If a judge outside of main proceedings - for example in legal costs - is called to make a decision, know where all parties involved: Self-conscious up to our ears! - Which makes the defender? Well, of course, the judge must be rejected. Now the defenders but put in a dilemma: Either he rejects "the first again," and pushes the reasons behind soon. Or he waits until he has the time to deliver a complete application - but then runs a risk that has held up to then known as the biased judges already.
The first variant is thus practically mandatory, but it has a small flaw: According to the law that a Such an application inadmissible. Against that so few are made when there is any doubt on benefits very little, because the challenged judge is in doubt - as I said, evading his embarrassment and his inclination to the victim all the rights, including via the legally permissible also are known - this time abide by the law.
is not going to do now sooo expensive. On Thursday, was 07.05.09, announced that it would be back RIAG Ronsdorf Kai, who was to decide on the appeal against the illegal raised examination fee. Since the substantive issue but "really obvious" is, but has moved more than three lawyers desks, was quick Action is called for - why just Ronsdorf should be the one here would take corrective action ... For a complete application was not time, that was first on Friday a "pro forma" Rejection sent to the court. The reasons were announced to be submitted on the latest 13:05:09.
But - we're fast. On Monday, the court was a complete rejection of the 11:05:09 request before (see last posting ). Knowing the (dubious) above law, we had not just the reasons for the request from 08.05. filed later, but wrote a whole new application for refusal. So, we thought, could Ronsdorf Although the application of 08.05. rejected as inadmissible, it was now but before a complete new application had to be decided by the - stopped the process was all, the biased judge could not decide on the merits.
But RIAG Kai Ronsdorf would not he would accept it this way. No: On 5/25/2009, and thus defeated two weeks after receiving the complete application Ronsdorf reject the application as inadmissible, 08.05.09 , "as neither a reason for refusal, nor a means of substantiation are specified" - but not only (that would be almost in our sense), no, the complete rejection of the request 11:05:09 be declassified to a "writing" with which a "is ex post facto justification" .
banter. Very well. So we put on the Lord worth 01.06. apart is why the application is still in the world 11:05:09 and modest. Precaution - Ronsdorf would insist on his perverse view that we had nothing in hand - we have filed the same request again . And so, the Court not to complain about unnecessary burden, announced to take back the last request when the application is 11:05:09 treated as what it was: a standalone application for rejection, which now is to decide.
short bring a claim, the man now to the decision - which, frankly, we are relatively unimportant. right would of course only from 11.05. But at this point we want to be pragmatic in times of doubt ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment