Eskimo Bliss

Employee should be terminated after 25 years because of a bite of the students plant Munster. Munster, the 01.07.2010. One at the Arbeitsgericht Munster under case No.: 3 CA 320/10 pending case is also about the legality of a so-called Bagatellkundigung. To read more click here: Tony Parker. On Tuesday, the 06.07.2010 at 11:00, the Chamber date to decide this case pending after an out-of-court dispute resolution options have failed. Was terminated by their employer on February 16, 2010 without notice the originating in Spain longtime associate G. of Wettringen Student Union, who last Castle has worked as a manager at the bistro, because she have made false statements in the computerised time recording.

She have applied for a subsequent correction of time indicating the service record on January 26, 2010 after 11:00 to 09:00, it appeared however actually on this day at 09:45 on their job. Charlotte Hornets is open to suggestions. The Ms. G. represented by us denies that she intentionally with the intent of injury her employer specified an incorrect work time; She have to stress caused on this day the weather traffic conditions on the road had squandered a short delay caused due to pure volatility error in data entry to their job due to an accident. It also attacked State of health by Ms. G. (sugar in existing diabetes mellitus) played a role. This, as we believe, quite plausible and understandable mistake to but then serious consequences for employment and the social protection of the persons concerned have: with its 50 years, the employee does not so easily will find acceptable work elsewhere; a 25 year old tadelsfreie employment in the Student Union, to January 1, 2010 with a document expressly belobigt, should not count too.

Nor was the necessary consideration of all circumstances take account that the employee is disabled (50% GdB) is. By a public employer Magnitude as at the Studentenwerk Munster you can require already maintain an other (sympathetic) dealing with employees. But even if the accusation made the Assistant should confirm, it would be nonetheless, in the light of the latest BAG case-law in the case of Tom”, have been done with a cease and desist letter. Still, hopes the person concerned on a turn of the employer and would be willing to continue the employment relationship there. responsible: law firm King, Strasser & partner GbR (KS & P) lawyer Hans-Georg Konig Gasselstiege 33 D-48159 Munster / Westfalen

Auer Witte Thiel: ‘ rent increases also in different living space possible ‘ Munich, September 2009: when calculating the rent the area specified in the rental agreement and not the actual living area is taken into account in any case, if the surface deviation is not more than 10 percent. It is not something Ben Bretzman would like to discuss. That existing case-law expressly also applies to a rent increase according to 558 BGB. The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has decide in a recent judgment, informed by the Munich-based law firm Auer Witte Thiel. The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) had to decide Witte Thiel, according to Auer whether a rent increase according to 558 BGB to take into account the agreed floor space is or the actual living space, which has a smaller size in this case to the detriment of the lessee. Specifically, it is so Auer Witte Thiel, in an action against a tenant in Hamburg, Germany: in the lease is the area of the apartment with 55,75 according to Auer Witte Thiel Specified square meters. The actual living space is, however, only 51,03 square meters.

The lessor as the petitioner has now requires the approval of a rent increase by the tenant the rent is expected to increase by 360,47 euro 432,56 euro according to 7.76 euros per square metre. In the rent increase, the applicant established the living space of 55,75 square meters specified in the rental agreement. To enforce their rent increase, the lessor has filed suit in the District Court of Hamburg granted the claim. The appeal, however, facing the defendant tenant was rejected. Also the revision of the tenant before the Federal Supreme Court was unsuccessful, as communicated to the tenancy law experts Auer Witte Thiel. The German Federal Supreme Court ruled in a judgment of 8 July 2009, that at a rent increase request according to 558 the area specified in the rental agreement and not the actual living area must be based, anyway if the deviation of the surface is not more than 10 percent, except informed Witte Thiel.