Source: http://vonhennigs.blogspot.com/2016/10/
Timestamp: 2018-11-18 08:11:01
Document Index: 56030097

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 439', '§ 1127', '§ 526', '§ 1526', '§ 133', '§ 1124', '§ 133', '§ 1526', '§ 133']

BridgehouseLaw ; American - German Business Law: October 2016
18-year-old sues her parents over baby photos on facebook
An 18 year old girl from Austria, who's name has not been released to the public, is currently suing her parents for not taking down pictures of her as a baby from their Facebook-accounts. This case could proof to be a precedent for other legal claims made by children in similar situations.
Over the course of the last four years her parents posted numerous pictures of her as a child. The pictures show her during activities such as bathing or being potty-trained. While many people would consider photos like this to be perfectly normal, she is uncomfortable with her parents' 700 Facebook friends ability to easily access them.
Her father, on the other hand, claims that because he was the one to take these pictures, he can use and display them in every way he sees fit. By asserting her newly found status as an adult, she is now trying to secure that right for herself.
While this girl's concern is mostly focused on her parent's Facebook friends, many other parents build 'brands" around the popularity of their children's pictures on the internet. Gavin, a 5-year-old boy, has become famous for his facial expressions as both his uncle as well as his mother openly encourage people to use Gavin's pictures for humorous posts on the internet. Even though they might think this to be funny and 'cool', no one ever asked Gavin how he feels about this.
Becoming the literal 'face' of the internet might not sound like the worst thing that could happen to a child, however, there is a darker side to this way of pursuing fame. Publically shaming and punishing children by filming and posting it on social media has also become more and more popular with parents. While intended to correct the children's behavior, one incident last year lead to the suicide of a 15-year-old girl after her father uploaded a video of him cutting off her hair on Youtube.
Labels: facebook, internet, photos, Social media
Watch Out for 419 Scams!
Advance-fee fraud, also commonly known as "West African letter scams" or "419 scams," are when a fraudster targets victims to make advance or upfront payment for goods, services, and/or financial gains that do not materialize. The reason they are called as such is because these types of scams originated primarily in Nigeria, with the Ivory Coast, Togo, South Africa, and Benin having high incidences of this type of fraud. The "419" refers to the section of the Nigerian Criminal Code which deals with fraud, the charges, and the penalties for offenders.
Scam come in all sorts of variants. One is through the use of purchase orders that appear to a merchant or business owner to be legitimate. The scammers set up fake websites with domain names almost identical to those of real businesses and do the same for email accounts. Next, they pose as an officer/agent of the business and contact a retailer's customer service center to gather information about the organization's purchasing account. The targeted business is then contacted and a quote for products is requested. The scammers use forged documents, complete with letterhead and sometimes with the name of the organization's actual product manager. A U.S. Shipping address that may be a warehouse, or self-storage facility is provided and then directed to re-ship the merchandise to Nigeria and are provided with shipping labels to facilitate the process. The vendor eventually bills the real institution and discovers the fraud. But by then, the items have been re-shipped abroad, and the retailer is left to absorb the financial loss.
When scammed, time is of the essence. If a report of the theft to local authorities or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is made before the merchandise is shipped out of the country, there is a chance that the items may be located and returned. More than $1 million worth of merchandise has been recovered due to businesses quickly discovering the fraud.
However, being scammed can be prevented. Businesses can independently verify shipping addresses and be vigilant about emails containing unusual phrases or spelling, indicating that the message may not be written by a fluent English speaker. Awareness is the key to help prevent cyber scams from spreading, therefore it should be a topic of conversation amongst business personnel.
