Legal Ruling Protects Consumers

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,

Consultant Liability

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).