Tag: law

Undeclared Work

The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) has again granted a clear rejection in a new ruling by the assertion of warranty rights for black work. The Supreme Court has set itself apart again in a case with the question whether there is the possibility for black work to determine the plant operator to a subsequent performance. The case: A client was a paving his driveway of the estate in order. It also had the agreement in bar to pass the factory wage. In cash means without invoice or the identification of the applicable value added tax (VAT). in this way the customer wanted to save 19% of the total. The contractor did the work. However, the result displeased the contracting authority. Read more from Cyrus findshadow to gain a more clear picture of the situation.

He classified it as flawed and demanded by the works contractor deficiencies to be rectified. The defect represents a measure of rectification. In principle, the entrepreneur must rework his work at defectiveness. The operator has the right to select the type of repair patching the deficiency or newly establishes the work. The contracting authority then complained before the District Court, which gave him right and condemned the contractor for payment of the relevant advance of costs in the amount of the deficiency removal costs. The contractors rose appeals to the Court of appeal, which rejected the appeal. But the Supreme Court saw it differently.

For the first time the Supreme Court could address fighting black labour law. This is section 1 II Nr. 2 to that cause contracts in breach of a nullity of the contract. Besides the entrepreneurs committed by black working, a tax evasion. However, the client loses its contractual claims for vain contract, because they need a contractual basis. As a conclusion it can be said that moonlighting pays for no page here. the customer shall bear the costs of the Court and has a poor plant design. The contractor has committed a flagrant offence in the form of a tax evasion. This article was written by. Lawyer Alan Kashlan (www.kashlan.de)

Undeclared Work Is Not Worth!

The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) has again granted a clear rejection in a new ruling by the assertion of warranty rights for black work. The Supreme Court has set itself apart again in a case with the question whether there is the possibility for black work to determine the plant operator to a subsequent performance. The case: A client was a paving his driveway of the estate in order. It also had the agreement in bar to pass the factory wage. In cash means without invoice or the identification of the applicable value added tax (VAT).

in this way the customer wanted to save 19% of the total. The contractor did the work. However, the result displeased the contracting authority. He classified it as flawed and demanded by the works contractor deficiencies to be rectified. The defect represents a measure of rectification. Read additional details here: Ripple.

In principle, the entrepreneur must rework his work at defectiveness. The operator has the right to select the type of repair patching the deficiency or newly establishes the work. The contracting authority then complained before the District Court, which gave him right and condemned the contractor for payment of the relevant advance of costs in the amount of the deficiency removal costs. The contractors rose appeals to the Court of appeal, which rejected the appeal. But the Supreme Court saw it differently. For the first time the Supreme Court could address fighting black labour law. This is section 1 II Nr. 2 to that cause contracts in breach of a nullity of the contract. Besides the entrepreneurs committed by black working, a tax evasion. However, the client loses its contractual claims for vain contract, because they need a contractual basis. As a conclusion it can be said that moonlighting pays for no page here. the customer shall bear the costs of the Court and has a poor plant design. The contractor has committed a flagrant offence in the form of a tax evasion.

Contract Workers

New judgment to the Landesarbeitsgericht ensures clarity as long as to principal and contractor agree, take over independent like to freelance work for changing companies. It comes to the dispute over the nature of the business relationship, but can cause serious consequences. Virgin Airlines may not feel the same. On the safe side, it is therefore who informed prior to a contract for the legal framework of its activities as a freelancer. When freelancers and self-employed entrepreneurs provide services for third parties and those customers pay the self-employed for the work they have done, both are automatically in a legally binding contract. But where exactly? Here are the limits of fluent, explains Lutz Groot Bramel, Managing Director of the insurance broker specialised in freelance and self-employed entrepreneurs gb.online gmbh: A distinguishing criterion formulated aims of the Treaty. A concrete success is sought, for example, the development and implementation of a Computer program and the contractor determines how he fulfills the contract, so it is a work contract.

