Search

The article describes a case before the Administrative Court of Düsseldorf, in which a vehicle was towed from a car-sharing parking lot. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the performance and fee notice but was dismissed. The court ruled that the towing was lawful because there was a violation of the Road Traffic Regulations and a danger to public safety. The costs of towing were imposed on the plaintiff. The traffic authorities are not obliged to continuously check the need for parking spaces to be kept free. Towing such vehicles is justified as it has a negative deterrent effect. The administrative fee set for towing is lawful and reasonable. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with a legal dispute regarding the appropriate lateral distance of a passing car to a parked car. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have violated traffic rules, but the defendant's violation is more severe, as the plaintiff was clearly visible. A damage settlement is made, and the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of his legal costs. The appeal is not allowed. [Extracted from the article]

The article "Preventive detention of climate activists" reports on the case of a person who participated in traffic blockades by gluing themselves to the road with super glue. As a result, the police arrested 60 people and asked them to leave the assembly. The person in question was taken into custody under the Police Tasks Act but was later released. The Police Headquarters of Middle Franconia filed a complaint against the decision, and the Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court considers the complaint admissible and justified. The detention was deemed necessary to prevent the commission of crimes. It is argued that preventive detentions are effective in preventing the commission of crimes, even if other individuals may be motivated to commit the crime. It is also emphasized that there is no milder yet equally effective alternative to preventive detention. Furthermore, it is discussed that the duration of detention can be extended if the risk of committing crimes persists. It is emphasized that the responsibility for the risk lies with the disruptors and not with the vulnerable legal community. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with a general administrative order regarding "climate activists". The administrative court has ruled that participants of an unregistered assembly were prohibited from sticking, chaining, tying, or settling on vehicles to block traffic. The general administrative order was considered lawful, except for the prohibition of sticking to vehicles nearby. The actions of the "Last Generation" were considered assemblies within the meaning of Article 8 of the Basic Law. It was determined that public safety and order are directly endangered during the conduct of these assemblies. In relation to future protests by the "Last Generation", it is expected that criminal offenses, particularly coercion according to § 240 of the Criminal Code, may occur. Events related to previous assemblies can be used as evidence of an immediate endangerment to public safety. The actions of the "Last Generation" include protest marches and traffic blockades that are not officially registered. In the case of road blockades, a physical coercive effect can be assumed as soon as the first row of vehicles stops due to the blockade and the following vehicles are prevented from continuing. There is no justification for these actions based on the right to resistance or civil disobedience. The protest actions endanger the safety and smooth flow of traffic, as well as central legal interests of individuals. The orders issued are not flawed. The article describes the legal basis for restricting assemblies in Bavaria according to Article 15 (1) sentence 1 of the Bavarian Assembly Act (BayVersG). The assembly authority has discretion to impose restrictions, taking into account the fundamental rights of the applicant and the principle of proportionality. The imposed measures are proportionate and serve to prevent or minimize dangers to public safety. The restrictions only apply to improperly registered assemblies. The right to self-determination according to Article 8 (1) of the Basic Law (GG) is limited by the protection of the legal interests of third parties and the general public. The assembly authority must give the organizer the opportunity to contribute their ideas for realizing their right to assembly. However, the order that assembly participants are not allowed to stick, chain, tie, or settle on vehicles nearby may not be sufficiently specific and cannot be sufficiently justified. Overall, the challenged restrictions are likely to be mostly lawful. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a case in traffic law where an applicant lost his driving license due to doubts about his suitability. The driving license authority requested a medical-psychological assessment because the applicant was cycling under the influence of alcohol. The applicant lodged an objection against this order, but it is expected that the objection will be unsuccessful. The authority considers the request for an assessment to be lawful, as participating in road traffic while intoxicated poses a danger to traffic safety, regardless of whether a motor vehicle or a bicycle is used. The blood sample taken from the applicant may be used in the driving license revocation procedure, despite a violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The termination of the criminal investigation proceedings for drunk driving due to the fulfillment of a condition does not affect the decision of the driving license authority. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with the imposition of a logbook requirement for the entire fleet of a company. The applicant has filed a lawsuit against this order, but was rejected. The order is based on traffic violations where the driver could not be identified. The administrative court has decided that the expansion of the logbook requirement to the entire fleet is justified, as several violations have been committed with different company vehicles and further violations are expected in the future. The applicant could not provide sufficient reasons to exclude individual vehicles from the requirement. The court also found that the extension of the order to the entire fleet is appropriate, as the management of the company has not been cooperative in the past. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about an unsuccessfully contested requirement to keep a logbook. An employee of a company exceeded the permissible maximum speed with a company vehicle and identified himself as the driver. However, he later claimed that the vehicle belonged to a friend and that he had only used it temporarily. The local court could not determine the responsible driver and dismissed the administrative offense proceedings. After a hearing, the opposing party ordered the applicant to keep a logbook for 15 months. The Higher Administrative Court rejected the application to restore the suspensive effect of the objection against the decision of the opposing party. The Bavarian Administrative Court has ruled that a requirement to keep a logbook can also be imposed if the vehicle owner is not responsible for the impossibility of determining the driver, but still contributed to the determination. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with the case of a complainant who, in a fine proceedings for a traffic violation, requested access to certain documents and measurement data of the laser device PoliScan Speed. Both the district court and the higher regional court rejected access to this information, which violates the right to a fair trial. The Constitutional Court for the state of Baden-Württemberg has ruled that the complainant's right to a fair trial was violated and that he generally has the right to access the information available at the fine authority. The court should have at least provided the complainant with the existing maintenance and repair documentation. The decisions of the courts are considered unconstitutional. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with the case of a plaintiff who, after a traffic accident, applied for the costs of installing a new heating system in his jointly occupied residential building with his parents. The social court dismissed the claim, as the replacement of the heating system was considered a modernization measure. The plaintiff appealed and argued that the system had to be accessible for disabled individuals so that he could operate it. However, the appeal was rejected because the replacement of the heating system was already necessary due to the expired operating permit. The Joint Guidelines of the Associations of Accident Insurance Institutions regulate the entitlement of insured persons to various benefits, including medical treatment, rehabilitation, participation in work life, and social participation. Housing assistance is granted when an adaptation of the living space is necessary due to health impairments. The guidelines bind the administration, but not the courts. The adaptation of a residence includes structural measures such as the installation of ramps, widening of doors, and installation of handrails. The plaintiff is not entitled to housing assistance as there is no insurance-related need for an adaptation of the living space. The replacement of the heating system is not a measure for the disabled-friendly adaptation of the living space. The heating of a building is the responsibility of the owner. The second part of the text deals with a case of meniscus damage in a professional football player. It is stated that in professional football players, no specific localization of the damage can be demanded due to the extreme strains. It is also argued that the damage cannot be attributed to a single accident event, but to a sum of minor injuries. The plaintiff in the case is mentioned as an example of a primary meniscopathy in the left knee joint, which is attributed to the occupational strain as a professional football player. The requirements for the recognition of an occupationally related illness are considered fulfilled. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of brand eins is the property of brand eins Medien AG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article is about a decision of the Administrative Court of Lüneburg regarding an order to keep a logbook. The plaintiff had committed a speeding offense, but the driver could not be identified. The order to keep a logbook serves the purpose of hazard prevention and enables the authorities to identify the driver in the future. The court confirmed the legality of the order to keep a logbook and decided that the plaintiff was identified as the owner of the vehicle and that a significant traffic violation occurred. The requirement to keep a logbook is appropriate, and the duration of the logbook order of six months is justified. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a decision by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm regarding a violation of the Road Traffic Regulations. The District Court had convicted the defendant of negligent unauthorized use of an open lane on a highway and imposed a fine, but refrained from imposing a driving ban. The prosecution lodged a legal complaint against this decision, which was unsuccessful. The Higher Regional Court ruled that in emergency-like situations, such as an urgent need to relieve oneself, the culpability for ordering a driving ban may be lacking. The court determined that the defendant had not acted particularly irresponsibly subjectively and that the objective gravity of the violation was not of particular significance. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a traffic accident in which there was a collision between two vehicles. The plaintiff was driving on a road towards the town center, while the defendant intended to turn left. It was a situation of "half right of way", where the plaintiff had to give way to the traffic coming from the right, but had the right of way over the traffic coming from the left. The court found that the defendant had disregarded the plaintiff's right of way and thus shared responsibility for the accident. However, a traffic violation by the plaintiff was also found, but it was successfully challenged on appeal. [Extracted from the article]

The article reports on a case before the Administrative Court of Düsseldorf, in which a plaintiff successfully challenged an order that prohibited him from "posing" with motor vehicles in X. The court ruled that federal road traffic law conclusively regulates how to respond to violations of the Road Traffic Regulations. State law general authorizations cannot be applied to prohibit traffic violations and impose fines. The threat of fines in case of non-compliance with the main order is unlawful and must be revoked. [Extracted from the article]

