by lawyer Martin Arendt, MBL-HSG
The Federal Constitutional Court has commercialized by the initiators of the Alpina GmbH Co. KG asset development plan 4 lodged a constitutional complaint against the final verdict of the Munich Higher Regional Court of 18 December 2006 and the order of 15 January 2007 respectively to Az 21 U 4148/06, not to the decision adopted, confirming those decisions (decision of 29 February 2008 Az 1BvR 372/07). The conviction of the defendant Klaus Jurgen Pitter-Kilfitt and Anouschka Wittke for investment fraud (§ 823 para 2 BGB in conjunction with § 264a StGB) is finally a definitive. Pitter-Kilfitt Wittke and had been condemned by the Munich Higher Regional Court, the plaintiff, an Alpina-stricken investors to repay all its deposits.
According to the Federal Constitutional Court, the initiators of this misleading as tangible assets sold sharing in accordance with the observations of the Munich Higher Regional Court at least concealed the negative fact that "an investor for many years have deposits need to make just about the high so-called Apply soft costs and interest on the deferral to and that have stood before the expiry of this period, money for real investments. "
The Alpina GmbH & Co. asset building plan 4 KG is part of Klaus Pitter-Kilfitt and Anouschka Wittke constructed so-called icon group (www.icon-gruppe.de). Similar in structure and in particular the Alpina GmbH & Co. KG asset development plan 5 and AVIMA AG & Co. KG property value plan 6. Furthermore, among this group more so-called ISIS Investment Fund, despite after the relevant conviction of Pitter-Kilfitt and Wittke to several months imprisonment for the illegal banking transactions (offense § 54 KWG) as a kind of money market funds were applied. Last investors to enjoy the rights to the Icon Group, the company GASTRO AWARD Germany were recruited AG.
* * *
The grounds of the Federal Constitutional Court in the text: are
The conditions for the adoption of the constitutional complaint for decision no. You come to no fundamental constitutional significance, nor is their acceptance and enforcement of fundamental rights or fundamental rights, equal rights, the complainant indicated (§ 93a Federal Constitutional Court Act). In particular, violated the challenged decision is not against the general principle of equality in its manifestation as a prohibition of arbitrary (Article 3 para 1 GG). Under this constitutional aspect, a judge's decision is open to criticism only if it is legally acceptable under any conceivable aspect and therefore imposes the conclusion that it is based on irrelevant considerations (more detail see this standard of review: BVerfGE 87, 273 <278 f.>; 96.189 <203> ). Measured
to these principles to the challenged decisions of the Higher Regional Court constitutionally as a result to remember anything. We need not decide whether the adoption of the Higher Regional Court, which had conducted a criminal investigation against the complainant, a revelation of fact subject to the terms of § 264a of the Criminal Code, to be absolutely proves untenable. The claim for damages will be worn here you can if only by the consideration, a revelation subject, however adverse to the complainants concealed facts are also due to the fact that an investor for many years had deposits need to make: but the high so-called soft costs and the raise interest rates for the deferral and that had confessed to only after this time allowance for the actual investment. This assessment is absolutely unacceptable and. met therefore no radical constitutional concerns. is
From a further justification for § 93 d Paragraph 1, Sentence 3 BVerfGG apart.
This decision is final.
0 comments:
Post a Comment