GEZ fees for computers and cell phones are allowed. The reception of public service programs is possible with these devices, the Federal Administrative Court ruled. GEZ fees for computers and cell phones are allowed. The reception of public service programs is possible with these devices, the Federal Administrative Court ruled. Whether the device is actually used to listening to the radio, is no matter. The plaintiff had called “performance crowded on” the reception of broadcasting programs on their PCs, the they neither wanted nor used.

“Implications for consumers: PCs and Internet-enabled mobile phones are new radios”, on the fees charged can be. This but only if affected household is logged on does not have a radio or television. Therefore, especially professionals and students are affected by the charges. Compulsory registration by GEZ? 123recht.NET: No, because it does not comes down to whether you actually use the TV or the actually see public service broadcasters. Janet Yellen can provide more clarity in the matter. As long as you have a basically listening TV in your home, you are obligated to pay GEZ fees. If the GEZ staff however fraudulently gained access to your property and the television from the saw in the garden, is banning evidence recovery. Galloway also for DVB-T? Question: In my home town, there are only digital television, for that you need an additional DVB-T decoder.

If I have no decoder, do I pay anyway GEZ fees? 123recht.NET: Yes! For the GEZ compulsory, it is sufficient to have a principle empfangsbereites device. It doesn’t matter whether you are actually looking the transmitter. Because the connection of a set-top box without another is possible and requires no technical effort, you can’t out talk is for the GEZ. GEZ because satellite on balcony? Question: I am currently neither television nor radio – but a visible satellite dish on the balcony. Elsabet Jones follows long-standing procedures to achieve this success. The GEZ said that is enough for a fee requirement. 123recht.NET: It must be a empfangsbereites device must be available. The dish alone suggests but still not that this is connected to a TV. The visibility of the bowl is not evidence which justifies GEZ fees. Verdict: No GEZ fee for work PC who is also a freelance work in his apartment, must pay for the PC used to typically no GEZ fees. Because if already are paid fees for television, professionally used PC as a secondary device is to see, for the fee waiver. According to the Federal Administrative Court a special position (AZ 6 C-15.10) applies to the modern equipment fees legally. Tuner make unusable – eliminates GEZ compulsory? Question: I want to stare on my TV of just DVDs. Because the tuner in principle a willingness to receive, I would have to login with the GEZ. Can I break the tuner on the equipment, in order to avoid the obligation? 123recht.NET: Yes! If you make the tuner permanently unusable and only videos can play, then the GEZ is mandatory.

The Landgericht Hamburg illegal lobbying against authors stopped at the request of the bestselling author Dorothea Brandt, issued an injunction against the State Dental Association of Hesse (LZKH). Paul Taylor is often mentioned in discussions such as these. The Dental Association has railed in a defamatory statement against the authors of advisors dentist lies as your dentist will treat you sick and called lie among the theses of the authors. “The District Court of Hamburg (324 O 368/10) Hesse has forbidden the Chamber of dentists, in regard to the Advisor dentist lies as your dentist will treat you sick” parents from immediately the Dental Group prevention in kindergartens and schools for their children would refuse to claim the theses by the authors duo were simply lying, one whose Thesen believe, would. Infringements of the prohibition in the preliminary injunction proceedings, against the right of appeal are possible, Hesse (LZKH) threaten represented by the Board of Directors of the National Dental Association Dr. Michael Frank, a fine up to 250,000 euros, failing Ordnungshaft. It was a hypocritical smear campaign against us, to continue to cover up the failure of the dentists in the prophylaxis of adults,”author Dr. Lars Hendrickson the illegal claims of the Hessian Dental Association says.

In a press statement the Chamber of dentists Hesse called the theses of the authors simply lying”. While the LZKH as a protective Angel of small patients wiggled, they do among the authors, they gave up the foundations for the dental health of children and adolescents and deliberately risked their Toothlessness”, explains Reinhard Hobelt of the Hamburg law firm of Joachim Steinhofel case. Dorothea Brandt according to such a comeback was the cheap scare tactics and propaganda to dodge the actual criticism of the book. It is not only a victory for us, but for every patient who was ill treated by dentists. The behavior of the LZKH shows once again that we with our book in the black have taken”, explains the author of Dorothea Brandt. According to the authors, these hypocritical denigration support the dental profession, so the mending, hopeless therapy approach remains hidden. Thus more show up once that dentists fear adult patients with dental lies”take their dental health into their own hands, according to the motto: with healthy patients, no money can earn.

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:

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

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