Has the federal managing director of "environmental aid", Jürgen Resch, exaggerated with his lawsuit tsunami against God and the world? In the meantime, members of the association have also been criticizing the business model of mass warnings behind the scenes. But a court issues a license to the DUH not to have to be exact about the truth. An absurdity.
If the CDU member of the Bundestag Joachim Pfeiffer describes the association as a "semi-criminal association", this may be neglected in the general criticism of the flood of lawsuits known as environmental aid. But if even members of the association call the warning business "highly dubious and questionable", which makes environmental aid appear in a bad light and "discredits our work", then even the always maliciously smiling Jürgen Resch would have to think about it.
It is new that newspapers, which are otherwise close to the club, are now critical of the financing model. So far, only the FAZ has actually made the Abmahn-Verein's dubiousness clear. Maybritt Illner and the Süddeutsche, as well as the Bildzeitung, are now asking critical questions. And now, according to information available to us, even the tax authorities are checking whether the non-profit status of the registered association is still justified.
The general right of action is obsolete under EU law
But one thing at a time: Managing Director Resch always boobs that the association has general legal standing. However, the association was only granted this in 2004 under conditions that have not proven to be true. An association is only entitled to file a complaint if it allows everyone to join as a member; Members are people with admission full Receive voting rights in the general assembly of the association. It has been proven that this is not the case. As numerous informants have written to us, their application for membership was rejected without a reason. I was also only informed that I could become a sustaining member without voting rights. This means that the “environmental aid” clearly violates EC Directive 2003/35 / EC (Environmental Remedies Act - UmwRG). But nobody seems to mind. Although the legal departments of the car companies and the VDA apparently try everything to legally curb the "environmental aid" and also have capable lawyers, this has apparently been overlooked so far. If the general right to sue were obsolete, thousands of expensive warnings, even small car dealers, could also be challenged.
How seriously the honorable Mr. Resch is with the prescribed democratic rules of his association, he himself revealed. Probably by mistake. Because he does not deny that not everyone can become a member: "Otherwise the DUH could easily be undermined and paralyzed," Resch fears openly in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on August 7, 2017. Undermined by whom? From radical Islamists who want to prevent diesel driving bans? This admission should actually have consequences. The fact that Resch is trampling on the legal obligation to be open to new members with impunity is frightening. Or was he just careless when he said the sentence? In any case, he makes it clear that he does not intend to care about democratic association rules and applicable EU law. With this sentence, Resch exposed himself and (hopefully) risked the general right to sue if it were finally questioned by politics.
If the "environmental aid" lies, then it is only "negligent"
How "environmental aid" can turn a lost legal dispute into a victory with the help of a court, raises doubts about the law. In the so-called organic bag process, the DUH had publicly claimed that a manufacturer's organic carrier bags are not biodegradable, as it claims. Resch initiated a public campaign and warned Rewe and Aldi. Both companies removed the bags from the offer. The manufacturer has now sued "Environmental Aid" to refrain from this claim and was right. In front of the regional court in Cologne, the manufacturer claimed 2,7 million damages from “environmental aid”. Although the DUH's allegation was recognized by the court as wrong, it ultimately no longer played a role.
The only question was whether, contrary to the truth, the DUH could claim that the bag manufacturer's statement that the bags were compostable was wrong. The court formulated in adventurous legal contortions that the DUH had at best acted negligently with its false allegation. Resch cannot be measured with the standard of journalistic care, since Resch is not a journalist and DUH is not a press company. Resch and the DUH are "unlike the Stiftung Warentest not obliged to neutrality and objectivity".
A judgment that takes away your belief in the rule of law. Resch will use this judge's decision as a blank check to continue beating the auto industry with unspeakable false claims and lies.