law

Settlement agreement and involuntary termination hit it? Are you been terminated by your employer? For the case that it has passed an involuntary termination, it is to seek the advice of a specialist lawyer for employment law as quickly as possible. Not every involuntary dismissal is automatically lawful. Such involuntary termination are regularly very strict legal requirements to make and accordingly such involuntary termination well before the Labour Court can be checked. You should go early in negotiations with the employer over a settlement agreement, as when filing a dismissal lawsuit against an involuntary dismissal before the Labour Court, usually a comparison is aimed at by the judge. When making this comparison, the Labour Court in Munich however sets a factor of 0.5 of calculating an indemnity basis. In free-market capitalism, and especially also in negotiations with employers can be certainly factors of 1.0 2.0 in individual cases for terminated employees to get out. What ever this factor means, he is part of an economic calculation of severance.

The factor of 0.5, which is put at the Labour Court of severance based, forms the bottom border and is accordingly to avoid. Promptly contact a specialist lawyer for employment law and try to proceed with this not only against the dismissal by dismissal lawsuit, but to negotiate a settlement contract in advance of such a dismissal process. You will see that this is usually much more successful and more convenient for you, strictly carry out as a dismissal process. There are many positions in such settlement agreement, which are freely negotiable and definitely be granted depending on the individual case and also strategy by employers. Seek therefore the advice of a specialist lawyer for employment law. For 17 years, lawyer Georg Schafer successfully makes such settlement agreements with the most diverse employers in all Germany. This lawyer Georg Schafer scored regularly particularly favourable results for the workers across Germany with great success. Georg Schafer Attorney

The penalty charge notice and its consequences every one of you have will probably even a parking ticket. What is it actually? Especially to run periods, within which are against such a ticket”must fight, if you would not accept its legal consequences. The usual ticket who is stuck behind the windshield wipers, concerns typically Park violations due to parking time, time overruns or parking in the zone. If a penalty charge notice in the House flapping you, then you had usually also earlier post. Hear from experts in the field like Dropbox for a more varied view. Has provided the opportunity is to the point and sent to also subpoena to the incident to comment and if you. I can only strongly recommend to take any action without legal help and make the thing above all no information before not a lawyer for OWI right has advised.

The penalty charge notice binding regulates the action of a misdemeanor. From 40.00 penalty threat the offense in the central register of traffic offenders will be entered and diligently, you earn points. This applies strongly to avoid it. With 18 points, the licence is definitely gone. Against a penalty charge notice, you should appeal and seek advice from a qualified lawyer for misdemeanor law so within 14 days. There are always ways and means, how it can help you from the legal consequences of a penalty notice. Georg Schafer Attorney

Warning file sharing Munich courts update their course a connection owner determined, while he is a so-called Internet Exchange a down / upload of copyrighted music or film works has made, can assume that he receives a warning with the invitation to make of a punitive Declaration and the payment of sinfully expensive claims for damages and reimbursement of legal costs of the industrial firms from the major industrial firms. What can you do? What do you do to relieve himself? The Supreme Court has accordingly in one of his classic decisions summer of our lives”was decided in the judgment of May 12, 2010: a connection owner is determined, such as in a so-called Internet Exchange a down / upload of copyrighted works does, is an actual assumption to think that he who is the offender the down / upload has made. It is now the connection owner a so-called secondary presentation load to present why this Conjecture is false. Visit Kaihan Krippendorff for more clarity on the issue. Without going too deep in legal argument, I summarize the requirements together, have hired previously Munich-based dishes on this so-called secondary presentation last for inter nice user to their relief in the following. First the courts quarreled about what be understood under a real presumption; If such was ever widerleglich. This dispute is settled, since already conceptually indexed the Widerleglichkeit conjecture. The Supreme Court has spoken of conjecture and not by fixed fact.

How do the rebuttal of the presumption of actual criminals of Internet users? The Munich State Court has expressed in detail in his judgment of the 14.02.2012 to the scale of this. It a so-called deviant action flow should be presented by the connection owner which excluded or sufficiently likely in the life experience, that the injury not can be committed during the period from the time of him themselves as perpetrators. ” This strict standard was almost a burden of proof as a result. The connection owner almost had to prove that he is not the culprit. This could be but not the correct scale indefinitely, because the Supreme Court then has not spoken in his decision of secondary burden of proof, but secondary presentation load. In 3 current proceedings of our firm we have to determine now a course correction of the magistrate in the AG of Munich. Fortunately the judges no longer assume a sufficiently unlikely after the life experience or even to exclude offenders as a relief, but it must be the serious possibility of a different sequence of events, stating that due to plausible lecture the connection owner as perpetrators can excrete. Correctly the judge justify that now just the BGH has not spoken of a secondary burden of proof for the connection owner for relief, but only by a secondary presentation load to its relief. We will be back report, as soon as we have the decisions in the 3 current procedures. Georg Schafer Attorney