Posted by BridgehouseLaw Charlotte at 10:22 AM No comments:
Labels: 419 scams, Advance-fee fraud
Ein Jahr nach dem VW-Abgasskandal - Eine rechtliche Bestandsaufnahme bei Käufern und Anlegern in Deutschland
Ein Jahr ist nunmehr vergangen seitdem bekannt wurde, dass der VW-Konzern Software zur Manipulation seiner Abgaswerte verwendet. Diese Software erkennt, ob sich das Fahrzeug in einer Prüfsituation oder auf der Straße befindet. Im Falle einer erkannten Überprüfung optimiert die Software die Stickoxid-Werte. Im normalen Fahrbetrieb werden die so ermittelten Abgaswerte jedoch erheblich überschritten.
Nach Bekanntwerden der Abgasaffäre versprach der VW- Konzern seinen deutschen Kunden Nachbesserungsaktionen durch ein Softwareupdate oder technische Veränderungen am Motor.
Diese Abgasnachbehandlungsmaßnahmen wurden durchaus kontrovers diskutiert, da Auswirkungen auf die Motorleistung und den Verbrauch des Wagens befürchtet werden. Die betroffenen Motorvarianten zeichnen sich durch zahlreiche Unterschiede aus, weshalb VW nun vor der Aufgabe steht, 10.000 verschiedene Lösungen auszuarbeiten. Diese Nachbesserungsvarianten müssen zudem vom Kraftfahrtbundesamt (KFB) abgesegnet werden. Aus diesem Grund zogen sich die Nachbesserungsaktionen zeitlich hinaus und dauern noch immer an.
Viele deutsche Käufer waren enttäuscht von VW und versuchten ihr Rücktrittsrecht aus dem Kaufvertrag auszuüben. Nach längerem Warten sind Käufer zudem gezwungen, Klage zu erheben, um die Verjährung ihrer Gewährleistungsansprüche zu verhindern.
Dabei wurde die eigene Rechtsschutzversicherung für viele deutsche Kunden zur ersten Hürde. Zahlreiche Versicherungen weigerten sich, die Kosten zu übernehmen. Argumentiert wurde damit, dass die Käufer zuerst den angekündigten Nach besserungsversuch von VW abwarten sollten und außerdem keine hinreichenden Erfolgsaussichten für die Klagen vorliegen würden.
Die daraus resultierenden Schiedsgutachterverfahren und nachfolgenden Deckungsklagen verliefen für die Käufer weit- gehend erfolgreich.
Die sich anschließenden Klagen gegen Händler oder VW bezüglich Rückabwicklung des Kaufvertrages und Schadensersatz waren in Deutschland überwiegend erfolgreich. Die im Sinne der Käufer ergangenen Urteile wurden damit begründet, dass die eingebaute Manipulationssoftware einen Sachmangel darstellt, der Gewährleistungsrechte des Käufers nach sich zieht. Dieser Mangel könne auch nicht als unerheblich abgetan werden. Dies beweise bereits der Zeitraum den VW benötigt, um den Käufern eine Lösung anzubieten.
Zudem lege § 439 Abs. 1 BGB eindeutig fest, dass der Käufer freie Wahl hat zwischen Nachbesserung und Nachlieferung. Auf die angekündigte Nachbesserung muss sich der Käufer somit nicht einlassen. Die Nachbesserungsaktion von VW ist ferner den Käufern nicht innerhalb einer angemessenen Frist konkret angeboten worden, sondern durch die Presse lediglich in Aussicht gestellt gewesen. Im Übrigen müsse diese vom Händler als Vertragspartner angeboten werden und nicht von VW als Hersteller des Fahrzeugs. Schließlich wurde das zerstörte Vertrauensverhältnis betont.
2. Aktionäre und Investoren
Noch viel schwerer als die zahlreichen Klagen der Käufer dürften VW die Klagen seiner deutschen Aktionäre und Investoren treffen, die im Gegensatz zu den Käuferklagen zum Großteil erst vor Kurzem anhängig gemacht wurden. Diese haben durch den Skandal enorme Verluste erlitten. Unter den klagenden Anlegern sind auch einige Bundesländer, wie Bayern und Baden - Württemberg, die ebenfalls Versorgungsrücklagen in VW-Aktien gesteckt haben.
