District Court Berlin bans Portuguese manufacturer of paper Office paper as ‘ 100 per cent recycled’ to describe / environmental label jury welcomes the ruling of Gluckstadt/Berlin, may 5, 2008 – the regional court of Berlin has the Portuguese paper company Portucel DIN be banned (even non-residents) in a judgment of 22 April 2008, “explorer” A4 Office paper as “100% recycled” to refer to. Portucel used in the production of this paper offcuts which are incurred during the production of fresh pulp paper, so in circulation were not 50%. The Court joined the applicant Steinbeis Temming paper indicating that such a product rather than recycled paper could be advertised because this advertising was contrary to the circuit idea characteristic of the recycling. Review – Hotbox by Wiz has plenty of information regarding this issue. Consumers expect that a recycled paper using recycled paper will made, which previously used had been in circulation. The application of the product as a “100% recycled” is therefore misleading and constitutes an unfair business practice. The environmental label jury evaluates this ruling as a clear victory for the environment and consumer protection.
It prevents a watering-down of standards for recycling paper and reinforces the credibility of product labels, because they ensure future reliable data about the actual content. “The consumer must rely on it, that where recycling paper is real recycled paper in it is”, as Prof. Dr. Edda Muller, Deputy. Chairman of the environmental label jury. The only eco-label, which reliably prescribes the use of 100% recycled paper and prohibits the use of harmful chemicals, is the Blue Angel. Thus he differs fundamentally from all other eco-labels. Contact: Michael Soffge, Managing Director of Steinbeis Temming paper, Tel.: + 49 4124 911 377,
Auer Witte Thiel: ‘ up to 600 euros compensation for flight delay ‘ Munich, in March 2010: in case of delays, airlines must pay its passengers up to 600 euro per person has the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in a new ruling (AZ: XA ZR 95/06) legally decided. Thus, the BGH confirmed at the same time also a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice, inform the travel law expert of the Munich firm Auer Witte Thiel. The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) an airline condemned legally in its judgment of February 18, 2010 for the first time to compensate their passengers due to a long delay, as the firm tells Auer Witte Thiel. In the case of the Charter airline Condor must pay compensation of 600 euro per person passengers, because her flight from Canada to Frankfurt am Main with 25 hours of delay came. To the justification of the final judgment the BGH referred according to Auer Witte Thiel on a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg from November last year. In the context, the BGH rejected also the claim from Condor to present the case again to the Court of Justice, informed Auer Witte Thiel.
After this judgment no doubt that”the validity of EU passenger rights regulation, which compensation for delayed flights stipulates. This fundamental judgment has decided the ECJ and this according to the BGH not exceeded its interpretation competence against the reasoning of Condor, Auer Witte Thiel. Only exceptional circumstances”such as bad weather or a strike can avoid the obligation to pay airlines should include, when relevant, essential for the processing of applications for compensation payments with these circumstances after recommendation of Auer Witte Thiel. According to the decision of the Luxembourg Court travelers from a three-hour flight delay in most cases are entitled to a compensation payment, such as Auer Witte Thiel informed. Airlines have to pay following compensation if the flight late start at least three hours: 250 euros for a range up to 1,500 kilometers, 400 euros for flights within Europe and intercontinental flights up to 3,000 kilometers and 600 euros for long-haul flights. Auer Witte Thiel the firm Auer Witte Thiel has years of experience in the field of travel law and represents among other things one of the largest European cruise companies. The firm is divided into two different areas of expertise: the firm for Receivables Management and the firm specializing in business law. So the lawyers Auer Witte Thiel in the core areas of rental and real estate law, travel law, press and publishing law, consumer credit law and competition, trademarks are also knowledgeable and experienced in the entire area of demand management. How to contact with Auer Witte Thiel lawyers lawyer Tobias Steiner Bayerstrasse 27 80335 Munich phone: 089/59 98 97 60 fax: 089 / 550 38 71 E-Mail: Web:
The consultant’s liability by the highest German civil court judgments do not tear down: However, is what comes from Karlsruhe from investment advisor perspective not all bad. The consultant’s liability by the highest German civil court judgments do not tear down: However, is what comes from Karlsruhe from investment advisor perspective not all bad. Because with his latest ruling the Supreme Court has made it clear that a liability of the intermediary does not automatically occurs in any case constellation and investors can contact losses not aufhaltend hand directly to the Advisor. The judgment was based on essentially the following facts: the plaintiff had drawn a participation of a closed real estate fund in 1996. Commencement of the term, even distributions were obtained, which however could be maintained not due to economic difficulties in the aftermath. The plaintiff sought damages for a defective according to his investment advice with regard to the participation in the procedure.
With the completion of an also implied possible Consulting agreement between investors and advisors to a consulting according to the BGH object-oriented obligation for the latter. In this regard, risks and characteristics of the system with critical expertise must be checked. The filtered results are to inform the investors over. Such an analysis by the mediator will refrain from this can lead to an oft-cited consultant liability. To the relief of the intermediary this arrives only if a risk would become recognizable via the investor would need clarification on or but if would become evident, that a recommendation of the plant is not investor – or object-fair. When but a there are reasonable grounds for such a notice which was not clear so far. The latest judgment of Karlsruhe provides here, however, a little clarity. Specifically, it was about a so-called guarantee and then related costs, which was not sufficiently known according to the plaintiff’s (issued by a Bank for a debtor in case of failure to adhere).