Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=80/20
Timestamp: 2017-05-22 17:35:50+00:00

Document:
RG, 30.06.1920 - Rep. I. 80/20 - dejure.org
Rechtsprechung RG, 30.06.1920 - Rep. I. 80/20 Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
Rechtliche Bedeutung eines Frachtbriefes für das Frachtgeschäft der Eisenbahnen; Belastung des Frachtgutes mit einer Nachnahme zugunsten einer anderen als der im Frachtbrief bezeichneten Person
Wird zitiert von ... (6) EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 64054/00 MACKO AND KOZUBAL v. SLOVAKIAThe investigation file had the number KÚV-80/20-98.On 2 July 1999 investigator T. accused Mr I. of a different offence in the context of proceedings KÚV-80/20-98. I. was accused of fraud and money laundering on the ground that he had unlawfully obtained and used a sum of money while acting as the representative of companies Classinvest Slovakia o.c.p., a.s. and C.S.I. Slovenka Vranov, a.s. According to the accusation, I. had issued bills of exchange which had been uncovered and void.On 2 August 2000 the police investigator joined to a single set of proceedings the above cases against Mr I. and, inter alios, the first applicant registered under file numbers KÚV-80/20-98, KÚV-83/20-98 and KÚV-4/OVEK-2000.On 2 July 2001 the investigator discontinued the proceedings against Mr I. (file number KÚV-80/20-98) brought on 16 December 1998 as no offence had been committed.On 5 October 1999 the first applicant had to be heard as a witness in the context of criminal proceedings KÚV-80/20-98 against Mr I. Those proceedings concerned an unlawful sale of bills of exchange, in 1994, which had resulted in the transfer of approximately SKK 19 million to the account of the company ILaS Vranov, s.r.o. on 7 July 1994.The police investigator had joined the above proceedings, on 2 August 2000, as both the applicant and Mr I. had been accused in the case registered under file number KÚV-83/20-98. However, the actions imputed to Mr I. in proceedings KÚV-80/20-98, in the context of which the applicant had refused to make a witness statement, were entirely unrelated to the facts of the other cases.The applicants were summoned to an interview as witnesses in the context of criminal proceedings against Mr I. registered under file number KÚV-80/20-98. Those proceedings concerned financial transactions in which I. had engaged in 1994 and 1997.The accusations which were later actually filed against the applicants concerned different facts, namely the alleged fraud and attempted money laundering in the context of transfer of securities of the company Transpetrol, a.s. The fact that, at a certain stage, the investigator joined the proceedings KÚV-80/20-98 in which the applicants had refused to make statements as witnesses and the proceedings KÚV-83/20-98 in which the first applicant was accused together with I. and several other persons of an offence unrelated to the offences investigated in proceedings KÚV-80/20-98 cannot affect the position.
EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 64054/00 MACKO v. SLOVAKIAMr I. was accused of having authorised, as a co-owner of the company ILaS Vranov, the sale of bills of exchange in Austria without the approval of the central bank (investigation file number KÚV-80/20-98).On 2 July 1999 the same investigator of the Regional Office of Investigation in Presov accused Mr I. of fraud and money laundering (the decision had the same file number, namely KÚV-80/20-98).On 2 August 2000 the police investigator joined in a single set of proceedings the above cases against Mr. I and, inter alios, the applicant registered under file numbers KÚV-80/20-98, KÚV-83/20-98 and KÚV-4/OVEK-2000).On 2 July 2001 the investigator discontinued the proceedings against Mr I. (file number KÚV-80/20-98) brought on 16 December 1998 as no offence had been committed.The police investigator had joined the above proceedings, on 2 August 2000, as both the applicant and Mr I. had been accused in the case registered under file number KÚV-83/20-98. However, the actions imputed to Mr I. in proceedings KÚV-80/20-98, in the context of which the applicant had refused to make a witness statement, were wholly unrelated to the facts of the other cases.
BGH, 04.06.1976 - I ZR 121/75 Vorlage des Originalfrachtbriefs als Voraussetzung für Schadensersatzpflicht des …Der Frachtbrief ist abgesehen von den hier nicht einschlägigen Fällen des § 55 Abs. 5 EVO unabdingbare Voraussetzung für das Zustandekommen eines Frachtvertrages im Sinne der Eisenbahnverkehrsordnung (EVO) (§ 61 Abs. 1, 2 EVO); ist kein Frachtbrief ausgestellt, dann kann kein Eisenbahnfrachtvertrag Zustandekommen (RGZ 99, 245, 246;… RG JW 38, 2614 m.w.N.).Empfänger (§§ 75 Abs. 3, 4, 72 Abs. 11 EVO) ist der im Frachtbrief als solcher Bezeichnete; eine andere Person kann nur durch nachträgliche Verfügung nach § 72 Abs. 1 Buchstabe d) EVO vom Absender bestimmt werden; der Nachweis der Unrichtigkeit kann nicht dazu führen, daß ein anderer als Empfänger anzusehen ist (…vgl. Finger, EVO 4. Aufl., Anm. 2 b zu § 55 und Anm. 1 f zu § 57; BGH LM Nr. 1 zu § 37 EVO; RGZ 99, 245, 247 für den Absender).
BGH, 21.05.1980 - I ZR 88/78 Ausschluss einer Haftung zum Schadensersatz nach der Eisenbahn-Verkehrsordnung …Vertragspartner des Eisenbahnfrachtvertrages sind einerseits der frachtbriefmäßige Absender, andererseits die Eisenbahn; der Nachweis, daß ein anderer (als der im Frachtbrief Bezeichnete) Absender sei, ist unstatthaft (vgl. RGZ 99, 245, Finger 5. Aufl., Bem. 1 Buchst. i zu § 56 EVO).
BGH, 13.05.1954 - IV ZR 192/53 RechtsmittelDer Nachweis, daß ein anderer der Absender sei, ist selbst dann unzulässig, wenn der Eisenbahn bekannt ist, daß der im Frachtbrief angegebene Absender (§ 56 Abs. 1 e EVO) nicht der eigentliche Absender ist (RGZ 99, 245 [246 f]).
BGH, 16.01.1952 - II ZR 25/51 RechtsmittelDas ist richtig und entspricht der festen Rechtslehre und Rechtsprechung (…siehe namentlich JW 1938, 2614 mit Anm. von Booss; RGZ 99, 245;… Ritter, HGB 2. Aufl. § 453 Anm. 4: RGRK, Gadow, HGB § 453 Anm. 2).

References: § 55
 § 72
 § 55
 § 57
 BGH 
 § 37
 § 56
 § 453
 § 453