Laut Schätzungen haben die Verfahren einen Streitwert von insgesamt 8,2 Milliarden Euro. Die Kläger vertreten die Auffassung, dass der Konzern sie früher über den Einsatz der Manipulationssoftware und die möglichen Konsequenzen und Risiken informieren hätte müssen. Dabei berufen sich die Anleger auf das Wertpapierhandelsgesetz, das Aktiengesellschaften dazu verpflichtet, bestimmte relevante Informationen für Aktionäre unverzüglich zu veröffentlichen. Dieser Pflicht sei VW nicht hinreichend nachgekommen.
Die immense Anzahl an Klagen soll mit Hilfe eines Kapitalanlegermusterverfahrens entschieden werden. Dies ist einer der sehr wenigen Fälle, in denen der deutsche Gesetzgeber eine Sammelklage zulässt. VW verteidigt sich bislang vehement gegen diese Klagen und meint, der Konzern habe alle Mitteilungspflichten erfüllt.
Kurz nach Bekanntwerden des Skandals nahmen auch deutsche Staatsanwaltschaften wegen Verdachts auf Betruges in besonders schwerem Fall ihre Ermittlungen auf. Anklagen wurden allerdings bis dato noch nicht erhoben.
Jedoch ist in diesem Zusammenhang abschließend zu beachten, dass das deutsche Strafrecht an die persönliche Verantwortlichkeit anknüpft. Ein strafrechtlich relevantes Verhalten kann somit nur von Personen ausgehen und nicht von einem Unternehmen. Ein solches 'Unternehmensstrafrecht' ist allerdings in den USA durchaus etabliert.
Labels: Abgasskandal, VW
One step closer to a drone package delivery service?
A North Carolina drone company - PrecisionHawk- was first to get a FFA (Federal Aviation Administration) waiver to fly beyond line-of-sight by end of August 2016. The waiver means that a pilot will be allowed to fly a drone without having to change locations to keep the device in sight, like the general rule demands you to. PrecisionHawk has been researching beyond-line-of-sight flying over the last year through a collaboration with the FAA. According to its manager, it takes a lot of work to prove the FAA that they conduct the operations safely and fulfill all the requirements.
The FAA rule which prohibits operating a drone beyond line-of-sight used to be one of the main barriers to companies such as Amazon, which hope to use the devices in package delivery. The waiver could help Amazon to pursue their planned Air Delivery service via drones which they have already announced on their website as Prime Air. Amazon describes their vision as a future delivery system designed to safely get packages to customers in 30 minutes or less.
However, it probably takes at least a few years until Amazon will be able to put Prime Air into service - if at all. The regulatory support is one problem, but there is definitely more to consider. What about managing the logistics and the maximum range of a drone? How will Amazon make sure to reach the customer within 30 minutes? What is our airspace going to look like when there are hundreds of drones buzzing around? Is it safe enough? And what about privacy and property rights by flying over foreign property? After all, we can all be excited if and when we get Amazon packages delivered by drones.
Posted by BridgehouseLaw Charlotte at 3:23 PM No comments:
Labels: Amazon, delivery, drone
DOL poster updates
The Department of Labor (DOL) recently changed two mandatory postings: the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) posting and the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) posting, both effective as of August 1, 2016. To comply with relevant legislation and in order to avoid any potential fines, all FLSA and EPPA posters should be replaced with the updated versions.
According to certain statues and regulations, enforced by agencies within in the DOL, employers are required to post notices and posters in the workplace. As posting requirements vary, not all employers are covered by said statues and regulations; however, as these changes are of relevance for every U.S. employer with at least one paid employee, the impact of the recent updates is widespread.
But what are these changes about? What makes the new posters different from the old ones?
The FLSA poster has been updated to include information about breaks for nursing mothers, classifying independent contractors and changes due to the Civil Penalties Inflation Act. The changes to this poster are not related to the new FSLA overtime rules as these changes did not require any posters to be updated.
On the EPPA poster the specific reference to the penalty amount for not posting has been removed and it now broadly states that the Secretary of Labor can asses penalties against employers violating the EPPA.
https://www.dol.gov/oasam/boc/osdbu/sbrefa/poster/matrix.htm
Posted by BridgehouseLaw Charlotte at 4:15 PM No comments:
Labels: Department of Labour, FLSA poster
Durchsetzbarkeit deutscher Gerichtsurteile in den USA
Wer sich entschließt seine Unternehmenstätigkeit nicht nur auf Deutschland zu beschränken, sondern auch in die USA zu expandieren, wird früher oder später mit der Frage konfrontiert, ob und wie man Forderungen gegenüber säumigen Vertragspartnern grenzüberschreitend durchsetzen kann. Dieser Artikel befasst sich mit der Durchsetzung von deutschen Urteilen in den USA. In einem folgenden Artikel wird die umgekehrte Variante näher beleuchtet werden.
Leider gibt es zwischen Deutschland und den USA kein Abkommen, das die Anerkennung und Durchsetzbarkeit von Urteilen betrifft. Dies ist somit Aufgabe der einzelnen Bundesstaaten. Eine gewisse Vereinheitlichung konnte allerdings bereits durch den Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act (UFMJRA) erzielt werden, der sich in fast allen Bundesstaaten (so auch in North Carolina) durchsetzen konnte.
Fakt ist, dass man als Inhaber eines deutschen Zahlungstitels nicht einfach einen amerikanischen Gerichtsvollzieher mit der Eintreibung beauftragen kann. Vielmehr muss hinsichtlich des ausländischen Zivilurteils erneut ein Gerichtsverfahren zur Anerkennung durchgeführt werden (Exequaturverfahren). Der Gläubiger muss somit mit einer beglaubigten Ausfertigung eines deutschen Endurteils, das auf Zahlung einer Geldsumme gerichtet ist, gegen seinen Schuldner erneut Klage erheben, um sein ausländisches Urteil anerkennen zu lassen und ihm die Vollstreckbarkeit zu verleihen. Das bedeutet aber nicht, dass 'die Uhren erneut auf Null gestellt werden' und der vorherige Weg zu einem deutschen Gericht sinnlos war. Denn es handelt sich bei dem Exequaturverfahren um ein beschränktes Erkenntnisverfahren.
In den Bundesstaaten in denen der UFMJRA erlassen wurde, überprüft das Gericht lediglich ob das ausländische Gericht hinsichtlich des Streitgegenstandes und der Person des Beklagten zuständig war, ob das Urteil im Rahmen eines gesetzlichen Verfahrens durch ein unabhängiges Gericht zustande kam und kein Widerspruch zum ordre public vorliegt. Auch der Beklagte kann nur noch mit Einwendungen hinsichtlich dieser Prüfungsgegenstände gehört werden. Eine weitergehende Überprüfung in der Sache findet nicht statt, da der Anspruch bereits durch das ausländische Urteil rechtskräftig festgestellt wurde.
In den wenigen Bundesstaaten, die den UFMJRA nicht übernommen haben (Indiana, Massachusetts und Vermont), richtet sich die Anerkennung ausländischer Urteile auf Grundlage des common law nach der sog. comity-doctrine, die aus der Leitentscheidung des Supreme Courts 'Hilton vs. Gyot, 159 U.S. 113' (1895) hervorgeht. Neben den oben genannten Voraussetzungen wird hier zusätzlich eine 'gegenseitige Verbürgung' der Länder verlangt. Mit dieser Gegenseitigkeit wird auf einen allgemeinen Grundsatz des Völkerrechts Bezug genommen, nach dem sich Staaten gegenseitig gleiche Behandlung zukommen lassen sollen.
Haben auch Sie ein deutsches Endurteil erstritten, was in den USA vollstreckt werden soll? Gerne beraten wir Sie mit der Durchsetzung Ihrer Forderungen!
Posted by BridgehouseLaw Charlotte at 10:01 AM No comments:
Labels: Deutsche Gerichtsurteile, Durchsetzbarkeit, UFMJRA, USA
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies the source of goods of one party from those of another.
Effective trademark protection is critical to maximizing and protecting the value of a company’s brand as trademarks are an important business asset built through goodwill and reputation. However, trademarks can be subject to misuse through infringement, dilution, cybersquatting, unfair competition, false advertising, and tarnishment. Even a vigilant trademark owner may not find all the possible misuses of a trademark by competitors and other members of the public. However, a failure to enforce a trademark by monitoring the mark for misuses will result in a weakening of the mark and loss of distinctiveness, which can lead to a loss of the trademark.
In 2015, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), seized 28,865 shipments containing counterfeit goods, which was a 25% increase from the year prior. The purpose of the CBP is to secure the U.S. borders, which includes the protection of intellectual property rights, which in turn, guards against the infringement of U.S. patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
So what authority does the CBP have to enforce trademark infringements?
At the border, the CBP, as an administrative agency with law enforcement powers, is authorized to exclude, detain, and/or seize imported merchandise that infringes federally registered and recorded trademarks and copyrights and/or is covered by an exclusion order issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission. In this regard, the CBP recognizes three levels of infringement in its enforcement of trademarks: counterfeit marks, copying or simulating marks, and restricted gray market goods (i.e. parallel imports).
Counterfeit Marks.
Pursuant to Title 15 U.S.C. § 1127, a counterfeit mark is defined as a spurious mark that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a federally registered and recorded trademark. Merchandise imported into the U.S. bearing marks “counterfeit” of a federally registered trademark recorded with CBP shall be seized and forfeiture proceeding instituted pursuant to § 526(e) of the Tariff At of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1526(e)), as implemented by 19 C.F.R. § 133.21. Criminal remedies are referred to and prosecuted by the relevant U.S. Attorney who may seek the trademark’s owner’s cooperation to prosecute the criminal action, including to assist in the investigation, act as a witness, or file a victim impact or other statement in support of the allegations, with a request for punishment.
Copying or Simulating Marks.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1124, as implemented by 19 C.F.R. § 133.22, a copying or simulating mark or trade name is one that so resembles a recorded mark or name as to be likely to cause the public to associate the copying or simulating mark or name with the recorded mark or name.
If CBP believes that goods bear a mark that copies or simulates a recorded mark, the goods are denied entry and detained for thirty (30) days, during which the importer can attempt to establish that the goods should be permitted entry. After thirty (30) days, either entry is permitted if the objectionable mark is removed from t he goods, or the trademark owner consents to the importation of goods. If the importer has not obtained release of the goods within the thirty (30) day detention period, the goods are seized by the CBP and forfeiture proceedings instituted.
Restricted Gray Market Goods.
Gray market goods are defined as foreign-manufactured goods bearing a genuine trademark or trade name identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, one owned and recorded by a citizen of the U.S. or corporation or association created or organized within the U.S., which are imported into the U.S. without the authorization of the U.S. trademark owner.
The CBP provides limited protection to trademark owners against importation of certain gray market goods pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1526(a), as implemented by 19 C.F.R. § 133.23. Only trademarks and trade names that are recorded with CBP are entitled to gray market protection. The CBP detains and seizes gray market goods bearing a federally registered trademark if both: the trademark is recorded with the CBP and the foreign and U.S. trademark owners are not the same person or under common ownership (means individual or aggregate ownership of more than 50% of the business entity) or common control (means effective control in policy and operations and is not necessarily synonymous with common ownership).
The Exception to the Gray Market Regulations.
