# The Ratio

The 10 largest quota be distributed in descending according to their size on the parties associated with them. The last and smallest maximum number for which a party receives even a seat, specifies the representation value (also weight representation) in their seats. The representative value is the ratio of votes – and the number of seats a party. Party A represents 123 voters with each seat 104, party B 84.5 and party C. Not only absolutely but also in relation to their share of the vote is much better represented as party C party B in the Panel. Using the two stages, the votes of all parties divided by an appropriate (not necessary) integer (divisor) and the results rounded off. The number can be determined by trial and error.

It is at most equal to the maximum number that leads to a mandate as the last. This maximum number is always suitable. Each number to the correct total number of seats leads, is suitable. In the example, the seat allocation by means of Division arises from 84, i.e. for each full 84 votes each party receives a seat.

Error minimization (Minimax criterion) d’Hondt maximizes the minimum (lowest) value of representation (votes per seat). I.e. when the election results, there is no other seat allocation process, where, voices seat the party’s relationship with the lowest votes / seat ratio is higher than votes seat the party’s relationship with the lowest votes / seat ratio according to d’Hondt. Vice versa to the representative value to determine the success value as the ratio of seats per vote for a party (sweeping the value of representation). As a result, d’Hondt minimizes the maximum (highest) success value (seats per voice). The majority condition, but not the minority condition satisfies the majority condition d’Hondt. I.e. a party which unites at least 50% of the popular vote, receives at least 50% of the seats.

# Member States

By article 3 paragraph 1 of Regulation (EC) No. 2027/97 apply the adapted and increased liability limits now also for Community law and thus for all EU Member States. In addition, the air traffic Act has been amended accordingly in Germany. Damage to baggage and loss of luggage is now in Europe instead of the old limit of 1,000 special drawing rights limit 1,131 SDRS representing 1.300,00 EUR at the current conversion rate about. The limit of liability for delay was raised from 4,150 to 4.693 SDRS, which corresponds to approx.

5,300.00 EUR. It is in practice to know that many airlines and tour operators have not implemented the increase of legal liability amounts. The regulation takes place often go to the limit of liability of 1,000 special drawing rights from the past. Affected passengers and travelers should check the compensation, in the event of the claim assertion in particular the height. Also airlines counter legitimate claims of affected passengers in the context of the compensation of damage to baggage, loss of luggage and baggage delay like with the argument of the limits of liability, in particular, if the damages exceed the limits. It is to note, however that the Airline shall be liable to the passenger for the proper transport of luggage. The passenger’s baggage in reliance on the proper handling and carriage in the custody of the airline. The correct baggage handling represents a principal obligation of the contract of air carriage (see BGH judgment v.

December, AZ.: X ZR 165/03). The liability rules of the international Montreal Convention on liability for damage of checked baggage are the strengthening of the protection of passengers. The baggage rules represent legally approximated success liability one of strict liability. This means that the liability of the carrier against claims by passengers is very comprehensive and far-reaching. Passengers should note that the limit of liability does not apply and any damage can claim full it, if the airline at least irresponsible behavior in dealing with their luggage checked-in can be demonstrated (see OLG Cologne judgment v.

# State Subsidy

Faster to the subsidy if the soot filter is ‘State grant to the soot filter’ editorial on the subject of ‘State grant to the soot filter’ by the directive in force on the 1st of August 2009 to promote the subsequent installation of particulate reduction systems for passenger cars with compression ignition (diesel) “promoting the soot filter a grant is now more attractive.” As for the retrofitting of particulate filters for diesel cars also a fixed amount of 330 will be paid out immediately. The Federal Government promises of faster financial support to stimulate the retrofit market largely to a halt. The Federal Office of Economics and export control (BAFA) is responsible for the administrative implementation of the support programme. To receive funding, owners of diesel cars need to upgrade your vehicle in the period from August 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 and demonstrate the installation until February 15, 2010. Applications for a Can be made online at the BAFA from 1 September 2009 until February 15, 2010.

