HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: news@paragraf.nbg.sub.org
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: JUS 9239.4.1 Competition                
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 18:07:23 +0100
Organization: VDJ Nuernberg

ENR   : 2482
HD    : 4. Competition
TI    : Commission Decision - Article 85 of the EEC Treaty - Distribution of
        tickets - World Cup
RF    : JUS 9239.4.1
AB    : This Commission Decision has already been reported in JUS 37.4.1.
        It has just been published in the Official Journal.
        It will be recalled that, following a complaint from the travel
        agency Pauwels Travel, the Commission decided to initiate an
        enquiry concerning the ticket distribution system applied during
        the FIFA World Cup held in Italy in 1990. More particularly, the
        Commission examined the compatibility with Community rules of
        competition of the contracts through which the World Cup organizers
        conferred on the company "90 Tour Italia" world exclusive rights
        for the supply of stadium entrance tickets for the purpose of putting
        together package tours. In this Decision, the Commission noted that
        world exclusive rights conferred on the company "90 Tour Italia" had
        the effect of:
        - restricting competition between tour operators within the Community:
        the only package tours including ground entrance tickets available
        on the market were those put together by 90 Tour Italia. Other tour
        operators were able to offer only package tours that did not
        include ground entrance tickets. Consequently, tour operators that
        were not able to offer such package tours were at a considerable
        competitive disadvantage  vis-a-vis 90 Tour Italia;
        - restricting competition between travel agencies within the
        Community: if world exclusive rights had not been granted to
        90 Tour Italia, travel agencies would have been able to choose
        between a number of tour operators and possibly obtain more
        favourable terms. This Commission Decision is addressed to :
        - "90 Tour Italia",
        - Col Italia,
        - Compagnia Italiana Turismo,
        - Federation internationale de football association,
        - Federazione italiana gioco calcio,
        - Italia Tour. O.J. No L 326 of 12 November 1992, p.31.
CT    : Competition; Distribution
DT    : 921120
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
From: schmidt@PrakInf.TH-Ilmenau.DE (Schmidt)
Subject: Versandhandel
Reply-To: schmidt@PrakInf.TH-Ilmenau.DE (Schmidt)
Organization: Technische Universitaet Ilmenau
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:58:26 GMT

Hi!

Bei viele Versandhandelsfirmen besteht die M"oglichkeit einen Artikel
bei Nichtgefallen innerhalb einer bestimmten Frist ( meist 14 Tage )
zur"uckzuschicken. Meine Frage dazu ist:

Gibt es gesetzliche Vorschriften, die sowas erzwingen oder ist
das Kundenfreundlichkeit der entsprechenden Firma ?

Danke schon mal!

-- 
Sebastian Schmidt			
TU Ilmenau Institut f. praktische Informatik
From: rabe@kaa.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Ralf G. R. Bergs)
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: Re: Versandhandel
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:06:59 GMT
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik - RWTH Aachen
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaa.informatik.rwth-aachen.de

schmidt@PrakInf.TH-Ilmenau.DE (Schmidt) writes:

[Rueckgaberecht bei Versandhandel]
>Gibt es gesetzliche Vorschriften, die sowas erzwingen oder ist
>das Kundenfreundlichkeit der entsprechenden Firma ?

Letzteres.


Ralf

-- 
Ralf G. R. Bergs, Aachen University of Technology EE (comp. eng.) student 
snail: H"uckeswagener Str. 42, D-W5270 Gummersbach, Fed. Rep. of Germany
phone: (+49) 22 61-2 19 68 (answ. mach.)
email: rabe@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
From: news@paragraf.nbg.sub.org
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: JUS 9240.7.3 Taxation, Finance          
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 21:22:57 +0100
Organization: VDJ Nuernberg

