1
Fri, Mar. 16, 2012
Restitution of Art Stolen by Nazi Regime
CK - Washington. The German Supreme Court in Civil Matters in Karlsruhe ruled on March 16, 2012 in favor of returning art stolen by the Gestapo arm of Nazi Germany despite the fact that statutes of limitations had expired and the government had paid compensation.
In addition, a stolen art commission operating under the auspices of the 1998 Washington Conference Principles On Nazi-Confiscated Art had considered the equities in the matter involving art collector Hans Sachs and the formerly East-German custodial art museum now administered by the German Historial Museum and decided against the physical restitution of the art.
The court tends to publish its decisions on the internet with some delay but it has issued a press release in the matter V ZR 279/10, in German. The court found the general principles of property law, under §985 of the German Civil Code, to apply where the original owner could not timely raise its claims because of historical facts and subsequent blocking laws established and administed by the occupational forces in post-war Germany.
The decision is widely applauded as a major step in the development of art restitution under German law and the Washington Conference.
CK - Washington. The German Supreme Court in Civil Matters in Karlsruhe ruled on March 16, 2012 in favor of returning art stolen by the Gestapo arm of Nazi Germany despite the fact that statutes of limitations had expired and the government had paid compensation.
In addition, a stolen art commission operating under the auspices of the 1998 Washington Conference Principles On Nazi-Confiscated Art had considered the equities in the matter involving art collector Hans Sachs and the formerly East-German custodial art museum now administered by the German Historial Museum and decided against the physical restitution of the art.
The court tends to publish its decisions on the internet with some delay but it has issued a press release in the matter V ZR 279/10, in German. The court found the general principles of property law, under §985 of the German Civil Code, to apply where the original owner could not timely raise its claims because of historical facts and subsequent blocking laws established and administed by the occupational forces in post-war Germany.
The decision is widely applauded as a major step in the development of art restitution under German law and the Washington Conference.
Permalink
Mon, Mar. 12, 2012
EBook Litigation Moves to Germany
CK - Washington. Ebook litigation over allegedly unlawful copies moves from the United States to Germany. This development flies in the face of continuing complaints in Germany over the allegedly too expansive exercise of personal jurisdiction by American courts.
In Publishers developing strategies to target e-book pirates, Sheri Qualters reports on March 12, 2012 of the open jurisdictional arms of the German courts that welcome foreign publishers. Ample precedent seeds a fruitful practice area against file hosting services in German law. Qualters notes that jurisdictions outside of the European Union do not match the jurisdictional welcome.
A number of factors combined to make Germany attractive to foes of file-hosters: Politicians do not understand particularly well the technologies involved and set laws which one-sidedly favor copyright buyers and managers while handicapping innovation by German software developers; some courts go far in determining personal jurisdiction in internet matters; and the cost of litigation in Germany is predictable while the loser reimburses the winner -- even outside of the court for successful cease and desist demands.
CK - Washington. Ebook litigation over allegedly unlawful copies moves from the United States to Germany. This development flies in the face of continuing complaints in Germany over the allegedly too expansive exercise of personal jurisdiction by American courts.
In Publishers developing strategies to target e-book pirates, Sheri Qualters reports on March 12, 2012 of the open jurisdictional arms of the German courts that welcome foreign publishers. Ample precedent seeds a fruitful practice area against file hosting services in German law. Qualters notes that jurisdictions outside of the European Union do not match the jurisdictional welcome.
A number of factors combined to make Germany attractive to foes of file-hosters: Politicians do not understand particularly well the technologies involved and set laws which one-sidedly favor copyright buyers and managers while handicapping innovation by German software developers; some courts go far in determining personal jurisdiction in internet matters; and the cost of litigation in Germany is predictable while the loser reimburses the winner -- even outside of the court for successful cease and desist demands.
Wed, Feb. 15, 2012
ACTA - Germany Suspends Accession
FSp - Washington. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement grew out of an initiative by the USA and Japan in order to support owners and marketers of intellectual property to enforce their rights on the internet. The first member nations signed the agreement in late 2011. On January 26, 2012, the European Union and 22 of its 27 member nations joined ACTA.
In Germany, the agreement met harsh criticism of the grant of unconditional authority to the state to bar private internet access, an early warning system for the violation of copyright, releaxed procedural safeguards for criminal prosecutions of minor copyright violations, and obligations imposed on ISPs to disclosure individuals assigned specific IP-addresses. Missing or ambiguously worded criteria in the agreement feed disapproval. For many Germans, ACTA implies censorship, the antitheis of a modern democratic society and its civil liberties, as implemented in the German constitution, Grundgesetz.
In November 2011, Berlin resolved to sign ACTA. But after Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic rejected the treaty, the German Ambassador in Japan, already on his way to a signing event, received orders at the last minute to turn back. The Attorney General stated that the delay should not be misunderstood as a definitive no. The suspension should give us time to carry out further discussions.
FSp - Washington. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement grew out of an initiative by the USA and Japan in order to support owners and marketers of intellectual property to enforce their rights on the internet. The first member nations signed the agreement in late 2011. On January 26, 2012, the European Union and 22 of its 27 member nations joined ACTA.
In Germany, the agreement met harsh criticism of the grant of unconditional authority to the state to bar private internet access, an early warning system for the violation of copyright, releaxed procedural safeguards for criminal prosecutions of minor copyright violations, and obligations imposed on ISPs to disclosure individuals assigned specific IP-addresses. Missing or ambiguously worded criteria in the agreement feed disapproval. For many Germans, ACTA implies censorship, the antitheis of a modern democratic society and its civil liberties, as implemented in the German constitution, Grundgesetz.
In November 2011, Berlin resolved to sign ACTA. But after Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic rejected the treaty, the German Ambassador in Japan, already on his way to a signing event, received orders at the last minute to turn back. The Attorney General stated that the delay should not be misunderstood as a definitive no. The suspension should give us time to carry out further discussions.
Tue, Feb. 14, 2012
English in German Indictment
CK - Washington. The German Supreme Court for Criminal Matters rejected a linguistic challenge to an indictment for conversion, corruption and breach of fiduciary duties. In a multinational business context, the government had offered into evidence untranslated English contracts. The indictment explained the context and effects of the contracts, and some English contracts were offered in translation.
In the matter 1 StR 302/11, the Court confirmed the principle of §184 GVG, the judicial constitutional act, that German is the official language for the legal proceedings. A fair trial is not undermined, however, by the inclusion or reference to original English documents and untranslated reference to locations such as the British Virgin Islands, the court held on November 9, 2011.
The indictment must give the defendant fair warning of the alleged crime and the supporting evidence offered by the government. The requirement is met, the court determined, when the indictment describes the untranslated contracts, and the English-language statements and evidence do not prevent the defendant from understanding the charges.
CK - Washington. The German Supreme Court for Criminal Matters rejected a linguistic challenge to an indictment for conversion, corruption and breach of fiduciary duties. In a multinational business context, the government had offered into evidence untranslated English contracts. The indictment explained the context and effects of the contracts, and some English contracts were offered in translation.
In the matter 1 StR 302/11, the Court confirmed the principle of §184 GVG, the judicial constitutional act, that German is the official language for the legal proceedings. A fair trial is not undermined, however, by the inclusion or reference to original English documents and untranslated reference to locations such as the British Virgin Islands, the court held on November 9, 2011.
The indictment must give the defendant fair warning of the alleged crime and the supporting evidence offered by the government. The requirement is met, the court determined, when the indictment describes the untranslated contracts, and the English-language statements and evidence do not prevent the defendant from understanding the charges.
Wed, Jan. 18, 2012
Sun, Jan. 08, 2012
Traffic Enforcement Cameras in Germany
CK - Washington. 55 years ago, German company Telefunken introduced radar equipment for the enforcement of speed limits. Later, traffic enforcement cameras automated the enforcement. The resulting disputes generated a viable market for German attorneys, specialized as Verkehrsanwalt, traffic lawyers. In the United States, a conceptual controversy erupts annually at the beginning of the year, when state assemblies gather to discuss the use of such technology.
After 55 years, the law is largely settled in Germany. In 2010, the Supreme Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe resolved one of the last major issues: Does the automatic taking of an offender's photograph violate the constitutional right to informational self-determination? In the electronic information society, the Bundesverfassungsgericht had discovered, this right represents a subset of personality rights and human dignity protected in articles I and II of the German constitution.
In the matter 2 BvR 759/10, the court recognized that such images affect that protected interest. The state may balance that concern, however, against a statutority defined, overwhelming public interest in safety. The statute authorizing speed cameras, §100h (1)(1) StPO, is constitutional, the court held on July 5, 2010.
CK - Washington. 55 years ago, German company Telefunken introduced radar equipment for the enforcement of speed limits. Later, traffic enforcement cameras automated the enforcement. The resulting disputes generated a viable market for German attorneys, specialized as Verkehrsanwalt, traffic lawyers. In the United States, a conceptual controversy erupts annually at the beginning of the year, when state assemblies gather to discuss the use of such technology.
After 55 years, the law is largely settled in Germany. In 2010, the Supreme Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe resolved one of the last major issues: Does the automatic taking of an offender's photograph violate the constitutional right to informational self-determination? In the electronic information society, the Bundesverfassungsgericht had discovered, this right represents a subset of personality rights and human dignity protected in articles I and II of the German constitution.
In the matter 2 BvR 759/10, the court recognized that such images affect that protected interest. The state may balance that concern, however, against a statutority defined, overwhelming public interest in safety. The statute authorizing speed cameras, §100h (1)(1) StPO, is constitutional, the court held on July 5, 2010.
German Reports: