About the limitation of claims in Abmahnwahn - III III. The statute of limitations "
limitation period in civil law "which the loss of a given period the possibility of an existing Entitled to enforce . "[Link
]
In the previous two in this series [link
] I dealt with the consequences of so-called inhibition by prosecution. Today is a sufficiently documented occurred limitation are described in more detail. As an author I am of the view that the 25th January still seems too early to be sure that in fact no judicial activities that have been applied in the previous year to arrive. And it was only by an error in the delivery of mail can still threaten surprises. It is also possible ... which this text appears delayed by one year. The report
is a warning of the law firm represented Rasch. This is of course not alone in this matter. Warnings on the part of firms grain Meier, Waldorf, Schutt & Waetke, KuW, etc. ... are probably a greater percentage of the statute of limitations affected, because the firm has shown surprising than the klagefreudigste of 2010. A Verjährtengeneration is already behind us. Exciting but it is only really starting this year if the Massenabmahnsysteme have to process each of a number of five-digit non-payers.
The normal procedure? be discussed frequently in the Internet the proceedings on the part of the firm quickly as of 2009 most of the jurisdictions Cologne and Hamburg enforce in the courts before the occurrence of the loss of an existing claim can be done. It is only in proceedings with rich object values in the mid 4-figure range. The trend shows a shift to control actions with a huge share of damages whereas previously only the pure legal costs were claimed. As an example, one can use the procedure LG Köln 28 O 585/10, decision of 22.12.2010. The firm quickly were awarded instead of the required € 2,380.00 in attorney's fees "only
" € 1,680.10. As a substitute there is the consolation prize in the amount of € 3,475.00 in damages. Would add the three-figure legal costs. How can such practices but with expressions of firm leaders tolerate that sounded in the Hamburg Abendblatt of 16.01.2008 to report, "It is
hurt, but not the neck breaking ." [
link] was to be seen. Me in any case are questions of financial support received by families facing the neck is already broken financially. The reasoning of the law firm quickly, so you have until the legal dispute and in this comparison always signaled willingness and thus the defendants were to suffer the negative judgments themselves responsible, I take notice. The judiciary, however, must ask itself whether the now infamous will of the legislature consists families to grind with the sole "crime" was to maintain an Internet connection and, for example, not "properly" to monitor their pupils. The latest is on this subject, however, reported from Hamburg. There delay the district court the end of the suspension of the limitation under court order and opposition of the debtor is currently full four months, in which one of the procedural step of sending the case files to the appropriate district court not done immediately but are somewhat arbitrary, the document first leaves.
But who read the report in the Hamburger Abendblatt has exactly will remember a certain number of the published. It should have been warned 25 000 in the first half of 2007. Even if one were to accept a payer rate of 70% remaining 7500 people left alone from that time. Even if one were to assume now 200 complaints from this ...
... where the rest is just gone? Now. The statute of limitations certainly have a variety of reasons not to come forward. The reports of Abgemahnt from the payment order complex, ie, those that sign up because the statute of limitations was suspended one can read along with a general emotional appeal one thing out: fear.
They fear that if they register yet another whatsoever repression threatened. The merciless law and reporting on the subject does the rest. That's no big secret is that some firms in litigation by statements on the internet present Abgemahnt - Screenshot evidence "created by modern bounty hunters. Also represented by a lawyer does not make people better, as the lawyers can own creation, no vernünftigte forecast ... or even contribute to the hysteria.
The author is not so "anyone". He knows thousands Abgemahnt personally. Incredible as it may sound, but ... he knows so far only a limitation of this particular case, Office of the documented present.
received in the second quarter of 2007, an Internet connection holder from X. a Rasch-warning of six music-industrial societies. A public prosecution Ermittlungsverfahen had been initiated in the first quarter of 2006, as a specific recovery firm had been determined that a three-digit number of songs from the repertoire of record producers in the emule network were offered. Back then there was the statement that a "court adopted
object value play" of € 10,000.00 per song was appropriate. (At 300 titles so alone and € 3,000,000.00 € 13,644.80 RA A) expenses. Therefore is also a settlement offer in the amount breaking of 3,500.00 € wehtuend not appropriate and neck. It was also requested further information on the legal violation. The envoys original-desist letter contained a clear admission of guilt. It should be returned within 10 days after due date, the comparison will be confirmed after 20 days and € 3,500.00 should be received after 27 days.
The Abgemahnt did not respond and received the first call after about two weeks to explain the omission, and to comment on the settlement offer. The warning was sent out completely again. On the track list is waived. The letter, however, was different than the Abmahung sent by registered mail.
met a second letter by registered post a reminder in the first quarter of 2009. A variety of errors to note: dates were not correct. The continued high value of the claim held upright for the design of legal fees has been documented by a decision of a higher regional court in injunction proceedings.
On the non-reaction of the person called for a quarter was followed later by another Registered memory. That's it now.
would of course in this case, an injunction should be explained.
Conclusion
At least the compensation claims from the Abmahnfall are shown from the table. Since the firm has sent Rasch no letter more in about mid 2009, I am personally and to have taken, of course, without access to the file to the prosecutor investigation even like known from the name of the connection owner in 2006, the firm was and thus the end of 2009, the statute of limitations has occurred.
On another matter as the injunction. Any part 4 of this series will have to deal with the question whether this is because even barred. There are quite If the attorney representing the views of the right of prohibition is eliminated so only if the recurrence risk is ruled by a cease and desist if there is still no Omission was explained. As a logical person to me this obvious. Other lawyers and probably the most likely to the provisions of the Copyright Act § 102
on
§ 194 +
belong BGB § 199, and also consider the injunctive relief as time barred.
As might be expected to exist ... the statute of limitations. A system is not visible. Strikingly often (but not statistically recorded) were well chosen Abgemahnt which could be represented by counsel, and thus quite probably also issue cease and desist. Contrast, the proportion of those who "put death" and no complaint / court order received his surprisingly high.
any case should become very clear to be the industry-standard claim, one would mainly a failure of an established infringement is not achieved with a warning can be maintained.
