Change Padlock Combination

11 injunctions of the textile discounter KIK against the NDR

According to reports in the media, the television broadcast of the critical contribution of the textile company "KIK" of the NDR, which could be rotated through a very complex investigation by Christoph Lütgert, by using 11 injunctions are prevented. "Exclusive ARD: The KiK Story

The sordid business of the price trigger
FOCUS TV Club:

reports on the film, too cheap at a price

The KiK Story 2: failed attempt at censorship

NDR sets in the suit against KiK successfully earn after

Legal injunctions to very good. Possible that this also decreases the threshold when it comes to mandates to assume their action claims seem questionable.

Unfortunately, it appears that few Lawyers, who call themselves as "the institutions of justice", a free report with the help of the given legal possibilities - to help prevent - thanks to Worth's own possibilities.

The Movie: review: ARD-exclusiv: The Story KiK (NDR), the lousy methods of textile discounter: aired Wednesday, 4 August 2010, 21.45 clock in the First

video for broadcast

injunctions are actually a curious construct. Thanks Zivilgerichtsweg here can possibly real or alleged "crime" with high value, and without the strict rules of evidence in criminal law be pursued.

addition, the injunctions are based on less tangible, that is concrete and easily verifiable violations of the law, but rather on vague, undefined rights, which should make ethical and moral claims originally enforceable in court. There should be about fairness in business dealings and to consideration of individual rights. Although Germany is the principle that the Court is bound by applicable law, we look in vain for injunctions clear and concrete bases for claims in the law. Rather

is more "law" to keep what the particular judge for that. And so finds many a Omission complained that his behavior is evaluated depending on the dish location completely different and that each of the second court can be the determining factor for a conviction or a denial of the injunction desire. The principle of presumption of innocence "in dupio the doubt - the doubt until proven guilty" does not apply here. Rather, in "Who complains has (mostly) right."

In technical terms this Vorgehebsweise outside specifically formulated laws and "judicial development of the law" is mentioned. And as the judicial development of the law is applied differently in each case, the law is regarding such complaints also from completely different. This leads to the conclusion that the Zivilgerichtsweg criminal "convictions" can be enforced, which could possibly keep in any state criminal court.

The so-called "flying jurisdiction" seek applicants from those courts and court facilities, which - put the rights of the plaintiffs right to free speech - thanks to the particular (subjective) judicial intuition. Plaintiffs are thus in a particularly strong position

• you only need to take an oath to say that the defendant lays false statements of fact.
• Who makes such a statutory declaration - even if it is untrue - has little to fear at first.
• looking from the court, which for its "plaintiff-friendly" is known

Another advantage for the plaintiff. The defendant can not be heard before a decision. He is surprised with a verdict. Even the legal costs of such a sentence is immediately enforceable without having to wait for the plaintiff lawyer to complete the procedure.

It appears not only in the KIK-case but also in other injunction proceedings in many cases, the applicants less about their rights or ethics and morality to go, but rather on the prevention of the existing reporting Grievances, which should be possible still kept hidden.

afraid According to reporting by KIK - not plaintiffs in court before return to real facts in question.

is clear from this example:

Our judicial system and the possibility, without obtaining the right to a hearing to the opposing party, within a few days enforceable "final judgments" has reversed these original laws of thought into its opposite:

For the courts are subject to only a superficial requirement for consideration. Depending on the type of presentation is an examination of the applicant Presentation of court side - without evidence - not possible. Only adversary, who are financially well equipped and have access to appropriate public interest may effectively defend themselves against it and encourage that the courts seised review, according to the facts in detail.

The German judiciary is swamped by injunctions, so that in many cases, unfortunately, no longer a major review and is therefore likely to proceed along the lines, and must be moved:

"Who complains is right"

Lots of money can - thanks to high values in dispute - Do with injunctions, so that the applicants representatives - including the "institutions of justice" referred to - not so much on the former principles of the civil legal way to enforce morality and Ehtik, but rather be based on their interest in lucrative income.

injunctions increasingly seem to serve only one purpose:

"Who has something to hide, complaining ".....

Last night was the film in the ARD.

• When you consider that the main clientele at KIK are especially Hartz-IV-families and
• If you consider that expected of Hartz IV recipients is that they are to meet their clothing needs at cheap discount stores ....
• when you consider that this could in turn promote the plight of children in other countries unterstützenund ...
• when you consider that German youth welfare offices were forced because of an obvious risk in child welfare for those countries so affected children taken into care
• here but if you consider that Chris is impressed by Lütgert family cohesion in the families so affected children ...

then we must ask ourselves the question: Why

is the finding a child's welfare at risk of neglect, poverty, disease, inadequate nutrition, etc. so different from when children are involved in another country? Listens to charity at the German border on, or has there about the emotional and family ties and relationships is more important than in Germany? been noted Lütgert

like in the movies Chrisoph report to law was: "Everything is somehow connected to everything." I think it is very important that we should be particularly much about them, such as employee exploitation in Germany and abroad and how rude business practices negatively affect existing social and family conditions may have. How much charity is allowed or possible in a society where such exploitative practices in such a short set limits?

this movie report, which is after the recent searches (caused by the injunctions against the NDR) came about, I can recommend it.

Panorama - The Reporter : New allegations against KiK

After the first episode of "KiK Story" came forward many KiK employees. Reporter Chris Lütgert has gone to new clues in the discount clothing more

The interview with the KIK-Advocate

KIK ATTORNEY: Do you like fighting for exploiters, Mr. Scheuerl? The textile giant KiK is massively under fire interview CHRISTOPH HEINEMANN
"[...] Scheuerl. KiK's not a sweatshop There are many false claims have been put into circulation "..

My next suggestion for an interesting report. (Who knows what could see for scandalous new information to the public eye .......):

"fact suppression by using injunctions. Facts and Background "