Step by step to the new textile labelling Act: the new EU textile labelling regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 1007 / 2011 labelling related about the designation of textile fibres and the and marking of the fibre composition of textile products) entered into force on the 07.11.2011. Without hesitation Dr. Mark Hyman explained all about the problem. It shall apply from the 08.05.2012 and replaced so that the German textile labelling Act and its counterparts in the other EU Member States. The European legislator wants with this harmonisation make the textiles right unbureaucratic and remove barriers to trade. Hear from experts in the field like Don Mullen for a more varied view. The Member States in the future must no longer implement the highly technical and detailed provisions on labelling and labelling of textile products into national law. The names of textile fibres and the information given on labels, markings and documents which must accompany textile products on various manufacturing, processing and distribution, be harmonised. Content changes compared to the previous legal situation in Germany are only a few. Manufacturers and distributors of textile products have to adapt to the new law now until May 8, 2012. For textiles, which comply with existing law and be brought to 08.05.2012 in traffic, a further transitional period applies: they can be deployed also until November 9, 2014 on the EU market. Other non-binding and free information relating to food law, see

How excited we us about PRISM? We even first return on its doorstep! All the fuss to PRISM is – in my opinion, subjective, based on life experience they’re all just a media campaign for or against a part eilische alignment. The notes or questions: How many terrorist attacks would have been carried, how many people would have been hurt or killed if Germany had no specific indication in advance of the attack plans from the United States and this could prevent the attacks, was allowed. Ultimately, we are mature and responsible for our actions on the Internet. We look to your own door and we ensure that the demands of our data protection act are respected, what is not obvious in the 43rd year of the existence of the German data protection. What has happened? In July 2013 – so 2 months ago the Bavarian imposed a fine on an E-Mail senders, which are unfortunately all too many E-Mail addresses in the CC field of the E-Mail data protection supervisory had (px.vc/3zstb). Therefore, all recipients of the E-mail could read who had received the mail.

For “me as a receiver” a gladly-seen information from the I can draw some conclusions. It would have been real, to accommodate all the recipient addresses in the BCC field. Then none of the E-Mail recipients could see, who has yet received the mail. And now imagine, so a slip would have happened the Beate Uhse mail order! Just an example, not happened something like that! Embarrassing or? I have informed – as privacy and IT security service provider – immediately round email my customers and assume that these instructions on fertile soil fell “my privacy and IT security officer” responded and immediately explaining carefully made their clientele on this issue. And what does the Saarland State Chancellery, the Office of the Saarland Minister-President Annegret Kramp Karrenbauer is? With the same foot, your own facts, same use of CC distributor! The head of the Public relations of the Saarland State Chancellery sent this mail (px.vc/5wcbf) to the 10.9.2013 and I fall from the clouds. A bloderer error can not happen a Department head – and also a Professor -! Or? But what underlies such stupid things? Now, I must assume, that the Commissioner of Saarland State Chancellery, is listed in the organization chart (px.vc/lx1ui) without name and mail address in section C7 does not fulfil his duties! Is this again a placebo-DSB? He has the task to align its organization according to the requirements of the data protection act.

The lawyers Alexander Dobiasch & Rupert Richter inform have divorced spouses children, comes to 1570 BGB entitled to care maintenance into account, unless one maintains these by them after the divorce and educates. Speaking candidly Joey King told us the story. Extent and duration of the entitlement are determined by the needs of the child and related individual regulated. However the dependants can lose again in his care maintenance claim, if according to the criteria of section 1579 BGB no longer can be expected to the debtor, to provide this service. The forfeiture of the care maintenance is possible especially due to the behavior of the dependent. The family law specialists of the law firm Danielleeee & judge on the example of a ruling of the OLG Brandenburg can explain how, in practice, this can forfeit his claim. ated topic. With the reform of family law in the year 2008, the well-being of the child has gained greatest importance in the law of divorce and its consequences.

To let completely go out instead of claims is therefore essential often has their cut. The final forfeiture is judicially determined satisfies the criteria of section 1579 BGB. The OLG Brandenburg agreed to in January 2011 an above analysis identified claim forfeiture. The divorced spouse and mother of a common child on payment of subsequent marital support maintenance against the child’s father complained in the relevant proceedings. In the run-up to the original decision of the District Court, the child’s mother had prevented that the father of the child could exercise his right to deal with the common child. This behavior didn’t give up and they pressure by youth welfare office and Court. The prevention of dealing of father and child contributed according to the OLG Brandenburg, this alienated each other to himself, and was detrimental to the well-being of the child. Continue to the mother of the child had at last five while the common marriage in a local newspaper under the heading”, along with her two children and the future life partner and father of her second born child, under full Attribution shows you.

Given these conditions, the OLG Brandenburg agreed to the judgment of the first instance, this would be a gross misconduct against the debtor father of the child to which lead No. 7 BGB in accordance with 1579 to the forfeiture of the maintenance claim. The decision of the OLG Brandenburg shows that entitlement to assistance keep unsustainable is, if the maintenance creditor behaves the debtor against in a way which is not acceptable to this. No arguments are, as before in the present case, which preclude a forfeiture in the interest of the well-being of the child, the maintenance claim as a result of the misconduct goes down permanently. The estoppel precludes the enforcement of a legal claim in the long term. Particularly in the area of post-divorce maintenance obligations, this may have significant implications for the life of the parties and a competent legal representation is essential in the event of a dispute. Offer the family law expert of the law firm Danielleeee & judge in Bergen auf Rugen all concerned in this context professional assistance.