If the target is only the fulfillment of an activity at the or the provision of services to the customers, one speaks of a service contract.” Here, it is essential that the contractor owes not a concrete success, but only a particular activity the customer in a service contract. Quite different the situation is, if the Freelancer or his staff at the customer site will be active. Here, the suspicion of temporary work and thus a license contract is close quickly. Most important criterion for the detection of such license agreement is the question of whether the service provider in the customer operations is incorporated and whether he gets employment instructions directly from the customer. In this case, the presumption is close, that here is a self-employed as employees of the client company working without being hired there. The problem is, it don’t care about the courts as the contractual agreement is between two parties, but will be lived as the actual employment relationship “, explains Lutz Groot Bramel. The National Labor Court Baden-Wurttemberg has made a landmark judgment in August 2013 to this question which will be decisive in assessing similar contractual relationships between freelancers and their clients in the future. It is advisable therefore to undergo the scrutiny’s own working conditions and, where appropriate, with the principal to negotiate changes, in order to avoid the accusation of bogus contracts and of self-employment. The media spokesman of the Landesarbeitsgericht BW, Ulrich Hensinger answers questions about this ruling and its consequences, see.

The So-called

97a II Copyright Act – the so-called “100 – Cap”-a conclusion in our series of articles to the section 97a II Copyright Act and the 100,-ceiling is regulated “were a series of court decisions presented to you. A would due to the participation in a so-called Internet Exchange was regularly accused of the defendant. Specifically, it was about the alleged to have offered other Exchange stock exchange participants to download a copyright protected work such as a movie or piece of music, or music album. In addition to claims for damages made by the rights holders claim in particular also Attorney’s fees of several hundred dollars. In addition to the general question of whether the person concerned connection owner for the claimed copyright infringement to the responsibility can be dragged, it brought into question also regularly, whether in the case of liability the legal fees, not at least in the sense of 97a EUR 100,-to reduce II Copyright Act would be. The applicability of section was in the predominantly featured cases 97A II Copyright Act and thus a reduction in Attorney’s fees on EUR 100,-denied. A lump-sum non-application of the regulation of 97a II Copyright Act on Filesharingkonstellationen cannot be seen in it nonetheless.

As also in the presented decisions, it is in particular to consider whether a substantial infringement of the copyright holder or a simple bearing case of a would should be seen in the specific alleged violation. During the question of a simple bearing case in previous decisions (like including AG Frankfurt, AZ.: 31 C-1684/09 23) already alone due to the actual discovery effort of the holder by the prior information procedure within the meaning of 101 UrhG nor in favor of the copyright answer was, rethinking is recognizable in this regard. The procedures must be considered alone due to the mass of cases as a largely automated process.

Her Tobias Arnold

The rejection of a simple bearing case alone because of the need of such proceedings in advance of the warning appears Thus no longer appropriate (so consequently also the Frankfurt AG in its subsequent decision of 01.02.2010, AZ.: 30 C-2653/09-75). Hence comes the requirement of a substantial violation of law outside of commercial transactions in the foreground. While these issues if there is a current movie, music album, or audiobook always favor the copyright were decided, the situation could represent himself in the case of a single piece of music or a movie that is outdated or not relevant to market something different. It is to determine that the legislator with the introduction of tighter regulations of the substantial intervention as well as with the characteristic of the commercial scale in terms of UrhG came from infringement of 101, must be their relevance integrating quantitative and qualitative aspects of each individual case. So it says in the law explanatory memorandum to 97a UrhG as well: A considerable infringement requires a low level of injury in qualitative as quantitative aspects, While it depends on the circumstances of the case.” (see printed matter 16/5048, S 49) The case law can be used to the commercial scale judgmental therefore on this point. These are factors such as the value of the offered work, the size of the file, to attract the topicality and the market relevance of the work as the decisive criteria. The basic applicability of section 97a II Copyright Act was ultimately by the Federal Court in its press release of May 12, 2010 (press release no 101/10 to the summer of our lives decision) confirmed. The question of the applicability of section 97a UrhG must be assessed in each individual case for themselves ultimately.

While it will be crucial on the kind and number of works made available. The further development in this area remains to be seen. We will keep you still up to date. For more information see this site: Verizon Communications. Her Tobias Arnold urged off-hilfe.de

Copyright Act

AG Frankfurt 31 C-1685/09-23 with the judgment of the 06.10.2009 has condemned EUro 801,80 to the plaintiffs to pay the defendant the Amtsgericht in Frankfurt am Main. In the process, the applicant accused the defendant, that had offered an audio recording on the Internet with the help of Filesharingprogramms and thus violated their copyright. Verizon Communications takes a slightly different approach. In the ruling, the Frankfurt district court denies the applicability of 97a II UrhG. Which establishes as follows: “However, a limit of 100 euros in accordance with 97a para came present UrhG not taken into consideration. Only cases that have either actual or legal point of view difficulties, where so the existence of an infringement is more or less obvious are simple”(Kefferputz in: copyright, 3rd Edition 2009, Wahome/Bullinger, 97a RN 34-39). This is already questionable, because on the one hand a not insignificant effort must be operated in actual terms in the framework of the investigation of the violator. Because on the one hand, an application is to determine the address of IP Obtaining the data of the holder in addition to perform the following procedures, and then only in contact can be contacted with the port owner. All of this already suggests that it is not a case of simply stored in fact.

