Little Forest Playschool

Auer Witte Thiel informed: tenant is in default of payment, work also ordinary termination Munich July 2013: neither Article 573, paragraph 2 No. 1 BGB 569 ABS. 3 BGB No. 3 are on an ordinary termination due to default of payment applicable. The Federal Supreme Court in a ruling made it clear. The firm Auer Witte Thiel informs about the backgrounds of the judges decision and explains what the verdict for landlords. Edward Minskoff has much to offer in this field.

According to the German Federal Supreme Court, other rules apply to an ordinary termination due to default in payment, as for extraordinary dismissal for the same reason. So refers to 543 paragraph 2, sentence 1, no. 3 BGB, which as a precondition a minimum Mietruckstand of two month’s rent or a default period of two months in a row provides alone on extraordinary cancellations. May be below this threshold value, however, in an ordinary termination, refers to the judgment of the Federal Court by the 10th of October 2012 (AZ. Auer Witte Thiel VIII ZR 107/12). Federal Court judges: legal requirements for extraordinary termination, with neat not to his judgment came the Federal Supreme Court in a case in which a tenant first had fallen due to non-payment or incomplete payment of the advances of its heating costs in default.

His landlady announced him so punctually. After he legally had been sentenced to payment of the receivable and finally paid them, the tenant with the current monthly rent fell into arrears. Then, the landlady announced again on time. The tenant went into revision, so that finally the Bundesgerichtshof concerned with the case, so Auer Witte Thiel. Contact information is here: Albert Einstein College of Medicine . In his decision dated the 10th of October 2012 (AZ. VIII 107/12) the Supreme Court came to the following conclusion: an ordinary termination section 569, paragraph 3 is not applicable No. 3 BGB. Therefore the lessor have wait also not two months until the final condemnation of the tenant on the 15.11.10 with their termination. The lease was effectively ended on October 5, 2009. Auer Witte Thiel: Can landlord from which this conclusion Landlord move BGH judgment have explained even Auer Witte Thiel, you can properly terminate a tenancy if the Mietruckstand of the tenant but less than two is more than one month’s rent, the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice. Even if exceeds the default duration of one month, two but not yet reached, the landlord may terminate. The two-month notice according to 569, para 3 No. 3 BGB touched in this case. About the law firm Auer Witte Thiel, the specialization areas of focus and the development of core competencies in certain disciplines are indispensable in the legal services sector. Auer Witte Thiel is a business law oriented law firm and represents several German insurance companies.

In a recent decision by the 18.10.2011 the Federal Labour Court dealt with the question, conditions under which parents can extend the first unused parents time. In a recent decision by the 18.10.2011 the Federal Labour Court dealt with the question, conditions under which parents can extend the first unused parents time. According to the law, workers and employees, the parental leave must take, the employer explain for what times taken parental leave period of two years. Parents of time thus defined can extend the workers only if the employer agrees. The applicant is employed since 2005 at the defendant as a worker in full time.

On January 3, 2008, she gave birth to her fifth child and therefore took until 2nd January 2009 parental leave. By letter of December 8, 2008, she asked the defendant unsuccessfully, to agree to the extension of parental leave for a further year. She relied on their State of health. After the applicant from 5 January 2009 their work not resumed, the defendant gave her a warning due to lack of lesson. The Labour Court has sentenced the defendant to agree to extend parental leave and to remove the warning from the personnel file of the applicant. The Landesarbeitsgericht dismissed the complaint as a whole. It has argued, the employer should refuse free consent to the extension of parental leave up to the limit of the abuse of rights.

The defendant did not quite abusive. The warning had been authorized, since the applicant Unexcused is staying away from work. The revision of the applicant has success before the ninth Senate of the Federal Labour Court and leads to the referral back to the work of the Court. The employer must decide in its reasonable discretion, whether he agrees with the extension of parental leave. For this purpose, the Landesarbeitsgericht has still actual observations to make. It will have to decide again whether to remove the warning from the personnel file is. Attorneys at law Dr. Mahlstedt & partners – your law firm in Bremen.

What rights and options when have employer for disciplinary measures for employees can be followed by a notice on the cease and desist letter? As soon as the employer for a certain misconduct speaks out a cease and desist letter he can support no more notice on the same incident. The employee violates his obligations, once again in the same way it depends the nature and severity of the breach, whether the employer may terminate the employment relationship immediately or whether a renewed warning to pronounce is. A blanket statement can not meet in this context. But beware: Vice versa it may also be that cease and desist letter loses its warning function when a specific wrongdoing is dunned down again and again. According to the Federal Labor Court (BAG) the cease and desist letter this is devalued.

