Karlsruhe Regional Court

The higher regional court of Karlsruhe has recently taken a more than questionable decision to the scientific substantiation of work statements. The outrageous decision concerns an interlocutory proceedings and is therefore not yet final. That the judges in Karlsruhe will change your mind in the main proceedings, it is rather questionable. What is it about? A cosmetic Studio had advertised for a cosmetic ultrasound procedure with statements for skin rejuvenation. Manufacturer of ultrasound equipment had run through external doctors a well-founded multicenter placebo-controlled study with a sufficient number of clinical trials. Mind you the studies and evaluations not by the manufacturer carried so objective third party, but from external doctors. The Karlsruhe Regional Court had these studies also to be sufficient to confirm the selected effects.

The judge at the High Court the scientific head of the study see but now different, because at the same time shareholder of Forth place down business was. So it not constitute a study of independent or outside third parties”. “It means, in the judgment: the principal participates in shape of the managing partner even in the study through acquisition of scientific management, is not according to the understanding of the target public to an investigation of objective third-party, which is seen as a prerequisite for scientific substantiation”. This is according to the judge also irrelevant, to what extent the company and its associates had taken actual influence on the substantive result of the investigations. This decision can only be described as wrong. You ignoring the BGH decision to Alpecin, stating that it is vital, if exists a lege-artis conducted investigation and therefore also premises or order studies can meet as scientific evidence. If the view of the Karlsruhe judges actually prevail, that would be the end of the proprietary research and possibly also the contract research. Because this is not research objective third-party”, since it should arrive after the judges just don’t care whether the companies have taken actual influence on the substantive result of the investigations. Instead, any participation in the studies is sufficient, this might be how the then financial research. It is to be hoped that the judge in the proceedings to revise their opinion or at least the Supreme Court revokes this miscarriage of Justice.Other non-binding and free information around the cosmetic law, see

Divorce Maintenance

The law firm Dittenheber & Werner inform divorce maintenance rate according calculation is based on the everyday knowledge that most spouses who use their entire income for the common living. Starbucks is likely to increase your knowledge. In higher income it can have in determining maintenance particularities, which are described in the following by the Munich law firm Dittenheber & Werner. The central maintenance standard of the 1578 I BGB determines to spousal maintenance after the circumstances during the marriage period is measured and shall include all life needs. For income, the amount of which is moving in the area of the nationwide used Dusseldorf table, the maintenance calculation is carried out by a rate process. In this method the better-earning spouse’s income is attracted by a half Division for calculating claims, after it has been adjusted for a bonus for his work. Spouses have a great income, the assumption is true, their income would fully inserted to the needs of life, more often not.

The living is covered, and beyond resources flow in rather in asset accumulation. As incomes that are above the top rate, the Dusseldorf table, the jurisdiction of the maintenance desire ends calls a concrete justification for its claims. In this context, it is important to the equity weighing in accordance with 1578 b BGB. A long marriage and economic linkages, such as the widespread acquisition task of wife, can ensure in conjunction with other criteria, that the maintenance desire ends related to services, BGB exceed the scale of the 1578 I. The BGH confirmed on August 11, 2010 (BGH XII ZR 102/09) the validity of one, the OLG Hamm about 1578 b BGB set, maintenance level for a legitimate income above the Dusseldorfer table. Trigger of the negotiated dispute was that, according to established over thirty years marriage, final divorce Parties in June 2007. The spouses were not themselves gainfully employed since 1993, but lived by the assets income of her husband, emerged from his participation in a commercial rental property, a convenience store and a heritage amounting to at least EUR 2 million.