.html Even amounts that cannot be registered when an insolvency plan is finally confirmed can still be claimed.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – www.grprainer.com/en conclude: The Federal Labour Court [Bundesarbeitsgericht / BAG], in its ruling (File number: AZR 907/11) dealt with the question whether claims by “latecomers” that were not yet registered when the insolvency court confirmed the insolvency plan, are to be excluded. In the present case, insolvency proceedings regarding the defendant”s assets were started in 2009 and discontinued in the same year. The finally confirmed insolvency plan excluded unregistered claims. The plaintiff, who had been employed by the defendant from 2007 to 2008 as a subcontract worker, filed a law suit in early 2011 for a higher settlement.

After the previous instances had already dismissed the action, an appeal to the Federal Labour Court was unsuccessful as well. Since the claim by the plaintiff had not been included in the table, the creditor can only set an effective deadline when the trial court has finally confirmed the plan. However, in this case, the plaintiff”s claims were not found to be legally valid, and deadline set so far are held to be without effect.

Nevertheless, in its reasons, the BAG also mentioned that the insolvency code does not state that unregistered claims cannot be filed after the insolvency plan has been finally confirmed and the action has been discontinued. The claims of “latecomers” are therefore not excluded on principle. However, to be able to file their claims via legal action, creditors must have them finally confirmed beforehand.

When insolvency is threatening or if it has already happened, immediate and careful action is necessary. A successfully implemented insolvency can be the last resort for the companies involved. Creditors as well as debtors should consult a lawyer with experience in insolvency law who can help them with legal advice and who can review any claims.

Not only debtors must observe certain things in case of insolvency, but debtors, too, should be aware of the difficult situation. Claims must be registered on time and in writing with the trustee in bankruptcy. To ensure that the registration is complete and to avoid extra costs, a lawyer should be authorized to file the claim.

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Insolvency-Law.html

GRP Rainer LLP www.grprainer.com/en/ is an international firm of lawyers and tax advisors who are specialists in commercial law. The firm counsels commercial and industrial companies and corporations, as well as associations, small- and mid-sized businesses, self-employed freelancers and private individuals worldwide from offices Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Stuttgart, Bremen, Nuremberg and London UK.

Kontakt:
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
02212722750
press@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com/en

Link To This Page
1. Click inside the codebox
2. Right-Click then Copy
3. Paste the HTML code into your webpage
codebox
powered by Linkubaitor

Notice periods for sales representatives may be inappropriate – Commercial Law

Notice periods for sales representatives may be inappropriate – Commercial Law

Notice periods for sales representatives may be inappropriate - Commercial Law

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Commercial-Law.html Under certain circumstances, standard provisions regarding agreed-upon notice periods for sales representatives may be inappropriate.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – www.grprainer.com/en conclude: In a judgment of March 21, 2013 (File number VII ZR 224/12), the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) commented on the inappropriateness of a notice period for sales representatives. Thus, a standard provision used against a part-time sales representative, according to which the termination of a contract after a term of three years should be permissible only with twelve months notice effective at the end of a calendar year, is to be invalid due to inappropriate discrimination. Already, such a provision had not stood up to judicial control of substance under section 307, subsection 1, Civil Code (BGB). Such a clause would inappropriately discriminate against the sales representative contrary to the principles of good faith.

The BGH is of the opinion that other principles should apply to the employment of part-time sales representatives than to the employment of full-time sales representatives. It must be possible to terminate such employment more quickly than the employment of a full-time sales representative. To secure the livelihood of sales representatives, it must be required that a sales representative who is only employed on a part-time basis is not prevented from accepting a sales representative job with a competing company.

Sales representatives are defined as persons who are self-employed in a business with its own corporate risk, who is constantly obligated under contract to procure or conclude business transactions for other entrepreneurs and who undertake this on behalf of and in the name of others. During their contractual relationship, sales representatives are entitled by law to a commission for all business transactions that can be traced back to their activities. Even after termination of their contract, sales representatives also have a legally regulated claim against the entrepreneur if the latter still profits from the business relationships the sales representative had solicited during the term of the contract.

