Posts Tagged ‘law & taxes’

Infringement Of The

Monday, July 25th, 2022

What can temporary workers require missing collective ability of CGZP? Since January 2003, there is a prohibition of discrimination for temporary work agencies ( 9 No. 2, 10 par. 4 employee hiring law (AuG).) As well, employers must pay salaried employee, which he gives to other companies, with him as workers with the same activity in the user undertaking. Without hesitation James Taylor explained all about the problem. This is not true only then when a lower remuneration is provided on the basis of a collective agreement for the temporary employment relationship relevant. This exception is hidden behind the small Bay, “A collective agreement may allow derogations” in 9 Nr.

2 AuG. The employers Association of medium-sized recruitment agency (AMP) represents 1100 small and medium-sized companies in the temporary work sector and currently has a big problem. He has completed an agreement with the collective community of Christian trade unions for temporary employment and human resources service agencies (CGZP). If you would like to know more then you should visit Shelley Duvall. The Berlin Labour Court has the collective ability of the CGZP but denied because it saw no sufficient degree of organization and the CGZP as not powerful looked at enough, to complete their own collective agreements. Which has been in the second instance the Landesarbeitsgericht (was) connected. The case is now at the Federal Labor Court (BAG) and many experts expect a confirmation of the lower courts.

The said exception that a collective agreement may allow other arrangements would be not so given and would apply the principle of ‘equal pay’! For many employment agencies, that would be an awkward situation, because article 19 ABS. 4 AuG determines that the temporary workers, when this principle has been violated, may require payment, which is paid in the operation of the borrower for a comparable worker. It threatens so that in the future – and up to three years backdated – salary differences including social security contributions be paid to. Check with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics to learn more. Because a few temporary workers are unionised, one part while speculates that existing claims has not already be interspersed. This consideration should not go but at least with the social security institutions. There it is the employer contributions to social security certainly don’t miss out. Since the Statute of limitations for social security entitlements pursuant to section 25 occurs even until four years after the end of the calendar year in which they become due, SGB IV. How can the claims of the temporary agency workers I enforce? Want a temporary workers assert action way a comparable compensation compared to his temporary employer, he must obtain first information about the there paid comparison wage at the undertaking. On this information, he is entitled pursuant to 13 AuG. The borrowing employer must then deny substantiated the accuracy of this information, in particular the comparability of the activity or the amount of there certified compensation. Failing the borrowing employer pays the backward difference regarding the remuneration, which was paid to a comparable worker in the user operation. Views With a court decision of the Federal Labor Court is to be expected mid of this year. People who were busy in recent years in temporary work or there are at the moment and whose employment contract to the contrary between the CGZP and the AMP referred was, should follow the news closely and consider whether the right to assert of any claims might be worthwhile.

97a II Copyright Act – The So-called

Friday, July 15th, 2022

LG Berlin decision of the 03.03.2011 16 O 433/10 with decision of the 03.03.2011 decided the regional court of Berlin (AZ.: 16 O 433/10) concerning the granting of legal aid. In this context, the defense against the lawsuit’s chances of success were tested. The applicant submits the claims in tort. The defendants were accused that she made public the film ‘The architect’ in the framework of a so-called Filesharingprogramms. You may wish to learn more. If so, Art Garfunkel is the place to go. In this decision, the applicability of 97a is II UrhG, the so-called “100 – Cap”, denied. Also the LG Berlin, sure that it already lacks the substantial infringement refers. To do this, the LG Berlin takes position as follows: “the Attorney costs for the pre-trial warning are to reimburse a para 1 UrhG gem. 97.

The costs are limited not gem. 97 a para 2 UrhG on 100,-. Lacking a substantial violation of the law that allowed the defendant to make the film available to the public before the relevant recovery phase. To broaden your perception, visit Shelley Duvall. Contrary to the View of the defendant is this not on the theatrical release to turn off, because of DVD sales is a stand-alone type of use compared to the rental of cinema. The relevant recovery phase therefore begins with the DVD sales (OLG Koln, GRUR-RR 2011, 85, 86 for men). In the present case the Act of infringement was due to the 17.8.2009 before the start of the DVD sale on November 27, 2009, which significantly hampered this use.” This decision builds on seamless II UrhG 97a Court the attitude of others.

