Zur Berücksichtigung des Denkmalschutzes im Bundeswaldgesetz

Die von Deutschland nach Art. 59 Abs. 2 GG ratifizierten europ?ischen und internationalen übereinkommen zum Denkmal- und Kulturgüterschutz müssen in nationales Recht transformiert werden. W?hrend die L?nder im Rahmen ihrer Kompetenz (Art. 30, 70, 83 GG) Denkmalschutzgesetze erlassen haben, hat der Bund in einschl?gigen Gesetzen wie dem Bundeswaldgesetz den Denkmalschutz bisher nicht berücksichtigt. Dabei ist bei einem Waldanteil von 30% der Wald mit seinen historischen Kulturlandschaften und seinem Waldboden als Archiv der Natur- und Kulturgeschichte von besonderer Bedeutung. Da Deutschland 60 Jahre nach Kriegsende endlich auch ausdrücklich ein Kulturstaat werden soll, ist es an der Zeit, dass die Belange des Denkmalschutzes auch im Bundeswaldgesetz (z.B. §§ 1, 2, 9 oder 11 BWaldG) berücksichtigt werden. Einige Verpflichtungen zum Denkmal- und Kulturgüterschutz sind heute ohnehin bereits V?lkergewohnheitsrecht (Art. 25 GG).     

The Trilateral cooperation

Legal context: The relatively informal agreements setting up the TrilateralCooperation (TC) among the world's three most important patentoffices are contrasted with formal multinational treaties suchas the Patent Law Treaty and the abortive Substantive PatentLaw Treaty. Key points: After its inception in 1983, the TC concentrated initially ondeveloping and implementing standards for electronic storageand retrieval of prior art documents, and facilitation of searching.This was later extended to electronic sharing of priority documentsand to standardization and searching of DNA sequence databases.More recently emphasis has been placed on harmonization of searchingand examination procedures, and working groups have comparedthe approaches of the Trilateral Offices (TOs) to the patentabilityof claims in areas of new technology. Encouragingly, the resultsare usually the same, although the specific objections raisedmay differ. The ultimate goal is to reach a situation in whicha claim allowed by one TO would be accepted by the others withoutfurther examination. Practical significance: The TC has already facilitated search and examination, leadingto lower costs and shorter pendency times than would otherwisebe the case. Further progress depends on harmonization of substantivepatent law, which in turn depends on the willingness of theUSA to accept a first-to-file system.     

Family-owned,limited close corporations and protection of ownership

Protected ownership and freedom of contracts are two basic parts of the institutional framework of successful countries according to Douglass North, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1993. The incentives to make long-term investments are strengthened if ownership rights are protected and freedom of contracts is a basic element in the process of efficient allocation of scarce resources. An important engine in prosperous societies is the family firm. Most companies in these societies can be classified as family firms and a major part of GDP is produced by family businesses. Consequently, how ownership is protected in family firms is an important issue.Three important factors of private ownership of property are the rights to determine use of owned assets, the return generated from them and to transfer the assets at mutually agreeable terms to a new owner(s).The incentives of a founder entrepreneur to put efforts into the establishment of a firm are determined by all the three factors. We will here pay special attention to the third factor, transfer of the ownership of the firm. The founder often places contractual restrictions on such transfers to ensure that the structure of ownership is stable and that the firm stays in the family. The possibility to do so is part of the freedom of contracts and is associated with the extent of ownership held as well as the incentives to invest in new businesses.This paper is primarily about how protection of family ownership can be achieved from a legal point of view and discusses the reasons to enforce these legal relationships in the future for second, third, fourth etc. generations of family owners.     

Zum Regelungsumfang des Art 16 Z 2 LGVÜ/Art 22 Z 2 EuGVVO

Klagen gegen einen internationalen Sportverband, die auf Feststellung der Unwirksamkeit einer Sperre eines bei einem nationalen Sportverband besch?ftigten Trainers von Wettbewerben dieses Sportverbandes und auf Unterlassung von Handlungen, die eine Akkreditierung verhindern bzw erschweren, gerichtet sind, unterliegen der ausschlie?lichen inl?ndischen Gerichtsbarkeit des Sitzstaates; eine Verbindung solcher Klagen mit einer gegen den nationalen Verband gerichteten gleichartigen Klage ist daher unzul?ssig. – Eine damit zusammenh?ngende Schadenersatzklage gegen den internationalen Verband steht auch nicht in dem von Art 6 Nr 1 LGVü geforderten Zusammenhang mit einer Klage gegen den nationalen Verband wegen Aufl?sung des Trainervertrages aufgrund der Sperre.     

THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATORS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COURT:

In their article, Tippins and Wittmann articulate a strong position against custody evaluators making specific custody recommendations to the court. This response will focus on my thoughts about their concepts and my belief that recommendations can be useful and appropriate some of the time, even though there may be significant problems with certain types of recommendations and problems with some evaluators.     

THE BOOKSHELF

Books reviewed in this article:
G. Andrew Benjamin and Jackie Gollan, Family Evaluation in Custody Litigation: Reducing Risks of Ethical Infractions and Malpractice .