Business license for providing the loan advanced from Brussels comes a new policy that will govern only lending to consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises, which are secured by a mortgage or a commonly-used security. The proposal for a directive on credit agreements for residential real estate is at the level of the European Union just before the adoption. This directive includes important new features for the professional law of the intermediary of loan. Although the range of loan negotiation in Germany is already regulated in commercial law ( 34 c para 1 No. 1 a GewO). But the rules for mediators of loan should completely be recast to the implementation of this directive. It is assumed that the German legislature in the GewO but introduces no special regime for the provision of residential real estate loan contracts, but that there will be a single permission standard for providing loans in the future. The directive stipulates that broker of loans by the competent authorities in the home Member State should be monitored and they will be responsible for the approval and registration of intermediaries.

“Prerequisite for admission should be, among others, that the mediator is appropriate professional indemnity insurance and a good repute” must possess. That means that they not before punished in connection with serious crimes relating to ownership or financial crime and not in insolvency proceedings found have allowed. Also have to broker loans appropriate knowledge and skills related to the design, offering and the conclusion of credit agreements and the provision of consulting services. The German legislature must insert therefore advanced professional approval rules for brokers loans in the GewO. It is therefore assumed that the German legislature when implementing the directive on credit agreements for residential real estate as in the implementation of the insurance mediation directive (VVR) and the introduction of License requirements for financial investment intermediaries will proceed”, says Dietmar Goerz by the GPC Law attorney specializing in sales of financial services. It will be then old wine into new Wineskins.

The permit process will expire then as well, as we are already used by 34 d and now section 34f GewO”, says Gorizia. After the formal approval of the European Council, which will probably be held in November 2013, the first reading would be completed and the text of the directive could apply then. Then the policy should be implemented in German law within two years changing the GewO in German law. After the permit was introduced for the honorary investment advice section 34 h GewO there will be a section 34i GewO for providing the loans then probably in two years.

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).