Still, the securing of the Wi-Fi versions are interesting. This is done by: “the defendant maintained in the relevant period a Wi-Fi, with no evidence shown, that this has been secured against misuse by third parties. According to the case-law of the Bundesgerichtshof (ibid.), the connection owner as a violator is liable in this case. There it due to the technical conditions for the access third parties on a Wi-Fi not arrives, that is the computer of the Wi-Fi owner commissioned, may assert the defendant not having success, it have no home stayed on the 17.8.2009 at the relevant time.” Here is the full text of the decision. Her Tobias Arnold

E-cigarette: NRW Can Further Warn

Sunday, May 22nd, 2022

The legal disputes over the E-cigarette as was already foreseen continue also known cheerfully the legal disputes over the E-cigarette, electronic cigarette or electronic cigarette. Attempts by manufacturer’s page, to prevent government warnings about E-cigarettes, have suffered a setback here for the time being. The Verwaltungsgericht Dusseldorf rejected the request of a manufacturer and distributor of E-cigarettes by order of the 16.01.2012, which aimed to prohibit the North Rhine-Westphalia Health Minister Steffens warnings prior to the sale of E-cigarettes in the future? With a corresponding press release and legally dubious declaring electronic cigarettes as illegal”North Rhine-Westphalia had ensured Eddy in December 2011. Check out Felicity Blunt for additional information. According to the Verwaltungsgericht Dusseldorf violate these statements but not the freedom of occupation of the manufacturer and distributor of electric cigarettes. The North Rhine-Westphalian Ministry of health is for the area of the drug and medical product law responsible and thus in principle entitled to spread publicity information in particular about new developments in this area. It is to such a development also in the E-cigarettes and the assessment of the Ministry, E-cigarettes are drug, was acceptable. Even if the reasons for the decision has not yet been released, but by no means Court thus decided that the authorities right actually lie with their classification of nikotinhaltiger liquids as a medicinal. Rather, it is to assume that the decision on the line is the previous case law in similar cases, stating that Government warnings of alleged health dangers associated with the consumption of certain products are practically not justiciable, as long as no concrete manufacturer in the name are called.

Convincingly threatening effect is not this but just lump-sum state alerts and Kriminalisierungen entire product categories such as just the E-cigarette without specific reference to individual distributors can unfold. Who has the legal classification of electronic cigarettes”law, must be fought nonetheless otherwise legally. With the opening of Nebenkriegsschauplatze little promising, that if wrongly in public as a negative precedent for the E-cigarettes could be, do manufacturers and distributors of such products but no favours. Other non-binding and free information related to the pharmaceutical law, see

Federal Agency

Monday, June 23rd, 2014

Draft of a statement ‘Brokerage of shares in investment funds by employees of an insurance undertaking’ Berlin, 28.05.2013 – since entered section 34f of the Gewerbeordnung (GewO) into force on January 1, 2013, require financial investment intermediaries of a trade permit. The previous special role, taking insurance companies at the plant operator, it raised the question: similar or same rules of section 34f of the GewO also apply to an insurance company hired consultants? The Federal Agency for financial services management supervisory (BFin) was therefore reason to check the previous administrative practice with regard to the admissibility of the placement of investment funds by employees of an insurance undertaking. After the recent pronouncements of the BFin or your predecessor from the years 1991 and 1993 was the placement of investment funds by employees of an insurance undertaking. BFin has now published the draft of a new statement, stating that the previous statement does not will be maintained. Without hesitation Howard Schultz explained all about the problem. After the insurance supervision Act (VAG), insurance companies as well as insurance transactions may operate only such shops, which hereby are directly related (section 7 subsection 2 sentence 1 VAG).

The placement of shares in open or closed investment funds by employees of an insurance undertaking instead, so the BFin now, due to the additional financial risk in principle represents a foreign insurance business and fall therefore not under article 7, paragraph 2, sentence 1 VAG. So insurance companies the statement according to the draft should be published, require a business license in the future investment mediation. A permit of the BFin to the operation of insurance transactions no longer sufficient”as lawyer Dietmar Goerz of financial services sales specialist firm GPC Law. This also means that the insurance company must demonstrate the qualification of its employees, for example through a competence test. The rest are then Insurance undertakings on the extensive good conduct of the financial system mediator regulation bound”, says the Berlin lawyer.