Search

The article is about the revocation of the firearms permits of a member of the "Alternative for Germany" (AfD) party in Thuringia. The Thuringian Office for the Protection of the Constitution has classified the state association of the AfD as an object of observation in the field of right-wing extremism. Based on this assessment, the district has revoked the firearms permits of the applicant. The Administrative Court of Gera ruled in favor of the applicant, as it was not clearly established that the AfD state association pursued efforts against the constitutional order. The Higher Administrative Court has confirmed this decision and emphasized that the examination of reliability and the question of whether there are anti-constitutional efforts is the responsibility of the competent authority. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with a case before the Hamburg Higher Administrative Court, in which a plaintiff parked her rented vehicle in a parking bay that was allowed for non-electric vehicles. The police ordered the seizure of the vehicle and charged the plaintiff fees and expenses. The court ruled that the seizure order was unlawful and that the plaintiff was wrongly charged. The traffic sign indicating a parking ban for non-electric vehicles has no legal effect because it is not located in an area where parking is only allowed for electric vehicles. The appellate court rejected the argument that the parking ban could also be extended to the parking spaces immediately to the left and right of the traffic sign. [Extracted from the article]

The article "State liability for a fallen traffic sign" is about a lawsuit against the defendant due to a fallen road sign. The plaintiff, a car dealership, had parked their vehicle in front of their premises when the sign fell onto the car and damaged it. The plaintiff is demanding compensation for repair costs, expert fees, and attorney fees. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, but the regional court allowed for an appeal. The Federal Court of Justice ruled that the employees of the defendant, who had installed the sign, acted as administrative assistants and therefore cannot be held personally liable. It is emphasized that the sovereign nature of the entire measure is the focus, not just the individual activity that caused the damage. It is also noted that the private company had no relevant decision-making authority. [Extracted from the article]

The document titled "Reversing in the one-way street against the prescribed direction of travel is not permitted" is about a traffic accident in which a plaintiff sues the defendants for compensation for further material damage. The plaintiff had parked his vehicle forward in a driveway located on a one-way street. The defendant drove past the driveway in the direction of the one-way street. When the plaintiff reversed into the one-way street to collide with the defendant, the defendant reversed a few meters to make room for a vehicle pulling out. The court ruled that reversing in the one-way street against the prescribed direction of travel is not permitted. The lawsuit was partially decided in favor of the plaintiff, and the case is referred back to the appellate court for a new trial. [Extracted from the article]

An officer of the Federal Police has successfully sued for compensatory time off for rest breaks with standby duty. The Administrative Court partially ruled in favor of the officer and credited him with break times as working hours. The Appeals Court has ordered the defendant to credit the officer with additional break times as working hours. The Federal Administrative Court has partially allowed the officer's appeal. The Higher Administrative Court has ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to further compensatory time off of 105 minutes. The plaintiff's claim for the period until the end of July 2013 was denied due to lack of prior assertion. [Extracted from the article]

The article reports on a case before the Hamburg Higher Administrative Court, in which an applicant requested the issuance of an identity card without fingerprints. The administrative court had granted the request, but the opposing party successfully lodged an appeal. The Higher Administrative Court ruled that there is no obligation to issue a temporary identity card without fingerprints. It was also determined that the applicant could potentially apply for a provisional identity card that does not include fingerprints. The application for a provisional injunction was rejected as the applicant did not substantiate the grounds for such an injunction. The case was referred to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling to clarify whether the obligation to collect and store fingerprints in identity cards violates higher-ranking Union law. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with a legal dispute regarding the payment of a Hungarian road toll for the use of Hungarian highways. The plaintiff, a Hungarian company responsible for collecting the toll, has sued a domestic car rental company. The court ruled that the unpaid Hungarian road toll can be claimed against the domestic vehicle owner in German civil courts. It was determined that the provisions of Hungarian law regarding the liability of the vehicle owner and the toll fees do not contradict German legal principles. The claimed amount is 297,500 HUF and must be submitted in the correct currency, as Hungarian law does not provide for payment obligations in euros. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with the case of a plaintiff who has requested the registration of a specific date of birth in his German identity card and passport. The plaintiff was born in Algeria in 1957 and holds German citizenship. Since he could not present a document from his country of birth, only the year of birth was entered in his identification documents. The administrative court granted his claim, but the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate overturned the judgment and dismissed the claim. There is no entitlement to the registration of a specific date of birth in the identity card or passport. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a case before the Administrative Court of Trier, in which a plaintiff challenges an eviction order during a gathering. The court ruled that the eviction order was unlawful because there was no legal basis for it. The claim for a declaration that the eviction order had no effect at a later date was declared inadmissible because there was no legitimate interest in such a declaration. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with the case of an applicant who was considered unsuitable for police service due to her tattoos. The administrative court rejected her application for provisional admission to the selection process because there were doubts about her integrity and reliability. However, the administrative court of appeals changed the decision and obliged the respondent to provisionally admit the applicant to the further selection process. It is emphasized that tattoos can violate civil service obligations and that the character suitability of an applicant must be assessed prognostically. The article argues that the rejection of the applicant based on her tattoos was unfounded and that positive statements from her superiors in the Bundeswehr should be taken into account. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with a qualified red light violation during an overtaking maneuver on a right-turn lane at an intersection or junction. The district court sentenced the person concerned to a fine and a driving ban. The person's appeal was rejected, but the guilty verdict was changed. The Bavarian Higher Regional Court in Munich confirmed the judgment and stated that a driver who enters the intersection or junction area at a red light also commits a red light violation if they only use the right-turn lane for overtaking and then continue straight ahead. The court also confirmed the conviction for a violation of the obligation to maintain the direction of travel while overtaking. The fine and the driving ban were also confirmed. [Extracted from the article]

The article "Liability in the event of a collision after pulling out from the edge of the road" is about a traffic accident in which a van, which was parked in a parking bay, collided with a vehicle pulling out. The district court partially granted the claim for damages, while the regional court confirmed the liability ratio. However, the judgment of the appellate court was overturned because the assumption of a culpable violation of the Road Traffic Act by the defendant was flawed. It was determined that the defendant did not contribute to the accident with fault. However, it was not examined whether the defendant culpably violated another traffic regulation. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a case in which a driving ban was imposed due to a red light violation. The regional government has imposed a fine of 200 euros and a one-month driving ban on the person involved. The Darmstadt District Court has confirmed the verdict, and the complainant's appeal has been dismissed as unfounded. The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court has ruled that there is no exceptional circumstance that justifies deviating from the standard effect. Neither the severity of the offense nor the culpability of the action are sufficiently reduced to consider it an exceptional case. [Extracted from the article]