The district court has convicted a driver for not forming an emergency lane on a road within a town that is built similar to a highway. The driver has filed an appeal against the verdict, arguing that the obligation to form an emergency lane on a road within a town is not explicitly stated in the law. The Bavarian Supreme State Court has deemed the driver's appeal justified and determined that the obligation to form an emergency lane does not apply to inner-city traffic on a federal road. The regulation serves to provide emergency services with quick access, which is achieved within towns by driving towards the right edge. The verdict is overturned and referred back to the district court for a new trial. [Extracted from the article]

The article "Auto train as a public traffic area" is about the case of a suspect who was driving under the influence on an auto train and subsequently had his provisional driver's license revoked. The Flensburg Regional Court ruled that the auto train is to be considered a public traffic area, as it is accessible to everyone and used by a larger group of people. The fact that there are barriers at the terminals does not change this assessment. The protective purpose of the Criminal Code (StGB) regarding traffic with auto trains and at the terminals concerns a variety of traffic participants who are not connected to each other. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of TextilWirtschaft Online is the property of dfv Mediengruppe and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article titled "Police chase as a solo race at the highest possible speed" reports on a case in which a defendant was convicted of illegal car racing. The district court imposed a fine and revoked the defendant's driver's license. The regional court confirmed the verdict, but the Higher Regional Court of Zweibrücken overturned the verdict due to incomplete evaluation of evidence. It was determined that the defendant must have the intention to reach the highest possible speed over a significant distance in order to be covered by the criminal provision. The regional court did not sufficiently justify this intention. It is recommended to retry the case and examine whether the defendant can be convicted of other traffic offenses. The Federal Constitutional Court has declared § 315d para. 1 no. 3 StGB to be constitutional. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of DE: Das Elektrohandwerk is the property of Hüthig GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article is about a case before the Administrative Court of Berlin, in which a plaintiff had his driver's license revoked due to a large number of parking violations. The State Office for Citizen and Regulatory Affairs in Berlin had determined that the plaintiff had committed 174 traffic offenses within a year, including 159 parking violations. As a result, the authority revoked his driver's license due to a lack of driving suitability. The plaintiff argued that other individuals had committed the violations, but his lawsuit was unsuccessful. The Administrative Court confirmed the legality of the revocation of the driver's license. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of TextilWirtschaft Online is the property of dfv Mediengruppe and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Busplaner is the property of Huss Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article titled "Braking without compelling reason" is about a traffic accident in which the plaintiff braked her vehicle due to a fox, and as a result, the driver of the defendant's vehicle rear-ended her. The plaintiff has already received compensation for part of her damages and unsuccessfully demanded further compensation with her lawsuit. The court determined that the plaintiff's strong braking without a compelling reason was in violation of traffic laws. In the liability assessment, the plaintiff's contribution to the accident outweighed significantly. Therefore, she could not claim more than two-thirds of the already compensated accident damages from the defendant. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about an order to keep a logbook for the owner of a vehicle. The applicant unsuccessfully opposed the order. The Higher Administrative Court for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia has decided that the logbook requirement is legally justified. The requirement is based on § 31a para. 1 sentence 1 of the Road Traffic Licensing Regulations (StVZO) and serves the safety and order of road traffic. The traffic authority can order the keeping of a logbook if the driver could not be identified after a traffic violation. In the present case, the driver who committed a speeding offense could not be identified before the statute of limitations expired. The applicant, who is the economic owner of the vehicle, must be attributed with the ownership, even if her father is registered as the owner in the registry. The decision of the traffic authority to only hear the father as the owner is not considered a deficiency in investigation. The vehicle registration is a significant indication of ownership. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a case in which a driving ban was imposed due to a red light violation. The regional government has imposed a fine of 200 euros and a one-month driving ban on the person involved. The Darmstadt District Court has confirmed the verdict, and the complainant's appeal has been dismissed as unfounded. The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court has ruled that there is no exceptional circumstance that justifies deviating from the standard effect. Neither the severity of the offense nor the culpability of the action are sufficiently reduced to consider it an exceptional case. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of AutomotiveIT is the property of Media-Manufaktur GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of PC Welt Plus is the property of IDG Communications, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Allgemeine Fleischer Zeitung is the property of dfv Mediengruppe and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the challenges of business drives for employers and employees. Topics discussed include legal aspects of speeding on the one hand, and time pressure as well as expectations from drivers on the other hand. The author suggests that time management can save driving licenses, jobs, and lives, and presents the German point system for traffic violation.