Workers must no longer expect that the employer makes true its threat of termination. Also here it depends again individually, as a rule of thumb: up to three warnings because of same type Breach of duty are common. Generally speaking, ever serious wrongdoing, the fewer warning letters should be pronounced before a termination. Reactions of the employee write many workers after receiving a cease and desist letter a reply. Should necessarily take this as evidence to the personnel file. You should take the opinion of their employee’s content seriously.

Carefully consider the arguments. Workers indicates new facts or witnesses you should clarify the incident together. Because the risk to keep an invalid warning in the personnel file and, if necessary, to support a termination, such is high. This is especially true if the employee threatens the cease and desist letter from the personnel file with an action at a distance. Already cost reasons you should leave it as not on a process arrive. And turns out only in proceedings on employment, that the warning was groundless, the relationship of trust with their employees is destroyed, not only on the Has the motivation to work but on the whole operating climate impact. The duration of the warning? Many workers demand the removal of a (legitimate) warning from the person act after some time. Whether you need to do depends on individual cases. But, there is not a specific target, after which time the warning is to remove. This depends on the severity of the breach of duty. In practice you can assume however, that a cease and desist letter is to remove approximately two years from the personnel file, if being dunned down was a specific case, and in the meantime no further breach were called off. In the assessment of the individual case it depends on whether the breach of duty has now even a meaning for the employment relationship and of workers disproportionately on his professional advancement would be prevented (E.g. when changing to a different section). The involvement of the Works Council has a legal right of participation at a warning saying the Operating Council. The employer must only inform the Works Council. In the event that a cancellation is based on the warning, so 102 is BetrVG during the hearing after to access also the cease and desist letter to the Works Council. A dunned from workers at the Works Council, complained so the Works Council can you but approach and require clarification of the matter. In many companies, there are voluntary agreements the principles issuing cease and desist letter. E.g. an obligation to the previous consultation of the Works Council and the employee can be set here or also warning periods.

Legal framework for peaceful co-existence are the television audience still good in memory the fierce battles over a wire mesh fence. Similar turf wars in German gardens addressed again and again in the media. The stone comes once in the role, small discrepancies between neighbors quickly degenerate into nail-biting family feuds. This is probably one of the reasons why the neighborhood right has so many rules, as scarcely another legal area – reported the real estate portal myimmo.de. The neighborhood right under civil law regulates the interests of neighbors, like about the distances between two land. The rules are often just set to the inch.

Appropriate regulations and laws adopted by the Federal Government as well as by the individual federal States. As the neighborhood right is regulated primarily at the country level, the rules used in the neighborhood dispute differ depending on the State. Access only in cases where the laws different properties are affected. If the contending parties to tenants of an apartment of the same property, the tenancy law will apply. The tenant applies further right from the pollution and the protection of possession from neighbourhood law.

Even in the construction law, specific rights available are the neighbors to the Building Authority. Edward Minskoff has plenty of information regarding this issue. In serious cases, the resistance of the neighbors may cause the freeze. It is therefore recommended that already before the start of the construction project to the consent of neighbors, in the form of a signature in the building permit process.

New rulings strengthen investor rights and increase the companies DFO GmbH & co. of Germany Fund KG and DFO GmbH & co. exit opportunities 2 KG Germany Fund (formerly: Deutsche officials care AG participations & co.kg Germany Fund, Munich and German officials pension fund real estate Holding AG & co. 2. Germany Fund KG, Munich), which Kommanditbeteiligungen had offered in their companies about Treuhandgesellschaft Procurator Treuhand GmbH, try lately increasingly against investors, which have set their installments to judicially enforce arrears rates. Jorge Perez may also support this cause. The chances of success to successfully confront these actions, are now promising to call. A scheme, which eliminated the shareholder at persistent non-payment of the agreed rates under certain conditions either from the company or at least their investment amount on the payments made to date will be reduced can be found in the relevant statute.

The companies are of the opinion, that follows from the interpretation of gesellschaftsvertraglichen rules, that the exercise of those rights would be entitled to only the company itself as the possibility of sanctions against defaulting payer and a way to give not the individual shareholders to end the participation by simple non-payment or to reduce the participation sum. This, the companies present two judgments of regional courts in Augsburg and Regensburg, which support this view. In the meantime, however, there are numerous court judgments (AG Erding, URT. v. 10.06.2010, AZ: 1 C-802/09;) AG, Monchengladbach, URT.

