Monday, May 4, 2009

Monte Blanc Store In Jacksonville

unduly raised examination fee

In the process, the conscientious shot from Andreas Reuter, it is still continuing. Briefly on the state of things in the opinion of the District Court Görlitz from last September: The

been appealed, we have withdrawn on 21.10.2008 . This is less because there would have been at the judgment about criticizing anything legal - it might very well, namely in particular the implementation of the appeal itself, although it has been shown to act a (illegal) blocking appointment of public prosecutors. The danger, however, that on this issue, to the so far little case law exists, the Higher Regional Court Dresden would comment negatively, we have judged to be too large and will therefore continue to work up the way the whole process instead of the legal and legal policy literature. Some appeared here already, other papers are currently in the process of creation - we are on this later published in a list (see verdict in the "More information about the process" about the article in 2 / 08 (Journal of the judges and public prosecutors in the ver.di)).

Now the process is but another "Fun" section. The Treasury has opened its account - And would like to make a charge for an appeal on a charge of 240 EUR. Regard, it relies on the cost directory of legal costs law , No. 3130, and quoted these numbers even themselves "fee for audit procedures by order or decision." Well, it was in the revision process, a decree or order? No. In such a case, a (then: half) No fee for 3131 will be due, but not "taking back the revision prior to the submission of grounds." So it is but here - a fee may not therefore be taken into account.

One might think, well, there's the prosecutor made a small mistake undermined, it could happen once, since one then points on it, and so should the matter be settled. Unfortunately - far from it.

is the one it is clear that system. In three cases, in which the defenders were active in the current proceedings in cases other than defense and placed well at a certain time for a revision, it was withdrawn before the expiration of the reasons of appeal period, was later used by the public prosecutor of the fees referred to in paragraphs . 3130 or 3131 brought in approach and could be down again removed from the world only on appeal. The cases were also spread over the country (StA Hamburg; StA Dresden, StA Amberg; Now: StA Görlitz). It can only be assumed that the Treasury here actually tried in a really bad faith always to charge this fee, even if they do not become due, most defenders are then in the process no longer directly involved, and accused the bills eh more of a closed book, so that probably rarely oppose - and operates the state treasury in this manner, a profitable business.

Second, we have the so-called appeal of the "memory" is now out noted that the review fee is not to bring in approach. In response, the prosecutor the costs listed fine again - by repeating the examination fee collected inadmissible, for submission to the District Auditor and for forwarding to the district court to rule on the appeal. Again, we have once again taken in addition position and pointed out that a judicial decision must be because the prosecution could correct the bill simply (another minor problem that is also still been in the financial statements, but which is almost negligible ).

remains to be seen whether the district attorney really on their (absurd) position persists when, who's the infamous AG Zittau have to decide if this is about ... to experience

0 comments:

Post a Comment