How Long Does Unopened Bottled Pinot Noir Last?

LG Berlin: Not every false statement of fact already constitutes a defamation of a legal entity under public law

LG Berlin - 27 O 76/08 to omission of a police president: ( PDF document )

"As far as the applicant of also with its applications to number 2) and 3) further injunctive relief claims, is contrary to the present case, is not with the person concerned is a state authority, thus a unit of a legal entity under public law. The patronage of a person of public right is not derived from the value judgments of Article 1 and 2 of the Basic Law, because they have no fundamental right wearer in performing their public duty can (BVerfGE 21, 362 ff, 23, 12 et seq , 24, 367 ff; BGH NJW 1983, 1183 et seq; VGH Kassel NJW 1990, 1005, OLG Hamburg AFP 2007, 488). She enjoys but criminal patronage to § 185 ff StGB and insulting attacks against civil liability in accordance. Protected § 823 para 2 BGB (BGH supra; Wenzel, the right of the word and Reporting, 5th Edition 5:26 marginal with further notes;.. Prince / Peters, Media Law para 193). With respect to the yield to criminal patronage is already evident from the wording of § 194 para 3 sentence 2 of the Criminal Code, which requires the ability to insult an authority.

[...]


"The detail put forward by the applicant suitability of the disputed claims for libel is not. first takes up the arguments of the applicant's too short, it would significantly on the truth of the allegations, it's because that it fails to recognize that not just any untrue statement of fact already constitutes a defamation of a legal person of public law. is undermined by the public nor for obvious and proven hoaxes defenseless, as the applicant thinks because the state want to do differently than the most basic entities certainly ways and means available to his point of view known and misinformation, contrary to connect

KG Berlin: Legal statement injunctive relief of the mayor
KG Berlin, Order of 12.01.2010, Az 9 W 259/09, Link: http://www.telemedicus.info/urteile/1005-9-W-25909.html

Summary the Court first

For utterance legal injunction with a public authority (here: Mayor of Berlin).

second Setting aside the risk of repetition after the injunction to be heard.

APPEAL COURT BERLIN

decision

Reference: 9 W 259/09

Delivered at: 12.01.2010

tenor

The immediate appeal of 16 December 2009 compared to the decision of the Landgericht Berlin, 15 December 2009 (Ref. 27 O 1158/09) at the expense of the applicant with a complaint of 10,000, - EUR rejected.

reasons

I.

The applicant takes issue with an immediate appeal against the rejection of his application for an interim injunction.

He still seeks the prohibition of the publication or dissemination by the defendant regarding the statement:

"W. wants more money for its domestic missions "

The district court based the dismissal that the "alleged violation of the law (is) not likely to affect the reputation of the applicant is concerned here not as a private person, but in his capacity as mayor, in a serious manner, especially since the defendant a correction has spread. " It could not are not taken into account that the applicant would have the facts about his press office to set the record straight and because of the correction by the defendant "had been informed public on the correct facts are" .
more here: KG Berlin: Legal statement injunctive relief of the mayor

see Injunctions Procedure I and II funds .... the city under Label

also employees of this agency are governed by public law ......

interesting theories regarding the mode of action and impact of the injunction Instruments "and" judicial development of the law "can people in Buskeismus theories - read features by Rolf Schälike .