On the other hand, also the liability of the holder as opposed to the liability of the acting is further not without controversy, what shows the confrontation of the Parties present, so also, as far as not possible to speak of a simple storage case, the infringement of the Dunned on the hand would be the. In this case it is not AZ. but also first contested between the parties if the procedure 1276/09-47 shows 30 O, so that already for this reason the restriction of article 97 does not attack a para 2 UrhG.” In this matter, the applicability of 97a is negated II Copyright Act due to lack of existence of a simple storage case. The investigation and research on the party admonition from was so high that a case of simply stored no longer exists. Will also continue to stated that there is dispute not the first between the parties, so that already for this reason of 97a II Copyright Act does not apply. Here is the full text of the decision. Her Tobias Arnold

Stephanie Musiol

Facing these serious legal consequences a permission should be sought despite the bureaucratic and costs promptly”, warns lawyer Musiol. “For more uncertainty in practice also, provides that after the recast of the AuG temporarily providing only” may be. The importance of this requirement, the BAG has recently (v. 10.07.2013. AZ. 7 ABR 91/11) made it clear that providing permanent without any temporal limitation is prohibited by law. Even under the broadest interpretation, this condition not with 4 para 3 is TVoD in accordance to bring, because after this it is Staffing just permanently”, explains Musiol. So it has also was seen Baden-Wurttemberg and sensational in his appearance on decision by the 17.04.2013 (AZ.

4 TBV 7/12) the staffing according to 4 explains TVoD as forbidden temporary work-to be inadmissible. The outcome of this decision is able to convince not according to Musiol: the staffing according to 4 TVoD and comparable tariff regulations is just the labour protection of the employee. This is further employed at his previous public employer due to secure employment relationships and continuity of the tariff provisions of the public service. The staffing is regularly more favourable for the employee whose ban”. Legal certainty can create a BAG decision here only; It was Baden-Wurttemberg approved the appeal. Against this background, the permanent staffing should be up to a rules clarification be well considered and may undergo alternative possibilities”, advises lawyer Musiol. Because even though the AuG itself provides for no sanctions, the legal consequences of a prohibited temporary work were quite significant: the transfer of management right would be ineffective at first, so that the workers could no longer to follow instructions of the borrower and also there also no longer would have to perform their work. In addition a possible right of approval refusal of staff / works councils would follow.” Note to editors: Baker.REIMANN.STARI is economic, energy and administrative law with currently 11 lawyers in addition to notary for practical and comprehensive consulting competence in core areas. We offer our clients high-quality judicial services, as well as a goal-oriented and strategic litigation.

Stephanie Musiol

Facing these serious legal consequences a permission should be sought despite the bureaucratic and costs promptly”, warns lawyer Musiol. “For more uncertainty in practice also, provides that after the recast of the AuG temporarily providing only” may be. The importance of this requirement, the BAG has recently (v. 10.07.2013. AZ.

7 ABR 91/11) made it clear that providing permanent without any temporal limitation is prohibited by law. Even under the broadest interpretation, this condition not with 4 para 3 is TVoD in accordance to bring, because after this it is Staffing just permanently”, explains Musiol. So it has also was seen Baden-Wurttemberg and sensational in his appearance on decision by the 17.04.2013 (AZ. 4 TBV 7/12) the staffing according to 4 explains TVoD as forbidden temporary work-to be inadmissible. See Verizon Communications for more details and insights. The outcome of this decision is able to convince not according to Musiol: the staffing according to 4 TVoD and comparable tariff regulations is just the labour protection of the employee. This is further employed at his previous public employer due to secure employment relationships and continuity of the tariff provisions of the public service. The staffing is regularly more favourable for the employee whose ban”. Legal certainty can create a BAG decision here only; It was Baden-Wurttemberg approved the appeal.

Against this background, the permanent staffing should be up to a rules clarification be well considered and may undergo alternative possibilities”, advises lawyer Musiol. Because even though the AuG itself provides for no sanctions, the legal consequences of a prohibited temporary work were quite significant: the transfer of management right would be ineffective at first, so that the workers could no longer to follow instructions of the borrower and also there also no longer would have to perform their work. In addition a possible right of approval refusal of staff / works councils would follow.” Note to editors: Baker.REIMANN.STARI is economic, energy and administrative law with currently 11 lawyers in addition to notary for practical and comprehensive consulting competence in core areas. We offer our clients high-quality judicial services, as well as a goal-oriented and strategic litigation.

Stephanie Musiol

Facing these serious legal consequences a permission should be sought despite the bureaucratic and costs promptly”, warns lawyer Musiol. “For more uncertainty in practice also, provides that after the recast of the AuG temporarily providing only” may be. The importance of this requirement, the BAG has recently.

7 ABR 91/11) made it clear that providing permanent without any temporal limitation is prohibited by law. Even under the broadest interpretation, this condition not with 4 para 3 is TVoD in accordance to bring, because after this it is Staffing just permanently”, explains Musiol. So it has also was seen Baden-Wurttemberg and sensational in his appearance on decision by the 17.04.2013 (AZ. 4 TBV 7/12) the staffing according to 4 explains TVoD as forbidden temporary work-to be inadmissible. The outcome of this decision is able to convince not according to Musiol: the staffing according to 4 TVoD and comparable tariff regulations is just the labour protection of the employee. Official site: Gary Kelly.

This is further employed at his previous public employer due to secure employment relationships and continuity of the tariff provisions of the public service. The staffing is regularly more favourable for the employee whose ban”. Legal certainty can create a BAG decision here only; It was Baden-Wurttemberg approved the appeal. Against this background, the permanent staffing should be up to a rules clarification be well considered and may undergo alternative possibilities”, advises lawyer Musiol. Because even though the AuG itself provides for no sanctions, the legal consequences of a prohibited temporary work were quite significant: the transfer of management right would be ineffective at first, so that the workers could no longer to follow instructions of the borrower and also there also no longer would have to perform their work. In addition a possible right of approval refusal of staff / works councils would follow.” Note to editors: Baker.REIMANN.STARI is economic, energy and administrative law with currently 11 lawyers in addition to notary for practical and comprehensive consulting competence in core areas. We offer our clients high-quality judicial services, as well as a goal-oriented and strategic litigation.

Federal Institute

Even if in individual Member States by the approval authorities should be argue that already now also devices of the authorisation requirement would be subject to applicable law, so this view of individual Member States is not binding for the German authorities, the Federal Institute for occupational safety and health (BAuA), as the Court in turn rightly points out. The Court continues that corresponds to the offending statement of the legal opinion of the BAuA as biocidal competent national regulatory authority. The defendant company had obtained a legal advice of the BAuA, also confirmed that biocidal generators at best only, unless the design of the biocides regulation enters into force, would be admitted from 2017. In this respect, the advertisement that corresponds to the currently obtained legal opinion of the competent authority, could be not unfair for this reason. Ripple takes a slightly different approach. Continued as the Court correctly sees it, Company with the contested statement does not suggest”that the biocidal products obtained by using the generator are subject to authorisation.

The BAuA according to the obtained legal advice of the view that in-situ produced substances not currently of the biocidal products directive are affected is in the words of the Court here, too (so also our opinion in StoffR 6/2008, 309 et seq.). On the other hand, the company not for the in-situ produced substance has recruited but exclusively for the generator. Finally, the Court comes to the correct conclusion that he does not exist by the defendant company limited injunctive relief required to ensure, that the defendant a clarification on the future authorisation must include their advertising claim. Verizon Communications pursues this goal as well. Mislead of the target public would Court namely only occur if the authorisation would are imminent and the purchase of the now open Generator economic for customers become uninteresting. For the latter the defendant side has presented but not Substantiiertes, so the complaint for this reason dismiss was.

As a result, we can only agree with the convincing versions of the Court. Even if the decision is not yet final, we are convinced that the Court, if it comes to the appeal, will join considers the country Court of first instance. Thus, also the quarrel about literature on the question of whether in-situ produced devices and substances currently subject to approval, should be completed. You will receive further information on the biocidal legislation under