Who pays the cost of kindergarten in the event of separation / divorce? The German Federal Supreme Court dealt in a case with the question, whether the post for a full-day kindergarten visit constitutes a greater need of the child and whether the bar breadwinner father for this to come up or the father would have to pay only the normal child support according to Dusseldorfer table. The working mother had requested that the father of the children involved in the cost of the kindergarten visit. The first competent District Court rejected the claim of the mother of the child, the Court of appeal also saw no claim of the mother of the child to pay additional maintenance in the amount of the costs incurred by the kindergarten visit. The Court of appeal has argued, the cost of the half-day visit of the kindergarten would be covered by the maintenance plus the attributable to him share of child support paid by the plaintiff. If in addition cost for full-time visiting of the facility, each if they were to work-related expenses of the mother, because the child visits as far as the kindergarten, so that the mother could pursue a full layered work. The Federal Supreme Court is opposed this argument. It considers that, are the costs incurred for the kindergarten visit to the needs of a child and represent basically no work-related expenses of the supervising parent. It was essential that the kindergarten visit serve educational purposes, whether part-time or full-time, first and foremost.
The expenses for this purpose were to count, which covers the cost of education to a child’s life needs. But the Supreme Court in its judgment of the 05.03.2008 (XII ZR 150/05) the kindergarten costs justified an overhead, i.e. beyond the ongoing maintenance need, but not to full extent. As far as incurred these costs for the half-day visit, they are generally included in the regularly paid child support. The BGH therefore alone in cost, recognized a need for more the the effort for the half-day kindergarten visit exceed. As far as entitled to additional payments for the benefit of the child was entitled to but both parents pro rata have by their income levels.
So the father of the child and mother of the child roughly the same, earning the overhead of two parents share is ever be to pay, so the father of the child then only to 50% liable. His income is higher than that of the mother of the child, the amount the child in addition to the maintenance can obtain after the Dusseldorf table increases percentage accordingly. Kindergarten costs are so included this discretion in the normal maintenance claim after Dusseldorf table, it can be ordered in addition something. Else applies only if it’s a full-day kindergarten. Then stick both parents for the extra costs.
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:
“” “Decision of the German of patent and Trademark Office about Obazda” and Bavarian Obazda “German patent and Trademark Office had the names Obazda” and Bavarian Obazda “on the basis of a certain specification, which sets out the mandatory and the optional components of the formulation, considered for eligible for protection, although by a third-party company, produces the Obazden outside of Bavaria, an appeal was. With his opposition complaint against the surrounding place of the German of patent and Trademark Office the third company asserted among others, that it involves the relevant names unrestricted-use generic terms. In addition, it has been criticized that was contrary to the Thermisierung of preserving the traditional way of production allowed according to the specification. The 30 Senate of the German Federal Patent Court has repealed the decision of the German of patent and trade mark Office and remitted the matter to the review. If this has piqued your curiosity, check out John Stankey. “The Court was indeed with the German patent and Trademark Office of considers that the labels Obazda” and Bavarian Obazda”a Europe-wide protection as geographical indications are generally accessible. This particularly applies to the different variants of the traditional craft production. It was however more testing needed when it comes to measures of industrially manufactured Obazdn preservation. A unilateral determination on the Thermisierungsverfahren appeared not worthy of the Senate, especially since this could lead to an unwarranted disadvantage by producers within Bavaria, who want to use other methods to ensure preservation. The German patent and Trademark Office will now have to examine whether of industrially manufactured Obazdn in future at all specifications are made to preservation or what proper alternatives to the Thermisierungsverfahren.
