Thus, about Prof. Dr. med. Jan F. Orth, Chairman Richter at the Landgericht Cologne, Via Twitter: The BGH s justification of his view, the fines of DFB against the clubs are not punishments, but pure preventive measures, also supported on the CAS, does not simply vain the language The BGH had declared a press release, this would correspond to the case-law of the International Sport Court CAS. So important the CAS is, so obvious, known and criticized, it is, consistently in the literature and in the case-law. The BGH has only attested himself that the questionable occupation of his panels was just just remarkable, criticized Orth, but also points to the still outstanding written judgment of the Karlsruhe Richter.
The publisher of the journal Sport and Law has been an assessor of the DFB Federal Court since 2010. In this respect, it is certainly not self-evident that Orth is clearly speaking here in such a way. Because in the association you should welcome the BGH saying. Even before another background, the reference to the Sports Court in Lausanne is at least amazing: however, CAS is a privately organized arbitral tribunger, no institutional government organization.
We must now see the verdict and decide whether it is worth, as the Federal Constitutional Court requested.
Jena Managing Director Chris Förster
Today s regional league Carl-Zeiss Jena was drawn after a fine of 25,000 euros after burning pyrotechnics through his fans to third-divisional times until before the BGH to attack the client adhesion for incidents in the stadium, which of the DFB in his legal and procedural order Prescribe. The BGH sees a fault with the association that has not taken enough measures against riots of the fans.
The judges write to the fines preventive character to motivate the clubs, in the future use all their available means in order to aggregate their trailers and to prevent future viewer rails. Jena Managing Director Chris Förster announced: We now have to see the verdict and decide if it is worth, as the Federal Constitutional Court will request.
The question of liability for fan behavior will continue legally
Mark E. Orth, neither related nor waste with Jan F. Orth, quantities for the Thuringian: With the judgment of the BGH, the dispute over the liability of the clubs for their fan blocks is not decided, because antitrust law did not check the BGH. The Munich antitrust expert sees in the practice of the DFB sports court An abuse of a dominant position by the association. As a further aspect, orth, it does not lead to the DFB for years for years to prevent the use of pyrotechnics at the DFB Cup Cup in the Berlin Olympic Stadium.
This is also to be found in the verdict judgment of the Higher Regional Court Frankfurt / Main. Since the association is not with a fine evidence, there is a discrimination, orth. The lawyer and teaching officer of the German Sporthochecusc Cologne believes: The question of liability for fan behavior will proceed legally. The BGH decision is only animp.
Comments
Post a Comment