v. 14.01.2010, AZ: 36 C-333/09; AG Bonn, URT. v. 03.05.2010, AZ: 115 C-110/09; LG Memmingen, URT. v. 29.01.2010, AZ: 25 O 1826/09; LG Landshut, URT. v. 10.02.2010, AZ: 54 O 3240/09), which deal critically with the considerations of judgments from Augsburg and Regensburg, and all come to the conclusion that for an interpretation in the sense of a unilateral right of companies no room is, because the wording in the Statute is unique in this respect and admit no other interpretation. Therefore the companies must adhere own regulations in the Statute itself to their, resulting in the intended legal consequences of termination of the shareholder or the reduction of the investment amount in the appropriate conditions. For investors, this anyway, means that he must make no further deposits, which is why the actions of the companies on outstanding payments were rejected. Many investors hope to solve a participation or to lose at least no further capital make these judgments. Can be advised only all investors of the above companies, promptly legally advised to let the prospects of success in any particular case to check.

Editorial titled ‘Heritage abroad moved’ deceased and heritage or Schenker cited abroad, living they often surprisingly find that Germany reports on inheritance tax claims. This applies, for example, older couples or communities, that have moved to warmer climates and that had left after leaving the old home rental real estate or the participation of a company. Of course, the offspring receive personal exemption, which since 2009 from 20,000 to 500,000 euros and vary according to the degree of kinship. There are 400,000 euros for each child and grandchildren 200,000 euros. The parties involved in an inheritance or gift have however residing across the border, is the limited inheritance tax liability. In this case, there is only a uniform allowance of 2,000 euros regardless of the familial relationships.

Thus there is a drastic tightening in a foreign place of residence according to the law. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has now decided that this unequal treatment contrary to the free movement of capital is (AZ. C 510/08). Because this rule citizens be treated differently due to their place of residence, what represents an unjustified disadvantage for heir or donee with foreign residence. Therefore affected now can expect higher domiciled for upcoming inheritances and donations, as well as wedding gifts, where the tax bill can be change or none is given. The judgment can be applied also on donations before the inheritance tax reform 2009, then the exemption for limited liability to inheritance tax amounted to only 1,100 euros. In the underlying judgment the offspring living in the Netherlands had given a built-up piece of land in Dusseldorf from his mother living there.

Here the Court ascribes to so the domestic of 400,000 euros the child instead of the low amount of only EUR 2,000. The real estate is not so much worth of domestic Treasury is even completely empty and must already full refund received taxes. The tenor of the judgment applies not only for real estate, but also to in Germany operating assets that remained after their move to the home owners. The sentence for the relatives remaining in Germany, such as children or grandchildren has no effect. With them, the unlimited tax liability was also so far already. It is sufficient that deceased/Schenker or alternative heritage / cited in the country live. However can we continue to not prevent that in the death or Schenkungsfall almost always in two States tax incurred on acquiring left. Unlike the income tax, there is also no tax treaties, which limits access only to a State. There is therefore the risk that the discount or the gifts are to be taxed twice, and this even after the typical rules. In addition, two tax returns are to submit. That will cost additional fees. More on this and similar topics are interested in the book giving and inheriting real estate”by Pia Lutz lawyer. The book can be requested in bookstores or at the VSRW publishing house in Bonn.

Auer Witte Thiel: Landlords are not obliged tenants to perform desired modernisation Munich may 2012. Auer Witte Thiel informs: the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that landlords are generally not required to make structural changes to the further modernization of real estate. This judgment welcome lawyers of the law firm Auer Witte Thiel and see an increasing of legal certainty in a common question between tenants and landlords. “In the judgment of the 14.09.2011, VIII ZR 10/11 the case of permission of modernization through the tenants ‘ clarity was created again by the Federal Supreme Court: A landlord is accordingly loud this verdict neither committed to carry out a modernisation requested by tenants, nor to agree to a request of the self-financing. While between tenants and landlords no other arrangements have been agreed upon, it is at the discretion of the lessor, this allowed the modernization or denied them from financial interests. The interest of the Tenant on additional convenience no override must be granted according to the judgment. Even, if the tenant wants to carry out the modernisation measures at his own expense, the landlord does not have to now. The verdict confirmed the freedom of choice of the landlord on the date of investment in the own real estate.

Thus creates more certainty on an important issue which is often both tenants”of the German Federal Supreme Court, pull the lawyers Auer Witte Thiel their conclusion. Additional information about current judgments relating to the rental and real estate law are provided by the law firm Auer Witte Thiel under for you and commented. About Auer Witte Thiel, the specialization areas of focus and the development of core competencies in certain disciplines are indispensable in the legal services sector. Auer Witte Thiel represents a wide variety of housing companies, property managers and condominium communities in the area rental, real estate and construction law.