ENR   : 2504
HD    : 7. Taxation, Monetary Policy, Finance
TI    : Judgment of the Court of Justice - Directive 69/335/EEC - raising of
        capital - capital duty
RF    : JUS 9240.7.3
AB    : Directive 69/335/EEC (OJ 1969, No. L 249, p. 25) concerns indirect
        taxation on raising of capital. Article 4 (2b) of this Directive
        authorizes Member States to submit certain services provided by a
        director on behalf of the company to capital duty. More
        particularly, in virtue of this provision, services provided by a
        partner which increase the assets of a limited company can be
        taxed, although they do not increase the capital, if their
        counterpart is a modification in the partners' rights or if they are
        likely to increase the value of the shares. The Budesfinanzhof
        (Germany) referred to the Court of Justice for two preliminary
        rulings on whether the above-mentioned provision of Directive
        69/335/EEC authorizes the Member States to submit a transfer of
        profit between companies controlled by the same partner to capital
        duty. The Court of Justice noted that in virtue of Article 4 (2b) of
        Directive 69/335/EEC, capital duty can be levied on a transfer of
        profits between companies held by a common partner when it is clear
        under the circumstances of the case that a payment is being made
        by the common partner to one of his companies using the second as
        an intermediary.
        The Court specified, however, that a transfer of profits cannot be
        considered capital formation when the company receiving the amounts
        transferred holds shares in the company which pays them and is
        authorized to receive income from those shares. According to the
        Court, this operation must be considered a distribution of
        dividends which, by nature, cannot be subject to capital duty.
        Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 October 1993, case C-49-91
        Weber Haus GmbH and Co. v. Finanzamt Freiburg-Land, not yet published.
CT    : Taxation
DT    : 921127
From: news@paragraf.nbg.sub.org
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: JUS 9241.8.1 Consumer protection        
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 17:31:29 +0100
Organization: VDJ Nuernberg

ENR   : 2516
HD    : 8. Consumer Protection
TI    : Opinion of the European Parliament - Proposal for a Directive on
        comparative advertising
RF    : JUS 9241.8.1
AB    : The European Parliament gave its opinion on the proposal for a
        Directive concerning comparative advertising and amending Directive
        84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising (Doc. COM (91) 147
        -  SYN 343; O.J. No C 180 of 11.7.1991, p.14).
        In its opinion, the European Parliament (rapporteur Mrs. R. Oomen-
        Ruijten) proposes a certain number of amendments notably concerning:
        - the addition of a new recital (14a) which states that the
        Directive does not affect specific Community rules on advertising
        for certain products (tobacco products or pharmaceuticals for human
        use);
        - Article 1 (3) of the Directive: pursuant to the amendments proposed
        by the European Parliament: * Comparative advertising shall be
        allowed, only if it objectively compares the material, relevant, at
        all times verifiable, objectively determinable, fairly chosen and
        representative features of competing goods or services ;
        * A competitor's trade mark or trade name cannot be used except
        where necessary to identify the competitor's goods, services or
        activities for comparative purposes; * any reference to the
        competitor's person or circumstances is prohibited; * Any comparison
        presenting products or services as imitations or copies of products
        or services already protected by registered trade marks, trade names
        or designations of origin is inadmissible. * Reference to or
        reproduction of the results of comparative tests on goods or services
         shall be permitted in advertising  only if: a) the test has been
        carried out by a recognized, neutral body, consumer associations or
        organizations, b) the body in question has given its express consent,
        c) the advertiser expressly accepts responsibility for the test as if
        it had been performed by himself or under his direction;
        * Reference to or reproduction of individual or collective opinions
        or testimonials in comparative advertising shall not be permitted.
        European Parliament, Minutes of proceedings of the sitting of 18
        November 1992, PE 162.994, PV 38, p.80.
CT    : Consumer; Advertising
DT    : 921204
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
From: borchert@titania.mathematik.uni-ulm.de (Andreas Borchert)
Subject: Schadensfall verursacht durch 6-jaehrigen Jungen
Organization: University of Ulm, SAI
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:11:53 GMT

Einem Bekannten von mir ist folgendes passiert: Auf der Fahrt
von der Arbeit nach Hause durch die Hauptstrasse unseres
Ortes warf ein kleiner Steppke von 6 Jahren einen recht
grossen Stein auf das Auto meines Bekannten. Der Stein traf
die Heckscheibe und verursachte damit einen groesseren Schaden
(Reparaturkosten ca. DM 1000,-).

Der Junge lief nicht weg und es war kein Problem fuer meinen
Bekannten ihn zu seinen Eltern zu begleiten. Die meinten,
alles sei kein Problem, schliesslich habe man eine Haftpflicht-
versicherung. Nach einer anschliessenden Aufnahme durch die
Polizei schien alles ordnungsgemaess zu laufen bis...

...er ein Schreiben von der Versicherung erhielt, die folgendermassen
argumentiert. Der kleine Steppke ist keine 7 Jahre alt und
damit schuldunfaehig. Ferner haben die Eltern Ihre Aufsichtspflicht
nicht verletzt und haften deswegen auch nicht. Und damit
scheint mein Bekannter auf seinem Schaden sitzen zu bleiben.