The Lever-rule creates an exception to the CBP’s enforcement limitations concerning gray market goods. Pursuant to the Lever rule, gray market goods may be refused entry if they are physically or materially different from the goods authorized for sale in the U.S. The purpose of the Lever rule is to protect trademarks recorded with the CBP, even if the owner is a foreign company, or a U.S. company and the goods are manufactured by a foreign affiliate.
When applying for Lever-rule protection for specific products, a trademark owner must (1) state the basis for this claim with particularity; (2) support the claim by competent evidence; and (3) provide CBP with summaries of the alleged physical and material differences that exist between the merchandise authorized for sale in the United States and those intended for other markets.
“Physical and material” differences between merchandise authorized for sale in the United States and those intended for other markets may include, but are not limited to:
Other distinguishing and explicitly defined factors that would likely result inconsumer deception or confusion as proscribed under applicable law.
Most infringement actions begin with cease and desist letters sent to an infringer demanding that the infringer stop using the mark at issue. Infringement lawsuits are expensive and many members of the public will stop infringing if they become aware that a mark’s owner is lawfully asserting their trademark rights.
If an infringer persists, a lawsuit to stop the misuse may be filed. If the mark is registered with the USPTO, a lawsuit can be filed in federal court. If the mark is unregistered and the infringing mark is being used in the same state, the dispute may be resolved in state court.
Another option is to record a registered U.S. trademark with the CBP which places the registered trademark on the CBP’s watchlist. Whenever goods proceed through Customs, those goods will be checked to verify they are not infringing any of the trademarks on their list. Goods that may be offending will be pulled aside for review, and if trademark infringement is found, the seized goods will be destroyed.
There is a $190.00 fee applied to each trademark recorded with the CBP, however the trademark is recorded for a term of 20 years. The application may be filed electronically with the following information included:
Citizenship of the trademark ownership
The place of manufacture of goods bearing the trademark to be recorded
The name and address of person or companies authorized to use the trademarking
The identity of any parent or subsidiary companies or other foreign companies under common ownership or control which uses the trademark abroad
A status copy of the certificate of registration certified by the USPTO showing title to be in the name of the applicant
For more information about obtaining or protecting a trademark, please contact BridgehouseLaw.
Posted by BridgehouseLaw Charlotte at 10:24 AM No comments:
Labels: enforcement, protection, service mark, Trademark
Federal Judge tosses Starbucks ice cube lawsuit
A federal judge in Los Angeles recently tossed a lawsuit in which Starbucks was alleged of misleading its customers by displacing large parts of liquids with ice cubes. The would-be class action alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.
According to the plaintiff, Alexander Forouzesh, a 'grande' iced beverage listed at 16 ounces really only contains 12 ounces of liquid and a 'venti' ice beverage listed at 24 ounces only 14 ounces. Claiming that the size chart does not refer to the size of the cup but to the amount of drinkable liquid, Mr. Forouzesh accused Starbucks of systematically defrauding its customers by "underfilling" their cups by adding ice.
Judge Percy Anderson tossed the lawsuit in the court's decision of August 19th due to the fact that he believes reasonable Starbucks customers not to be deceived by Starbucks iced beverages. In his ruling he states that even young children know adding ice to your beverage reduces the amount of liquid you receive. Starbucks does also not state that cold drinks contain a certain amount of liquid. The size chart does not refer to the amount of liquid but simply to the size of the cup. Cups for iced beverages are transparent - allowing the customer to see how much ice the drink contains.
According to the Chicago Tribune, a similar case is pending in federal court in Illinois. Starbucks has filed a motion to dismiss.