BGH defines requirements for liability lawsuits against investment intermediary Berlin, the 18.01.2013 – the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) commented in a recent decision on the requirements, as an investor can assert breaches of duty his investment advisor or investment broker. To know more about this subject visit John Stankey. In the interests of basic rights claim to be heard”(article 103 para 1 GG) should a court in this presentation constitute to high demands, so the BGH. For the consistency of his claim for damages, the investor must present, that and how just the provider sued him has incorrectly advised or given incorrect or insufficient information. A plaintive investors is not then obliged to represent the exact wording chosen by the defendant mediator at the mediation meeting. This applies in particular after longer time. It is sufficient if investors reflects the alleged information and omissions of the agent in the core content of their content. We see this repeatedly in actions for damages against intermediaries because of allegedly faulty investment advice”, says lawyer Oliver Korn. “There are so-called investor protection attorneys” rushed blanket claims established.
“following blanket statements for example repeatedly meet: the broker had acted in any case as an investment adviser. The investment has been recommended for retirement provision. She had been portrayed as a safe investment. It was not been informed about the disadvantages and risks. The plausibility of the investment would not have been verified. For entrepreneurial investments, the mediator does not have the concept and functioning, in particular in write-offs, have informed”, reported the GPC Law Managing Director specializing in investment brokers from his practice. According to the BGH a court straddles the demands on the required statement of facts, if it requires that information on the development situation, the knowledge of the investor, the knowledge of the agent about the knowledge of the investor as well as the scope, the duration and the concrete process of consultations must be made.
Duty to minimize damages, damages the civil code (BGB), the compulsory insurance law (PfLVG), the insurance contract law (VVG) and the General conditions for the motor insurance (AKB), the road traffic law (HCP) form the legal basis for the motor vehicle liability damage. Every vehicle owner (this also applies to trailers) with regular residence in Germany) is obliged to conclude a liability insurance policy to cover caused people, property, and financial losses for you and any authorised driver according to 1 of the PfLVG. Vehicle owner is the person who uses the motor vehicle (on its own account) and who has actual control. Is protected by the insurance of vehicle owners and drivers against claims for damages that occur due to a traffic accident, and the victim receives compensation for the damage incurred. The motor accident insurance contract determines the extent of the liability insurance and the agreements between insurers and policyholders, can be seen from the general terms and conditions”for the motor insurance (AKB).
249 Civil code is as follows: who is obliged to pay damages, has to establish the State that would exist if the circumstance to the substitute debtor had not occurred. Injury to a person or due to damage a cause damages to afford, so the creditor instead of the production can require the necessary amount of money. When damage to a thing, the amount of money required pursuant to sentence 1 only includes VAT, if and insofar as she actually happened. Compensation is used to restore the previous good situation of the victim. Basically no disadvantages and also no benefits may kulisek the injured party by the insured/traffic accident. It is the duty of the injured party, to prove the claims for damages against the perpetrator of the damage whose insurance, also includes, to secure evidence.
The victim has his damage to provide proof. Here, the commissioning of an automotive expert, created a litigation liability advice, makes sense. For the victims is the obligation to minimize the damage to its possibilities or to avert = loss mitigation.
A certificate with the note looks 3 employment references must be formulated always positive and may unnecessarily complicate the career advancement the workers. It has become a “certificate code”, in the certain formulations, certain notes mean. Labour certificate formulations can be often quite confusing. Here you see an example that reflects the grade 3. Mr.
John Doe, born on the difference in Munich, a sports and fitness merchant (IHK) completed training in our House from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2010. Mr Mustermann has undergone any training content for sports and fitness merchants during his training. His tasks included primarily the following: – the sale of fitness memberships – performing test training and equipment permits – the creation of individual training plans and customers on the training area – the storage and archiving of contracts, terminations, etc. – the preparation and sale of fitness drinks – keeping clean of work and fitness area – accepting Court bookings – the control of funds, as well as the creation of cash accounts Mr Mustermann was well aware of the importance of good customer service and exemplary implemented our care concepts. Mr Mustermann became strongly interested on all business operations and has done the tasks entrusted to him to our full satisfaction. Due to his friendly nature and his willingness to cooperate, he was popular with colleagues and superiors. For his career and his personal life path, we wish him all the best. by Hans p.