Entspricht dies der tatsaechlichen Rechtslage?

Fuer Tips waere ich ausserordentlich dankbar!

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________

Andreas Borchert, University of Ulm, SAI, D-W-7900 Ulm, Germany
Internet: borchert@mathematik.uni-ulm.de
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: Private Haftpflichtversicherung (Re: Schadensfall...)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 12:03:39 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft math/inf, Uni Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: irau31.ira.uka.de
Summary: Vorsicht!
X-Disclaimer: Das ist keine Rechtsauskunft - ich bin kein Jurist

In article <1992Dec17.101153.29721@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de> borchert@titania.mathematik.uni-ulm.de (Andreas Borchert) writes:
>
>Der Junge lief nicht weg und es war kein Problem fuer meinen
>Bekannten ihn zu seinen Eltern zu begleiten. Die meinten,
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Was darauf hindeutet, dass diese nicht anwesend waren, und damit
eventuell ihre Aufsichtspflicht verletzt haben. (Das ist pure
Spekulation!) 

>alles sei kein Problem, schliesslich habe man eine Haftpflicht-
>versicherung. Nach einer anschliessenden Aufnahme durch die

Vorsicht mit der Haftpflichtversicherung! Der dabei wohl am
h"aufigsten verletzte Grundsatz ist:

NIEMALS die Schuld eingestehen! Dann zahlt die Versicherung nicht!
Lieber auf einen Prozess ankommen lassen, der dann von der
Versicherung bezahlt wird (dazu braucht man keine
Rechtsschutzversicherung.) (*)

Vielmehr muss man als Sch"adiger immer die Schuld von sich weisen, und
sich vom Gesch"adigten verklagen lassen, auch wenn die Lage klar ist
und man sich implizit (niemals aussprechen) schon auf die Begleichung
durch die versicherung geeinigt hat! Den Prozess zahlt die
Versicherung.

>Polizei schien alles ordnungsgemaess zu laufen bis...
>
>...er ein Schreiben von der Versicherung erhielt, die folgendermassen
>argumentiert. Der kleine Steppke ist keine 7 Jahre alt und
>damit schuldunfaehig. Ferner haben die Eltern Ihre Aufsichtspflicht
>nicht verletzt und haften deswegen auch nicht. Und damit

Natuerlich, das machen die Versicherungen immer. Die zahlen meistens
erst, wenn von einem Gericht festgestellt worden ist, dass sie das
m"ussen. Aus deren Sicht ist das durchaus logisch, weil sonst gerade
die Privathaftpflicht viel zu leicht missbraucht werden k"onnte.

>scheint mein Bekannter auf seinem Schaden sitzen zu bleiben.

Das passiert genau in folgendem Fall: Kind verursacht Schaden und
Eltern haben ihre Aufsichtspflicht NICHT verletzt, ergo: Kind muss
nicht zahlen (weil nicht schuldf"ahig) und Eltern m"ussen nicht zahlen
(weil kein schuldhaftes Verhalten vorliegt).

Das ist ein "argerlicher Zustand, aber so ist nunmal die Rechtslage.
Einziger Rat in einem solchen Fall: Anwalt nehmen, und je nachdem ob
der das f"ur sinnvoll h"alt, klagen!

(*) Und dann wird immer dar"uber geschimpft, es g"abe eine
Prozesslawine wegen der vielen Rechtsschutzversicherungen... dabei
sind es die Haftpflichtversicherer, die mit ihren Bedingungen Prozesse
geradezu erzwingen! (Nicht dass ich das unbedingt f"ur falsch halte.)

