Month: December 2018

Federal Court

Of particular influence on the admissibility of the facilitated termination is the question of how the affected building is actually used and is divided. Two decisions of the Federal Court of Justice illustrate this. In the recent judgment of the Federal Court of justice by the 17.11.2010 (BGH VIII ZR 90/10) was a landlord and owner of a building with three apartments, of which he himself used two, forbidden to terminate the tenant of the third apartment using section 573a para 1 BGB. The Supreme Court pointed out, that is irrelevant for the determination of the number of apartments in the building, how many homes use the landlord. Since in the present case, three units are available, an application of the section 573a would ABS. 1 BGB not in question.

In contrast, was on June 25, 2008 the 8th civil Senate of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH VIII ZR 307/07) the landlord side special termination in a building with two apartments and other commercial premises for law. The Federal Court stated in its judgment, industrial shared rooms would not considered even if they were in a former apartment, apartment in the sense of section 573a para 1 BGB, if they would not have been used at the time of the conclusion of the lease as a living room. As the BGH judgment practice shows, various factors affect the admissibility of a special notice in accordance with section 573a ABS. 1 BGB a, which does not easily reveal themselves without an experienced legal counsel. The Nuremberg firm Pach & Pach is a concern which she devoted many years with full commitment and professional expertise enable every client the best possible implementation of tenancy interests. For professional legal representation and advice therefore it stands ready at any time. Press contact lawyers Pach & Pach Schonhoverstrasse 31 90409 Nurnberg phone: 0911-56 92 28-0 fax: 0911-56 92 28 27 email: Homepage:

Brazilian Federal

In the creation of the Contituinte in 1988, the front had its height demobilizao and through the Letter of Brasilia 1 presented a series of claims, amongst them the creation of a sistemapblico of communication. The movement also made bitter great defeats as the noaprovao of a National Advice of Social Communication in character deliberativoe the little advanced debate on the questions that refer to the distribution erenovao of the public concessions of radio and television in Brazil. The empresariado one by the proposals of the FNPDC as prejudiciaisao Brazilian democratic system, ' ' the creation of the National Advice Social deComunicao is a new agency of censorship and the establishment of the sistemapblico for concession of communication channels nationalizes the ways decomunicao' ' (Idem, 2003, P. 186). Exactly facing diverse difficulties of organization, essemovimento had great importance for the start of the aglutinao of segments dasociedade that disagreed at the time with the system of effective communication. These rejections on the part empresariadoserviu of it to still more extend the debate about the communication in Brazil, where, stimulated for the Fenaj, the front I obtained to expand its bases for grandeparte of the domestic territory, arriving to have performance in eighteen states. This front, as well as too much mechanisms of the sociedadecivil, had formed the Constitutional conventional, space created for the fortalecimentodos yearnings of the diligent classroom that had sent emendation proposals Federal Constituio, however nor all they had had success. Thus it tambmaconteceu with the movements that formed the fight for the democratization, that stops acriao of the National Advice of Communication got 32,379 signatures the emendaconstitucional, while right entities that acted in the direction contrrioa this assembly, as the Association of dosDelegados the Federal Censors and the Association of the Federal Policy, had gotten 67,136 signatures to the contrary emendation acriao of the advice (Idem, 2003, P.

Federal Constitutional Law

In accordance with Article 103 of the Constitution to conduct State Duma to add "hear annual reports of the Russian Federation on the results of its activities, including on issues raised by the State Duma," and under Article 114 Constitution of the Russian Federation and added a new commitment of the Government of the Russian Federation to the State Duma: "… the State Duma is an annual report on its activities, including on issues raised State Duma … ". The adopted amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation were the amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Government of the Russian Federation," according to which "the preparation of annual reports on the results of Government of the Russian Federation, including on issues raised by the State Duma, according to the procedure prescribed by the Regulations of the Government of the Russian Federation. " However, in the regulation of the Government If Prime Minister will not be able to attend a meeting of the State Duma? Are there an analogy, where according to the Rules of the Government of the Russian Federation: "Members of the Government shall at the invitation of the Chambers Federal Assembly … to attend the meeting and answer questions … the State Duma in the order determined by the regulations of the chambers … In case no possibility of the presence in the meeting chambers of the Federal Assembly member of the Government shall notify the House of the reason for his absence with an indication of a person who may attend the meeting and answer questions.