Sales representatives or persons who wish to collaborate with a sales representative should at an early time seek the advice of a lawyer with experience in commercial law.

Especially, a lawyer experienced in commercial law can help to enforce a sales representative”s claims for compensation or commission or offer advice with regard to the possibilities of terminating a sales representative”s contract in an individual case.

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Commercial-Law.html

GRP Rainer LLP www.grprainer.com/en/ is an international firm of lawyers and tax advisors who are specialists in commercial law. The firm counsels commercial and industrial companies and corporations, as well as associations, small- and mid-sized businesses, self-employed freelancers and private individuals worldwide from offices Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Stuttgart, Bremen, Nuremberg and London UK.

Kontakt:
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
02212722750
press@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com/en

Link To This Page
1. Click inside the codebox
2. Right-Click then Copy
3. Paste the HTML code into your webpage
codebox
powered by Linkubaitor

Disposal of a totality of assets, and creditor”s rights – Collection of Debts

Disposal of a totality of assets, and creditor”s rights – Collection of Debts

Disposal of a totality of assets, and creditor

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Debt-Collection.html The Superior Court (OLG) of Oldenburg in its judgment of October 11, 2012 (File number: 1 U 71/11) ruled that the trustee in bankruptcy must also take into account the possibility of a more favourable disposal for the totality of assets.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – www.grprainer.com/en conclude: Under the Insolvency Code (InsO), the trustee in bankruptcy – with regard to the assets covered by the creditor”s segregation rights – must also take into account the possibility of a more favourable disposal offered by the creditor for the totality of assets. This also includes, for example, a takeover by the creditor. If the trustee in bankruptcy does not take advantage of the more favourable disposal, the creditor must be positioned as if such a possibility had been taken advantage of.

In this case, the defendant is the trustee in bankruptcy. The plaintiff and creditor had rented premises to the debtor who was using them for business. The debtor had not paid some of the rent prior to declaring bankruptcy which meant that rent was owed to the creditor.

The defendant offered the plaintiff to dispose of the assets on which the plaintiff had lien rights by selling the entire company for a partial price, following which the plaintiff offered to take over the assets. The plaintiff did not agree and sold the entire company to a third party which is now continuing the business.

Now the plaintiff demanded to be positioned as if the defendant had taken advantage of the offer. The OLG consented to the claim in full and ruled that the defendant has to pay the plaintiff the proceeds necessary to satisfy the debts. In this case it was the amount the plaintiff had asked for. But the relevant sum was not the actually collected proceeds for the movable assets, but the plaintiff”s offer to take over. The court ruled that the defendant had not taken advantage of a more favourable disposal, which the plaintiff as creditor had offered, and under the Insolvency Code, the plaintiff therefore had to be placed in a position as if the defendant had accepted the offer.

However, any other proceeds from the further disposal or advantages from the disposal are irrelevant since this was not a matter of paying compensation due to the trustee”s breach of duty. The Insolvency Code leaves him the choice to accept the offer or not. It was only a matter of compensating for a disadvantage.

A qualified and experienced lawyer can help to keep an overview and to fully utilize the existing possibilities.

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Debt-Collection.html

GRP Rainer LLP www.grprainer.com/en/ is an international firm of lawyers and tax advisors who are specialists in commercial law. The firm counsels commercial and industrial companies and corporations, as well as associations, small- and mid-sized businesses, self-employed freelancers and private individuals worldwide from offices Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Stuttgart, Bremen, Nuremberg and London UK.