Olaf
-- 
| Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student  |   o     | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address |
| univ. of karlsruhe - germany |  _>\ _  | s_titz@ira.uka.de   | is still    |
| +49-721-60439                | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc      | valid       |
  "My heart is human - my blood is boiling - my brain IBM" - Mr. Roboto
From: news@paragraf.nbg.sub.org
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: JUS 9240.4.1 Competition                
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 21:25:18 +0100
Organization: VDJ Nuernberg

ENR   : 2495
HD    : 4. Competition
TI    : Commission Decision - Article 85 of the EEC Treaty - Fine -
        International Union of Railways (UIC)
RF    : JUS 9240.4.1
AB    : The Commission imposed a fine of ECU 1 million on the International
        Union of Railways (UIC) for infringement of the provisions of Article
        85 of the EEC Treaty. In its Decision, the Commission noted that the
        railway companies, members of the UIC, acted in concert to :
        -  lay down the conditions for granting approval to travel agencies
        to sell railway tickets, and the conditions under which those
        agencies can sell such tickets;
        - to set a single rate of commission paid to the agencies for
        ticket distribution as well as uniform conditions for payment of the
        commission. According to the Commission, this concerted action of
        railway companies within the UIC had an anti-competitive effect in so
        far as :
        - the appointment of a travel agency in a Member State can only be
        made by the national railway company. Thus the railway can control
        the number of travel agencies which can compete with it for ticket
        sales;
        - laying down a single rate of commission prevents the agencies
        from obtaining better conditions, conditions which might have proved
        beneficial to their customers;
        - forbidding travel agencies to pass on part of their commission
        to their customers prevent competition both between travel
        agencies, and between the travel agents as a group and the railway
        undertakings. Commission, IP/92/961, 25 November 1992.
CT    : Competition; Agreement between undertakings
DT    : 921127
From: news@paragraf.nbg.sub.org
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: JUS 9239.8.1 Consumer protection        
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 18:05:45 +0100
Organization: VDJ Nuernberg

ENR   : 2490
HD    : 8. Consumer Protection
TI    : Study of the Commission - Transborder financial transactions
RF    : JUS 9239.8.1
AB    : In February 1992, the Commission requested a study on the cost of
        transborder financial transactions.
        In the context of this study, 160 transfers were carried out
        between 11 Member States for a total amount of ECU 130. The study
        showed that the average cost of each operation was more than 18% of
        the amount transferred. In view of the results of the study,
        Commissioner Van Miert observed that the operation of the single
        market for means of payment must still be improved considerably to
        the benefit of the consumer. Considering that one of the main reasons
        for the high cost of the transactions in question is the absence of
        transparency, the European Commssioner recalled that in February
        1990, the Commission published a Recommendation on the transparency
        of banking terms applicable to transborder financial transactions.
        Mr. Van Miert deplored the fact that the sector in question has not
        yet put that Recommendation into practice and emphasized that if
        rapid progress is not made in this field, the Commission may turn to
        legislative measures. Commission, IP/92/873, 4 November 1992.
CT    : Consumer
DT    : 921120
From: news@paragraf.nbg.sub.org
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: JUS 9240.4.3 Competition                
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 21:24:45 +0100
Organization: VDJ Nuernberg

ENR   : 2497
HD    : 4. Competition
TI    : State Aids
RF    : JUS 9240.4.3
AB    : The Commission has decided to approve the following aids :
        - a tax aid scheme for investment notified by the Portuguese
        Authorities : this aid, which takes the form of an annual tax
        exemption up to a certain percentage of the investment realized in
        the same year, aims at the conversion, modernization and
        internationalisation of certain sectors of industry ( Commission,
        IP/92/958, 25 November 1992);
        - an aid awarded by the Belgian Authorities to the company
        Verlipack which manufactures and markets container glass. This aid
        takes the form of a subsidy of 502 million Belgian francs and of
        a loan of 500 million Belgian francs ( Commission, IP/92/955, 25
        November 1992);
        - an aid awarded by the land of Basse-Saxe (Germany), under the
        form of guarantees to Rawe GMBH company which pursues its
        activities in the sector of textile and synthetic fibres (
        Commission, IP/92/957, 25 November 1992).
        - aids awarded by the German Authorities to the coal-mining
        industry of a total amount of 11.844 million of DM ( Commission,
        IP/92/963, 25 November 1992).
CT    : Competition; State aid
DT    : 921127
From: news@paragraf.nbg.sub.org
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: JUS 9239.14.1 External relations        
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 18:05:21 +0100
Organization: VDJ Nuernberg

