With the requirement for omission a future impairment or a threatening disturbance can be legally repelled. The requirement for omission is a quasinegatorischer requirement.

The requirement for omission is to be differentiated from the requirement for removal temporally: The requirement for omission works toward disturbances in the future, the requirement for removal into disturbances already taken place. A separation is not possible at certain drop constellations.

More rightful usually is that, for which the danger of a disturbance of its rights exists. The requirement can be made valid both in the civilian and in the public right.

Germany

In Germany the general requirement for omission in the civil law on "§ 1004 exp. 1 P. 2 BGB is supported. Further civil requirements for omission of importance are "§"§ 12, 862, 910 BGB. In the special areas, in particular the commercial legal protection ("§ 97 UrhG, "§"§ 14 exp. 5, 15 exp. 4 Mark-closely, "§ 42 GebrMG), are special arrangements. In principle it is required that a repetition danger exists. This does not exclude however an action to restrain interference, if it concerns one for the first time and seriously threatening impairment. A requirement for omission is generally impossible, if a tolerance obligation meets the concerning. To make valid is the requirement for omission with achievement complaint this applies also to the public requirement for omission. it presupposes the threatening disturbance of an absolute subjective right and regularly to right goods of the fundamental rights will refer. Differently than with the civil requirement for omission it is to be made valid before the Administrative Courts.

Law of communication media (after German right)

In the medium civil law the requirement for omission is practical the most important requirement. It is supported by a total analogy "§"§ of the 12, 862, 1004 BGB. This concerns a maximumpersonal requirement, which cannot be retired.

Is rightful, who individually by an inadmissible expression in the medium reporting, is it by a factual statement or an expression of opinion, in its personality right, is concerned or a portrait publication. Depending upon right concerned different injury facts are relevant: with Beleidigungsdelikten this is "§ 823 exp. 2 BGB i.V.m. "§"§ 185 FF. StGB, with inadmissible portrait publications "§ 823 exp. 2 BGB i.V.m. "§"§ 22, 23 KUG, with inadmissible expressions is possible an injury general personality right i.S.v. kind 1 exp. 1 i.V.m. kind 2 exp. 1 GG.

The disturbance must be illegal, so that an injury of a protected legal position is to be feared. Here must be weighed out in detail between the personality right of the concerning and the fundamental rights of the expressing.

Requirement opponent is not only that, which transacts the expression directly, but if necessary also widen the expression (widening adhesion), thus e.g. the publishing house, transmitter, editor-in-chief etc. (see press right).

Prozessuale asserting

Usually first only a provisional order is obtained after "§ 936 ZPO. For this the applicant must make the urgency (order reason) and the requirement for order convincing. It has the burden of proof and statement. A burden of proof reversal in favor of the concerning exists only in the case of the offense ("§ 186 StGB). Assistance of a vorprozessualen warning can be gone around the risk to have to carry with immediate acknowledgement after "§ 93 ZPO by the Anspruchgsgegner otherwise the process costs. Often also an omission explanation punish-reinforced by the medium is then delivered, with the consequence that the legal protection need of the claimant for a complaint is void.

Switzerland

Austria

Articles in category "Requirement for omission"

We found here 3 articles.