Kontakt:
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
02212722750
press@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com/en

Link To This Page
1. Click inside the codebox
2. Right-Click then Copy
3. Paste the HTML code into your webpage
codebox
powered by Linkubaitor

Fiduciary duties between manufacturers and distributors – Distribution law

Fiduciary duties between manufacturers and distributors – Distribution law

Fiduciary duties between manufacturers and distributors - Distribution law

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Distribution-Law.html A manufacturer should reasonably accommodate the needs of the distributor worthy of protection and not contravene its interests without justifiable cause.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London www.grprainer.com/en conclude: In its judgment of June 21, 2013 (Az.: I-16 U 172/12), the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Düsseldorf commented on the prior jurisprudence regarding fiduciary duties between a manufacturer and a distributor. The manufacturer ought to be obliged to reasonably accommodate the needs worthy of protection of the distributor, which subordinates extensively not only its own activity but also its business operations and the invested capital to the interests of the manufacturer, and not contravene its interests without justifiable cause.

This is so because the contract between a manufacturer and an authorized dealer is based on close economic cooperation and is therefore subject to mutual fiduciary duties to a greater extent than other contracts. An instruction for consideration ought to exist so long as and insofar as the manufacturer”s right to freely decide the manner in which its business operations are conducted applies and have priority. In principle, a manufacturer and supplier are free in their respective business dispositions. They are, however, restricted from arbitrarily flouting the needs of the authorized dealer without a justifiable reason.

Distribution law includes an abundance of regulations that are conducive to the distribution of goods and services. Distribution occurs first and foremost between businesses and sales representatives as well as authorized dealers, but also between franchisors and franchisees. In addition, the international distribution of goods is becoming more and more important.

If one is to comprehend the totality of distribution law, diverse legal norms must be taken into account. In order to uphold these, a lawyer is necessary in most cases.

A lawyer versed in the field of distribution law can draw up contracts for sales representatives and authorized dealers, general terms and conditions and franchise agreements. Additionally, he can examine the competition law and licensing aspects of distribution relationships. A lawyer active in the field of distribution law can also help when there are problems pertaining to existing business relationships. He can give his full commitment to supporting contractual partners to enforce their claims – be it nationally or internationally.

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Distribution-Law.html

GRP Rainer LLP www.grprainer.com/en/ is an international firm of lawyers and tax advisors who are specialists in commercial law. The firm counsels commercial and industrial companies and corporations, as well as associations, small- and mid-sized businesses, self-employed freelancers and private individuals worldwide from offices Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Stuttgart, Bremen, Nuremberg and London UK.

Kontakt:
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
02212722750
press@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com/en

Link To This Page
1. Click inside the codebox
2. Right-Click then Copy
3. Paste the HTML code into your webpage
codebox
powered by Linkubaitor

When is the obligation to compensate under a partnership agreement contrary to common practice? – Corporate Law

When is the obligation to compensate under a partnership agreement contrary to common practice? – Corporate Law

When is the obligation to compensate under a partnership agreement contrary to common practice? - Corporate Law

http://www.grprainer.com/en/BGB-Gesellschaft-GbR.html To decide whether provisions under a partnership agreement are contrary to common practice, it is necessary to take all the circumstances into account that were relevant when the agreement was signed.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – www.grprainer.com/en conclude: In its judgment of June 4, 2013 (File number: II ZR 207.10), the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) ruled that an obligation by a financially incapable partner to repay considerable sums based on the partnership agreement of a private company, which the other partner contributes and which go to the partner”s husband who is acting in the interest of the company, is not contrary to common practice if the wife – due to her position as a partner – has an adequate financial interest in promoting the corporate purpose in connection with the payments.

In the opinion of the BGH, to decide whether provisions under a partnership agreement are contrary to common practice, it is necessary to take all the circumstances into account that were relevant when the agreement was signed.

A private company (called GbR or BBG) is the simplest form of partnership. A GbR is an association of individuals consisting of at least two partners who have the same purpose. If nothing else is mentioned in the partnership agreement, all partners are entitled to manage the company jointly. According to the BGH ruling, a GbR is a legally competent partnership and can therefore sue and be sued in court itself.

For a BGB there are few mandatory legal requirements, and it is up to its partners to give the company its form through a partnership agreement. Thus, there is no special form for a partnership agreement, and many GbR rules can be modified. It is precisely this flexibility that is its attraction, but on the other hand, also the danger when such a private company is established.

This applies even more when seen against the legal background that in addition to the company”s assets, the partners of a BGB are liable for all the company”s debts with their own personal property. Even though there is a possibility of internal recourse, an individual partner can initially be held liable by third parties who are creditors of the company.

A lawyer with experience in corporate law provides competent and comprehensive advice, making it possible to use the many different possibilities offered by a GbR to advantage.

A lawyer specializing in corporate law helps in the establishment of a GbR, with the partnership agreement, when there is a change of partners or when a company has to be dissolved.

http://www.grprainer.com/en/BGB-Gesellschaft-GbR.html

GRP Rainer LLP www.grprainer.com/en/ is an international firm of lawyers and tax advisors who are specialists in commercial law. The firm counsels commercial and industrial companies and corporations, as well as associations, small- and mid-sized businesses, self-employed freelancers and private individuals worldwide from offices Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Stuttgart, Bremen, Nuremberg and London UK.

Kontakt:
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
02212722750
press@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com/en

Link To This Page
1. Click inside the codebox
2. Right-Click then Copy
3. Paste the HTML code into your webpage
codebox
powered by Linkubaitor

A spouse”s dementia does not stand in the way of an effective divorce – Family Law

A spouse”s dementia does not stand in the way of an effective divorce – Family Law

A spouse

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Divorce.html A divorce can be obtained even when one of the spouses suffers from dementia if the affected spouse had already expressed a natural will to divorce.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – www.grprainer.com/en conclude: The Superior Court [OLG] of Hamm (File number: 3 UF 43/13) had to deal with the effect of Alzheimer-type dementia on the decision in divorce proceedings. The petitioner, who suffers from Alzheimer disease, and the respondent separated at the end of 2011 after eight months of marriage. In 2012, the petitioner”s caregiver filed a petition for divorce. The family court granted the divorce in spite of the respondent”s claim that her then husband wanted to continue the marriage. The OLG of Hamm has now confirmed this.

According to the OLG, first of all, the petition had been filed effectively by the petitioner”s caregiver as his representative, and the guardianship court had approved this. Although the respondent wished to continue the marriage, the parties had already lived apart for more than a year, which constituted the prerequisite for a divorce. In the petitioner”s opinion, the marriage had broken down without a possibility of resuming cohabitation.

Even the evidence collected by the court had shown that the petitioner had the intention to separate and to divorce. While his illness at the time of the hearing had progressed far and that it had therefore no longer been possible for him to make a decision about a divorce, it was possible to go back to remarks which he had made during a judicial examination early in 2012. During that examination, the petitioner had clearly expressed his will to separate and to divorce. An expert medical opinion confirmed that he had been able to form a free opinion at that time. For that reason, the court found that it was irrelevant whether a will to divorce could no longer be expressed at the divorce hearing.

The consequences of separation and divorce can be far-reaching for both spouses. Persons who have not concluded a marriage contract beforehand will often have to be prepared for an unpleasant legal dispute. It is advisable to clarify important aspects of divorce at an early time with a lawyer experienced in family law. Often, in addition to property-related issues, there are questions regarding parental care and custody.

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Divorce.html

GRP Rainer LLP www.grprainer.com/en/ is an international firm of lawyers and tax advisors who are specialists in commercial law. The firm counsels commercial and industrial companies and corporations, as well as associations, small- and mid-sized businesses, self-employed freelancers and private individuals worldwide from offices Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Stuttgart, Bremen, Nuremberg and London UK.

Kontakt:
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
02212722750
press@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com/en

Link To This Page
1. Click inside the codebox
2. Right-Click then Copy
3. Paste the HTML code into your webpage
codebox
powered by Linkubaitor

Compensation for a decrease in equity can only be in the form of damages paid to the company – Corporate Law

Compensation for a decrease in equity can only be in the form of damages paid to the company – Corporate Law

Compensation for a decrease in equity can only be in the form of damages paid to the company - Corporate Law

http://www.grprainer.com/en/GmbH-/-Limited-Liability-Company.html Compensation for decrease in a shareholder”s equity in a company can only be claimed in the form of damages paid to the company and not to the shareholder personally.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London – www.grprainer.com/en conclude: This principle, which the Federal Supreme Court [BGH] has emphasized again and again in its on-going case law, also applies if the company is dissolved through the opening of bankruptcy proceedings (BGH, file number: II ZR 176/10). In the case at hand, a shareholder of a company had sued for damages due to the loss of future dividends. Both plaintiff and defendant were shareholders of a limited company (GmbH). The defendant had quit his shareholdings and gone to a competing company which had then taken over the customers as well as orders already underway. The company had to declare bankruptcy because of the lost business.