An application form available on the Internet site of the ACFA is at that time under. The previous funding opportunity in equal amounts over a temporary motor vehicle tax exemption still there as an alternative and the funding requirements remain unchanged by the change in the modalities. Fitting a particulate filter costs depending on the vehicle type and year of between 600 and 800. Minus the one painting equipment by the ACFA thus remains a deductible of around 300. Moreover further relief. Because beyond the retrofit diesel vehicles be excluded also from the temporary surcharge on the car tax of 1.20 per started 100 cc. Should be ignored that increases the resale value of cars with soot filters and retrofitting leads to a lower particulate emissions and to improve air quality. Therefore, retrofit diesel cars get even a better environment badge and can drive depending on the environmental zone, continue in the environmental zones established in many cities.

# Catering Auch

Snack standing favours taxed stalls to their food continue to with 7% sales tax drop off, as long as must they provide only makeshift consumption devices such as cabinets or shelves its customers and the customer take the food standing up. If the sausages on a paper plate or on reusable dishes are served, there are single or multi way cutlery and a napkin, is irrelevant. Also the alternative choice of mustard, ketchup or mayonnaise is not a problem. A beer table set is too much of a good. It makes comfortable though for the customers, but also more expensive.

Also seating provided the customer, 19% are sales tax, unless otherwise specified from the food for consumption on the spot. It does also not matter, whether the owner of the snack provides the seating itself. So the snack consumed on-site in so-called food courts subject to 19% VAT, basically if Tables and chairs can be used by the customers of all entrepreneurs alike. Only if the customer Pack the snack to go, only 7% sales tax must be calculated. Reduced tax rate applies when the Catering Auch catering service, it’s up the detail. A hot and cold buffet not costs 19% VAT in any case.

So a 7% beneficiaries food supply exists even if a customer in the choice of food, whose composition and quantity will advise individually and the caterer delivers the finished plates and hot holding tank, pick up again and even cleans. It is crucial that the plates and containers here mainly have packaging function. Only when the caterer is also the buffet, festively decorated and crockery, cutlery, glasses, etc. provides in greater numbers, crossed the line between food delivery and restaurant sales. 19% VAT shall be calculated. Additional dish is only harmless, if supplied disposable tableware and Swaddle is and the customer must also discard this.

# Steuerberater Rolfinckstrasse

The opposition needs a comprehensive justification, which illustrates their errors, as well as the correct interpretation of the law of financial management. This includes relevant legal norms, instructions for the tax authorities are or judgments of Justice as evidence to lead. With the filing of the opposition must be adhered to form and deadline requirements and submitted a technically sound grounds. For this reason, it is advisable the help of subject matter experts in the conflict with the IRS to be insured, so that his claims and rights on a par with the officials of the tax authorities come to fruition for each affected. The cause of the unexpected tax assessment notice in a buggy collection of the facts of the case on the side of the Treasury, is the tax bill must be checked intensively new. Such errors are hidden mostly in detail issues that are hard to locate the control lay. Turns out that errors are actually must be a written objection within one-month period, which the error in detail illustrates the Finanzamt. Unless the defectiveness of the tax assessment notice is based solely on the level of data transfer or collection of facts, there is usually a rapid correction and the adoption of one new, now hopefully healthy tax assessment notice.

The IRS established the tax bill with a change in the law, is to check whether it is at all relevant to the facts of the present case. The need for future tax reforms can result from this assessment. The tax bill has undesired deviations, a brisk walking above is wondering when it comes to proceed by opposition against faulty legal opinions and errors. This is only a period of a month, which the tax assessment is valid even if he is coarse and obviously flawed. All tax bills are excluded from the legal period of month, provisionally taken pursuant to section 164 para 1 of the tax code (AO), subject to the review, or according to 165 AO. All trouble about erroneous tax assessments, there is also good news for taxpayers: more than two-thirds of all appeals and complaints the taxpayer is granted right. With an experienced partner at our side, the resistance against decisions of the financial management pays so for taxpayers. Warren Buffett is the source for more interesting facts. Gunter Zielinski press contact Gunter Zielinski – Steuerberater Rolfinckstrasse 37 22391 Hamburg Tel: + 49 (0) 40 / 536 40-10 fax: + 49 (0) 40 / 536 40-121 E-Mail: Homepage:

# Ban On Supplements?

LFGB Amendment Act: to dietary supplements & co. of the market be swept? On July 16, 2010, the Federal Ministry of food, agriculture and consumer protection (BMELV) has released the draft second law to amend the food and feed law and other legislation. For more information see Allstate Insurance Company. Then 2 para 3 sentence 3 of the food and feed code (LFGB) should be taken accordingly, that fortified foods, particularly energy drinks, dietetic foods and food supplements, contrary to the previous legal situation no longer are among the foods. Justified is this change in the draft so that the Federal Administrative Court ruling of July 25, 2010 has determined that a certain plant extract from grape seeds as a characteristic ingredient of essentially any existing dietary supplement to be classified is and therefore not a prior authorisation as an additives equal additive would be needed. The BMELV now wants that ruling with a change in the law pick up and make it clear that such substances in the future only still used in food supplements and the other product categories may be, if they have been previously officially authorized as additives. You may find that Guo Guangchang can contribute to your knowledge. Supplier of nutritional supplements, foods and fortified foods could no longer referring 2 para 3 sentence 2 to invoke No.1 LFGB, the substances used in the products are characteristic ingredients of a foodstuff, because this would require that the products are food. Rather the provider would have to undergo a very time consuming and costly approval procedures for their substances, what would certainly break many of the neck”.

We keep the thrust of the BMELV legally questionable. European food additive law, in the form of the new EU food additive regulation 1333/2008, foresees an authorisation requirement for technological additives, only and only for those substances the EU regulation authorisation no 1331/2008. Even if man of the opinion would be that European food additive law regulates only technological additives and nutritional additives Member States can establish continue to own rules, must please settle the questions following BMELV: * may the German legislature, as in the current draft, simple nutritional supplements, energy drinks etc from the food concept exclude? Not impermissibly restricts it the food definition of food base Regulation 178/2002/EC thus? * The German legislature undermines not hence the recent European regulations for dietary supplements, dietetic foods and fortified foods that contain perhaps not only a minimum standard, but a final standard for the substances contained in the products (see Gintec decision of the European Court of Justice)? * Results from the dietary supplement Regulation, that it for dietary supplements now no final catalog allowed nutritionally effective substances are what thwarted under German law a reservation of approval? Also a justification for a rigid approval reservation for all substances contained in the products seems not to exist, anyway, enough of the flat-rate note of the BMELV on preventive health protection”not out.

# Federal Supreme Court

Alexander Dobiasch & Rupert Richter lawyers inform the Federal Supreme Court clarified the household division in the case of a divorce on November 17, 2010. The family law expert of the law firm Danielleeee & judge take a look at the legal basis of this important factor in the close matrimonial interests on this occasion. Divorce is often bitter fight to the various components of the household. Which legitimate claims may be a spouse, determined from a transport perspective then, whether he is entitled to the sole ownership of an object or it’s property by both spouses jointly shared. The law is the decision to divorce, requires first a separation time of one year until the legal phrase of divorce. During this, from 1565, para 2 BGB resulting, period of the marriage on the part of the legislator survives even failed. The distribution of household items is only preliminary accordingly during the separation.

Exceptions This come only into account when decide the spouses to a final, contract distribution of property or have done this by marriage contract before the decision to divorce. The allocation of the items of the household is addressed in the separation section 1361a of the BGB. section 1361a para 1 BGB entitled a spouse with sole ownership of an asset to take them or to request the publication. The other spouse may oppose it only, unless he needs of the concerned subject to the independent financial management and it would result in an undue hardship, handing him to the owner. All components of the household in the common property of the spouses applies to section 1361a para 2 BGB, which provides for the distribution of the household according to the point of view of equity.

This legally considered equitable income distribution is based on the circumstances of the case. Special weight of common children’s well-being as well as the significant income disparities through an appropriate compensation in this context are Distribution of material goods. Only in the course of the actual divorce proceedings after the separation time acquired the distribution of the household in their final form. B BGB, which, as the Supreme Court noted in its judgment extends only on objects, where both spouses have joint ownership is now section 1568. Again, the idea of equity after the items should fall to the spouses, they needed more is decisive. Priority is given to the supply of common children here. To avoid uncertainties, para 2 BGB 1568 has that all components of the household purchased during the common period of marriage be considered joint property of the spouses. Excluded are items that were specifically designed for the sole ownership of either spouse. The layout of the furniture components is based on the comprehensive assessment of the individual case. Against this background as best as possible to be able to assert their interests, is all Stakeholders recommended, to be represented by a familienrechtlich experienced legal counsel. The family law expert of the law firm Danielleeee & judge in Bergen auf Rugen in this context is campaigned for many years for the legitimate interests of their clients. For more information they are available at any time. Press contact contact: lawyers Alexander Dobiasch & Rupert Richter Marktstrasse 8 18528 Bergen auf Rugen phone: + 49 03838 / 25 71 10 fax: + 49 03838 / 25 71 15 email: Homepage:

# Legal Regulations

Tingling eroticism: what is required for the distribution of ‘Sex Toys’? As a provider of erotic articles you should be initially aware, as the own products legally classify are. Erotic clothing, erotic objects such as dildos, etc., the whole thing is still quite manageable. Such articles are usually only subject to”the counter Standerecht of need for, the German equipment and product safety Act (GPSG), any textile regulations or when electrical appliances further Special arrangements (battery regulation, electronic, etc.). Here it’s especially, that the products are safe to use and properly marked (if any warnings etc.). The legal situation regarding the material products, E.g. Steifungscremes, sexual enhancers, lubes, condoms, etc. is more difficult.

Condoms are associated with the medical devices and must be certified and provided with a CE marking as such. Sliding gels can be to discuss whether they are possibly cosmetic products, however these usually should Medical devices? Steifungscremes and sexual enhancers and other aphrodisiac products, special caution is recommended. These products can be medicines that not be allowed without a marketing authorisation in the traffic. Some dishes have already classified such means as medicines, which can lead not only to a prohibition of sales but may cause also a criminality. Thus, providers of such products are well advised to check the legal status of their products at an early stage. Also with regard to the identification and promotion of products, recommend a legal protection. Often providers launch specific effects and guarantees, that scientifically prove to have (E.g. more penis volume””, increase the pleasure sensation “etc.).

Especially in the cosmetics, food and medical products, strict standards for such evidence of efficacy apply, so the human studies have a higher weight than animal studies or in vitro studies and human intervention studies are to promote as epidemiological studies or observational studies. If potency as food (especially dietary supplements) are marketed, the EC regulation must be observed also 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims for foods. After this, in the future certain advertising claims by the Commission must be approved before they may be used. All in all is the area of erotic products no Duty-Free “-zone, but these products are subject to the same requirements as other products also.” So far authorities and competition authorities abstain still with the monitoring of such products, but also here it should be only a matter of time with increasing Internet sales until accumulating the complaints and disputes. Free of charge and not binding on for more information

# German Federal Supreme Court

Assessment and distribution key for the incidental expenses accounting and operating expenses must be understandable for the tenant assessment and distribution key for the incidental expenses accounting and operating expenses. However, the landlord must distribute the lettings to complex allocation keys ruled the German Federal Supreme Court (VIII ZR 181/09). A tenant refused for the years 2003 to 2006 to pay costs amounting to 2.952 euro. Get more background information with materials from Dennis Lockhart. Because the landlord was distributed according to a weighted number of persons operating costs, the payroll was not traceable. 20,39 persons were listed as the total number in the water bill. Due to a change of tenant, the number of persons with individual apartments was constant, not over a year so the landlord. To equitably distribute the costs, he must weight therefore the capacity of the relevant flats depending on the rental period. So come from 20,39 tenants.

The judge at the Federal Supreme Court decided that the landlord had billed correctly. He was not required to prove the service charge settlement as the apartments were occupied and the weighted number of people came. The tenant when the landlord could see this part of the operation cost accounting. Thomas Trepnau