ENR   : 2492
HD    : 14. External Relations
TI    : Commission Communication - family planning within the cooperation with
        developing countries
RF    : JUS 9239.14.1
AB    : On 4 November 1992, the Commission adopted a communication on
        family planning within the cooperation with developing countries.
        In this communication, which follows the resolution of the Council
        of 11 November 1986 ("Population and Development"), the Commission
        identified five priority objectives:
        - creating a political, judicial and institutional environment
        favourable to the development of family planning;
        - supporting developing countries in the establishment of viable
        family planning policies and reinforcing research and training in
        this field both in Europe and in developing countries;
        - accelerating the development of services provided with regard to
        family planning;
        - proposing financial support and technical assistance (subsidies or
        loans at very favourable terms);
        - concentrating efforts and means on countries which have a high
        rate of population growth and which have expressed a clear desire to
        set up demographic policies. Commission, IP/92/876, 4 November 1992
CT    : External relations
DT    : 921120
From: news@paragraf.nbg.sub.org
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: JUS 9240.4.2 Competition                
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 21:25:02 +0100
Organization: VDJ Nuernberg

ENR   : 2496
HD    : 4. Competition
TI    : Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 85 of the EEC Treaty -
        Selective distribution
RF    : JUS 9240.4.2
AB    : The  Oberlandesgericht Dusseldorf (Germany) made reference to the
        Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of
        Article 85 of the EEC Treaty. This question, which was raised in
        the context of the proceedings between the companies Metro and
        Cartier SA, is as follows : Is a Community dealership system for
        luxury and semi-luxury products (watches in the upper-medium and
        luxury price ranges) which precludes the application of Article 85
        (1) and (2) of the EEC Treaty to be denied recognition on the ground
        that in countries outside the European Community a dealership system
        built on an appropriate contractual structure does not (fully) exist,
        so that goods which in the Community are covered by the dealership
        system can be freely obtained there by persons outside the system and
        lawfully brought on to the Common Market ? O.J. No C 303 of 20
        November 1992, p.5.
CT    : Competition; Distribution
DT    : 921127
From: news@paragraf.nbg.sub.org
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: JUSletter 40/92 - Contents              
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 21:26:09 +0100
Organization: VDJ Nuernberg

JUS 9240.3.1 - Free trade
Judgment of the Court of Justice - Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty
- Patents

JUS 9240.3.2 - Free trade
Proposal for a Regulation - Common organization of markets in the field
of potatoes

JUS 9240.4.1 - Competition
Commission Decision - Article 85 of the EEC Treaty - Fine -
International Union of Railways (UIC)

JUS 9240.4.2 - Competition
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 85 of the EEC Treaty -
Selective distribution

JUS 9240.4.3 - Competition
State Aids

JUS 9240.4.4 - Competition
Notification of a concentration

JUS 9240.4.5 - Competition
New Community scheme for State Aids to the coal-mining industry

JUS 9240.5.1 - Social policy, employment
Action against failure to act - Directive 77/87/EEC - Safeguarding of
employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings

JUS 9240.6.1 - Education, Culture
Proposal for a recommendation - Vocational training

JUS 9240.7.1 - Taxation, Finance
Judgment of the Court of Justice - sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - VAT -
travel agencies - Germany

JUS 9240.7.2 - Taxation, Finance
Commission Communication - Company taxation

JUS 9240.7.3 - Taxation, Finance
Judgment of the Court of Justice - Directive 69/335/EEC - raising of
capital - capital duty

JUS 9240.8.2 - Consumer protection
Judgment of the Court of Justice - Agriculture - Substances having a
hormonal action

JUS 9240.14.1 - External relations
Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding - Colour television
receivers - Malaysia, China, Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Turkey


JUSletter is published by ECHO, a database host
of the European Commission

(c) ECHO

Reprinted with permission
--
        Vereinigung demokratischer Juristinnen und Juristen
                     Regionalgruppe Nuernberg
          vdj-n@paragraf.nbg.sub.org / VDJ-N@LINK-NJD.ZER
From: news@paragraf.nbg.sub.org
Newsgroups: de.soc.recht
Subject: JUS 9240.3.2 Free trade                 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 21:25:35 +0100
Organization: VDJ Nuernberg

ENR   : 2494
HD    : 3. Free Movement of Goods, Services and Capital
TI    : Proposal for a Regulation - Common organization of markets in the field
        of potatoes
RF    : JUS 9240.3.2
AB    : On 25 November 1992, the Commission adopted a proposal for a
        Regulation to establish a common organization of the market in the
        potatoes sector. It is to be noted that there is a total area of
        1.4 million hectares cultivated with potatoes in the Community
        and the total value of marketed output is of several billion ECU,
        which makes potatoes a major field crop. Commission, P/92/62, 25
        November 1992.
CT    : Agricultural policy
DT    : 921127