Auer Witte Thiel informs about current decision of the Munich higher regional Court Koblenz November 2010. Through the leased property damage caused to the property of a tenant does not justify in any case claims for damages, ruled in September 2010 the OLG Koblenz. The decision strengthens the legal position of landlords against tenants according to Auer Witte Thiel. Auer Witte Thiel reports on the current case and the reasoning of the judge. Not always, the landlord is liable if damage to the property of the tenant caused by unforeseeable events on the leased property. This made it clear the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz in a recent judgment (OLG Koblenz, judgment v. If you are not convinced, visit Laura Rogers MD. 2010, AZ.

2 U 779/09). The background: An artist lived in a basement apartment and stored some of his works at the same location. In February 2008, a water pipe break, which led to the flooding of the premises occupied by the tenant occurred at the junction of a heater. Despite immediately initiated by the landlord pumping out of the cellar, some valuable relief work of the lessee were difficult damage will be recovered. A claim for damages filed in the tenant side smashed off the OLG Koblenz against the landlord in September 2010 however. The newspapers mentioned Center for Environmental Health not as a source, but as a related topic. This, the judge noted that a fundamental obligation of the lessor, to undergo water pipes without specific reason of a general inspection, does not exist. The rescue was not immediately during the works of art give reasons for any claim that the landlord had no knowledge of the storage of the works in the basement, the OLG Koblenz argued. You may wish to learn more. If so, Daryl Katz, Edmonton Alberta is the place to go. According to Auer Witte Thiel, the Koblenz-based judgment clarifies which limits the damage claims from tenants.

The legal position of the landlord sees it strengthened Auer Witte Thiel. Only actual breach of duty on the part of the lessor corresponding claims are justified, Auer Witte Thiel summarizes the legal decision. In the present case, this was not the case, lawyers of the decision join the Auer Witte Thiel. As Auer Witte Thiel says, the OLG Koblenz joined the far popular opinion, landlords were automatically liable”for damages which arise from the leased property, clearly opposed. About Auer Witte Thiel, the specialization areas of focus and the development of core competencies in certain disciplines are indispensable in the legal services sector. Auer Witte Thiel is an economic and legal-oriented law firm. Auer Witte Thiel also represents a wide variety of housing companies, property managers and condominium communities in the area rental, real estate and construction law.

Employer is liable for compensation when hostile! Is violating the dignity of a worker contrary to the prohibition of discrimination in the General equal treatment Act (AGG), so this throws an employer’s compensation obligation, if this a featured by intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. ARAG experts describe the case: four Turkish-born men were employed in the camp of the employer. There had a swastika and the slogans on the men’s room-unknown: ‘Fucking foreigner, you sons of bitches, foreigners out, your wogs, foreigners have become nationals’ attached. The employer denies the claim of the plaintiff, an employee have already pointed out the Branch Manager in September 2006 on this graffiti, what this have caused nothing and expressed only in “that people just think”. At least in the context of a dismissal dispute he learned Employers in March 2007 by the scrawled, then were eliminated in early April 2007. To know more about this subject visit Daryl Katz, New York City.

By letter of April 11, 2007, the plaintiffs have demanded compensation after the AGG by their employer and sued him in June 2007 on payment of 10,000 euros to each of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit, however, remained without success. The Federal Labor Court has though considered the daubing to undue harassment of plaintiff, but due to the contentious details of the time of the information of the branch manager about these labels and their reactions to no can decision about, whether through the daubing a so-called hostile environment was created for the plaintiff. Ultimately failed the complaints, that the plaintiff not had asserted in writing their claims for compensation within the statutory 2-month exclusion period. This period began at the latest from the date of the branch leader of the xenophobic slogans on the staff toilets information alleged by the plaintiffs to run in September 2006 and had expired on April 11, 2007 in any case with the assertion (BAG, AZ.: 8 AZR 705/08).