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:
Maria Ulrich from Munich Tax Office informed of the tax audit there are only a few companies that are in favour a tax audit conducted by the IRS. Rather fear is spreading, whether one has done something wrong and must reckon with the consequences. Or you have the fear is not enough to have prepared. The concerns are unfounded but, because the IRS admits sufficient time in advance necessary preparations to take care of. In addition, there is the possibility to entrust himself to a professional in the field of taxation. A tax advisor knows the requirements of a tax audit and supports all key related areas.
The tax firm from Munich Maria Ulrich informed the tax audit. For complete peace of mind, the audit officially tax audit and is regulated in the rules of the Federal Ministry of finance. She is among traders, agricultural and forestry holdings and Individuals possible. When the tax audit, the tax authorities check steuererhebliche information of the taxpayer. These may relate to one or more types of taxes, and include one or several tax periods. Before the tax authorities visited the company, this receives a written notice.
Most companies like the idea of a review”not. They combine it with a sense of uncertainty and fear, wrong to have to behave, increases. The concerns are entirely unfounded, because who that relied on an accountant must fear no consequences. Also, a tax consultant supports detailed preparation for the appointment with the tax office. He is also present in the tax audit and can intervene and answer questions that arise for the client. As the taxpayer in determining the facts has a duty to cooperate, and he must make relevant documents available, the tax advisor supports here. For the case that the IRS detects ambiguities, the accountant is also the right partner. The tax office Maria Ulrich from Munich is anytime available for detailed information. Press contact tax firm Maria Ulrich contact: Maria Ulrich Nymphenburger Strasse 4, 80335 Munich Tel.: 089/41134860 fax: 089/41134829 email: Homepage:
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).