The BGH dismissed the action stating that the plaintiff personally had no claim for damages and that he loss of future dividends was only an indirect loss for the plaintiff resulting from damage caused to the company. The shareholder could not claim damages due to such an indirect loss in the form of compensation to him, only in the form of compensation to the company. This was not affected by the fact that the company had declared bankruptcy in the meantime.

The trustee in bankruptcy had agreed with the plaintiff beforehand to pay him a settlement of 20 000 EUR. The judges clarified that even a claim against the trustee, should he have acted improperly, could also justify only compensation payable to the estate in bankruptcy and that the shareholder personally had no claim in any case.

In many cases, an investment in a company is connected with legal questions and problems. The complexity of corporate law does not always make it easy to find the right solution straightaway. Legal advice by a lawyer experienced in corporate law is the answer. Shareholders or a company may have claims that are based on many different regulations or on case law. A lawyer will carefully review the circumstances and help to assert the rightful claims.

http://www.grprainer.com/en/GmbH-/-Limited-Liability-Company.html

GRP Rainer LLP www.grprainer.com/en/ is an international firm of lawyers and tax advisors who are specialists in commercial law. The firm counsels commercial and industrial companies and corporations, as well as associations, small- and mid-sized businesses, self-employed freelancers and private individuals worldwide from offices Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hannover, Munich, Stuttgart, Bremen, Nuremberg and London UK.

Kontakt:
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
02212722750
press@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com/en

Link To This Page
1. Click inside the codebox
2. Right-Click then Copy
3. Paste the HTML code into your webpage
codebox
powered by Linkubaitor

Impermissibility of unfounded time-limitation even when longer than three years since restriction – Employment law

Impermissibility of unfounded time-limitation even when longer than three years since restriction – Employment law

Impermissibility of unfounded time-limitation even when longer than three years since restriction - Employment law

GRP Rainer LLP

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Employment-Law.html The unfounded restriction of an employment relationship is impermissible even when it is longer than three years since the time-limitation.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London www.grprainer.com/en conclude: The Regional Labour Court (LAG) of Baden-Württemberg had to rule on a case in which the claimant opposed the time-limitation vis-à-vis his last employment contract. The claimant was employed at a company in the metalworking and electronics industry. He had restricted employment contracts from August 27, 2007 until November 30, 2007 and again from February 1, 2011 until June 30, 2011, which was extended until May 31, 2012 and once again until January 1, 2013. The LAG ruled in its judgment of September 26, 2013 (Az.: 6 Sa 28/13), that the unfounded restriction on an employment relationship should be impermissible even when it has been longer than three years since the time-limitation.

In doing so, the LAG deviated from the prior jurisprudence of the Federal Labour Court (BAG).The LAG took the view that the BAG had exceeded in particular the boundaries of judicial legal development with its previous case law. The LAG allowed the appeal.

An employment contract is a mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. The employment contract represents the foundation of every employment relationship and can vary in its design taking into account statutory or internal company specifications. If the employment contract contains clauses which do not conform to the statutory minimum, this can result in the nullity of the contract.

Within the framework an employment contract, both primary and secondary obligations of the employee can be regulated. Although both parties generally have the possibility to negotiate with respect to the terms of the contract, these are frequently predetermined by the employer. This also applies to a time-limitation on the employment contract.

Legal disputes can therefore arise quickly with an employment contract. The enforcement of any claims can be especially difficult. With an employment contract it comes down to the details. A lawyer versed in the field of labour law can draw-up watertight employment contracts. With a sense for economic solutions and legal detail, he can even examine existing employment contracts.

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Employment-Law.html

GRP Rainer Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater www.grprainer.com ist eine überregionale, wirtschaftsrechtlich ausgerichtete Sozietät. An den Standorten Köln, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Düsseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hannover, München, Nürnberg, Stuttgart und London berät die Kanzlei im Kapitalmarktrecht, Bankrecht und Gesellschaftsrecht. Zu den Mandanten gehören Unternehmen aus Industrie und Wirtschaft, Verbände, Freiberufler und Privatpersonen.

Kontakt
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
0221-2722750
info@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com

Pressekontakt:
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
02212722750
presse@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com

Link To This Page
1. Click inside the codebox
2. Right-Click then Copy
3. Paste the HTML code into your webpage
codebox
powered by Linkubaitor

Occupational duty of care not decisive when judging misleading business practice – Competition law

Occupational duty of care not decisive when judging misleading business practice – Competition law

Occupational duty of care not decisive when judging misleading business practice - Competition law

GRP Rainer LLP

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Unfair-Competition.html In asking whether a business practice is misleading, one does not have to address compliance with the occupational duty of care; rather, it is merely the untruthfulness of the practice that is decisive.

GRP Rainer Lawyers and Tax Advisors in Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Dusseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hanover, Munich, Nuremberg, Stuttgart and London www.grprainer.com/en conclude: The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) ruled (Az.: C-435/11) that the occupational duty of care is not decisive when judging whether consumers have been misled and the concomitant prohibition. The decision was based on a case in which a tourist office advertised with an exclusive possibility of booking hotels. While there was an exclusivity agreement between the business and the hotels, the hotels did not adhere to this and also permitted competing travel offices to carry out bookings with them.

One of the competitors took the view that the advertising with exclusivity constituted a breach of the prohibition on unfair business practices and filed for a ban. The national court accepted the objectively false claim in the brochures and also considered that this satisfied all of the criteria for the directive on unfair business practices. In the view of the judges, however, the existence of an exclusivity agreement argued in favour of observing the occupational duty of care. The court appealed to the ECJ with a petition, wanting to know whether an examination as to the observance of the requirements of the occupational duty of care needed be carried out for the categorization of a business measure as misleading.

In their judgment, the judges concluded that for cases in which all of the requirements of the directive on unfair practices are fulfilled, it is not necessary to have a more extensive examination with respect to the occupational duty of care. Whether it is misleading is determined solely by the untruthfulness of the claim. Thus, a business practice is untruthful if it incorporates false information or by the manner in which the average consumer could be deceived. Consumer protection is the core purpose of the directive, which is why misleading business practices must be examined from its perspective. Consequently, the advertising in the travel office”s brochures breached the directive in the instant case.

In addition to injunctions, an anti-competitive infringement can give rise to claims for damages. With the help of a lawyer versed in competition law, aggrieved parties can take action against competitors in the event of an infringement or defend themselves against these kinds of accusations. Immediate action is always necessary in order to prevent deadlines from lapsing unnoticed.

http://www.grprainer.com/en/Unfair-Competition.html

GRP Rainer Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater www.grprainer.com ist eine überregionale, wirtschaftsrechtlich ausgerichtete Sozietät. An den Standorten Köln, Berlin, Bonn, Bremen, Düsseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hannover, München, Nürnberg, Stuttgart und London berät die Kanzlei im Kapitalmarktrecht, Bankrecht und Gesellschaftsrecht. Zu den Mandanten gehören Unternehmen aus Industrie und Wirtschaft, Verbände, Freiberufler und Privatpersonen.

Kontakt
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
0221-2722750
info@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com

Pressekontakt:
GRP Rainer LLP
Michael Rainer
Hohenzollernring 21-23
50672 Köln
02212722750
presse@grprainer.com
http://www.grprainer.com

Link To This Page
1. Click inside the codebox
2. Right-Click then Copy
3. Paste the HTML code into your webpage
codebox
powered by Linkubaitor