Posted by BridgehouseLaw Charlotte at 2:59 PM No comments:
Labels: Lawsuit, Starbucks
The Charlotte Curfew - a Transatlantic Comparison
After the violent protests in Uptown Charlotte following the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott on September 20th 2016, Major Jennifer Roberts imposed a curfew, preventing anyone within city limits from being on public streets or property after 12:00pm to 6:00am. The Charlotte curfew extended to all citizens of Charlotte, as well as visitors. Violating curfew restrictions is a class 2 misdemeanor as well as a violation of North Carolina's emergency prohibitions and restrictions. Exemptions were made for those, who necessarily needed to travel in order to sustain the well-being of citizens or their families. Nevertheless, the curfew heavily impacted the entire Charlotte community. Even though the curfew has recently been lifted, many questions regarding this rather extreme measure remain.
Some European countries, such as France, also use curfews in a state of emergency to ensure public safety. Due to acts of terror, the French population has just recently been confronted with curfew restrictions.
However, in Germany a curfew (or "Ausgangssperre") is almost unheard of. This has not always been this way, as history shows. In 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg, advised by Chancellor Adolf Hitler, issued the Reichstag Fire Decree as a direct response to the fire in the Reichstag building just shortly before parliamentary elections that year. This decree overrode essential civil liberties of German citizens and turned out to be a key element in the Nazi party's way to power. By prohibiting public assembly, restricting the freedom of expression and press as well as many other freedoms, Hitler strategically laid the foundation for his later plans.
The events of June 17th 1953 also led to the imposition of a curfew under state of emergency laws in all DDR territories. After East Berlin construction workers declared a strike, many citizens joined in until it turned into a widely spread uprising against the government of the German Democratic Republic. Soviet troops reinstalled occupational measures, violently ended the uprising, and imposed a curfew from 9:00 pm to 5:00 am to reinstall control over the population. Nevertheless, this day became a symbol for the strive of freedom of East Germans. In the course of East German history, curfews became a common government tool for oppression. Cities and villages along the border between the "two Germanies" were imposed with nightly curfews. Border patrols had the order to shoot any violators.
However, imposing a curfew is not possible in Germany today. That would be an inadmissible limitation of constitutional rights ("Grundrechte"). Everybody has the liberty of physical freedom of movement within the federal territory in accordance with Article 2 Section 2 and Article 11 of the German Constitution, although minor restrictions based on laws and regulations can be imposed. Such a law could be the German police laws issued by each "Bundesland", which regulate the competence of the police and contain special authority clauses as well as a general clause allowing the police to interfere with constitutional rights. Because there is no special authority clause concerning the imposition of a curfew, the police has to fall back on the general clause. Police activities are still required to comply with the principle of proportionality and the prohibition of excessive measures ("Übermaßverbot"). It means that an interference in constitutional rights cannot be disproportionate to the success they are seeking, especially as long as there are alternative measures which are less invasive, the police has to pick these first.
In addition, the German 'Polizeigesetze' allow police measures addressing the person, who causes the danger for public safety and order in the first place ("Störer"). Only in rare exceptional cases, the police can take action against people, who are not responsible ("Nichtstörer"). This means, that police activities are limited to indispensable measures against those not responsible and are only permitted when actions against responsible persons turn out to be inadequate.
On these premises, a curfew is considered a 'deprivation of liberty' as the most impacting form of interference of the right to freedom guaranteed by the German constitution, because the addressees are not allowed to leave their houses for a certain time period. This situation is even aggravated by the fact that a curfew addresses people who are responsible for the danger as well as those who have no responsibility at all.
Therefore, it can be concluded, that in the event of riots during a protest, the police has to take action against the people who are responsible for the riot. It is the duty of the police to establish control and ensure safety. If necessary they have to apply full potential and call for reinforcements. However, these measures are not permitted to influence peaceful protestors or uninvolved individuals in their civil liberties.
Labels: Ausgangssperre, Curfew, Polizei
18-year-old sues her parents over baby photos on f...
Ein Jahr nach dem VW-Abgasskandal - Eine rechtlich...
One step closer to a drone package delivery servic...
Durchsetzbarkeit deutscher Gerichtsurteile in den ...
The Charlotte Curfew - a Transatlantic Comparison...