LEGAL+ NEWS
In my blog post “Can so-called warning associations do anything? – On the liability for damages of warning associations such as the Association of Social Competition (VSW)” I had already reported from practical experience on the fact that so-called warning associations – covered by the courts – are still acting to the detriment of market participants.
 
															With its recent action against influencers, the Association of Social Competition (VSW) has attracted a lot of media attention and thus – unintentionally – finally brought movement to the question of what warning associations may and may not do. The “Handelsblatt” has now – also with my support – in its latest weekend edition of March 15/16/17, 2019 provided valuable clarification regarding the questionable actions of the VSW.
The legal consequence of the actions of VSW and, of course, of any other warning association can be, as I have explained in my article mentioned above above, may include an obligation to pay damages to injured market participants.
 
															LATEST ARTICLES

ZPO guide: Submission of evidence after the taking of evidence
The Federal Court of Justice sets strict requirements for the rejection of party submissions due to delay.
In a case of practical relevance, a court of appeal had conducted a hearing of evidence and then, as is customary, granted the parties a certain period of time to comment on the results of the hearing of evidence. Within this period, the party providing evidence referred to a witness who had not yet been named.   

Guide: International Civil Procedure Law – On the suspension of the statute of limitations by bringing an action under the EU Service Regulation (EUZVO)
The EU Service Regulation (EUZVO) regulates the transmission of judicial documents in EU legal transactions and also has considerable significance for the suspension of the statute of limitations. Although the EU Service Regulation is not new, the courts are constantly dealing with issues relating to international service. One important aspect concerns the requirements for an effective suspension of the limitation period by filing an action.

“Evidence” possible through party submissions alone! – On the decision of the BGH of 10.03.2021 – Ref. XII ZR 54/20
LEGAL+ NEWS “Evidence” possible through party hearing alone! – On
CONTACT
 
															+49 (40) 57199 74 80
+49 (170) 1203 74 0
Neuer Wall 61 D-20354 Hamburg
kontakt@legal-plus.eu
Benefit from my active network!
I look forward to our networking.
This post is also available in: DE
 
								
