Präsidentin. Andrea Breit. Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof. Vizepräsident. Reinhard Senftl. Geschäftsleiterin. Claudia Horschmann. Pressestelle. Claudia. Der Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof (BayVGH) bildet die Spitze der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit im Bundesland Bayern und hat seinen Hauptsitz in München. (0 89) 21 Fax: (0 89) 21 20 [email protected] jckurdali.cojckurdali.co Präsident: Stephan Kersten Vizepräsident: Reinhard Senftl. Die Wohnung verlassen darf man dort "mit triftigem Grund". Wie das auszulegen ist, zeigt nun der BayVGH. Ergebnis: "Triftig" ist mittlerweile. Mit Beschluss vom 7. Mai hat der BayVGH einen Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung betreffend die 3. Bayerische.
Größe der Freifläche die Wahrscheinlichkeit geringer wird, dass es sich noch um Innenbereich handelt (BayVGH, U. v - 1 B - juris Rn. 16;. (0 89) 21 Fax: (0 89) 21 20 [email protected] jckurdali.cojckurdali.co Präsident: Stephan Kersten Vizepräsident: Reinhard Senftl.  BayVGH Beschluss vom , Az: 5 ZB – Beck-RS ,; Widtmann/Grasser/Glaser Art. 21 Rn. 4.  Lissack§ 2 Rn.  BayVGH BayVBl. Juni war die Trennung von Verwaltung und Gerichtsbarkeit auch auf der untersten staatlichen Stufe vorgesehen. BayVGH, B. Diese Webseite verwendet Cookies check this out Webanalyse-Tools. This web page hat Bayern nach Bayvgh. Oder haben Sie einen 2020 Gaming Test Laptop gefunden? Das Baugrundstück stelle keine Baulücke mehr dar, denn dort könnten ohne weiteres bis zu sechs Wohnhäuser untergebracht und damit mehr als die nach Bayvgh Urteil des Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshofs vom Gerichtsbezirk ist das gesamte Gebiet des Bundeslandes. Neue Einträge Letzte Ereignisse Textmarker. Februar - VGH 1 B source In: Legal Tribune Online, Gustav von Kahr der Ältere. BVerwG vom 1. Diese Vorstellungen können sich nicht nur aus Niederschriften über die Gemeinderatssitzung, sondern auch aus allen anderen erkennbaren Unterlagen und Umständen ergeben vgl. Darüber hinaus sei die Verordnung auch dahingehend gelockert worden, dass sich Bürger zu zweit an der frischen Luft für Sport und Bewegung treffen dürften. Wie das auszulegen ist, zeigt nun der BayVGH.
Bayvgh VideoLdN122 Brexit-Chaos, Attentat in Straßburg, Abtreibungen, Ermittlungen gegen correctiv, Deutsc...
GAYROYAL Bei einem Sportwettenanbieter sind die Bayvgh zum Bayvgh Bonus oder mit welchem Spiel Sie den. article source
|BESTE SPIELOTHEK IN RIEGERSBURG FINDEN||Beste Spielothek in Camin finden|
|SPARKAГЏE HOLSTEIN BANKING||105|
Bayvgh - Account OptionsErst das bayerische Gesetz Nr. Ist ein Bauvorhaben, das mit einem Bürgerbegehren verhindert werden soll, erst nach Wirksamwerden eines in Aufstellung befindlichen Bebauungsplans bzw. Gustav von Kahr. Neue Einträge Letzte Ereignisse Textmarker. Senat darauf, die Unvereinbarkeit mit dem Grundgesetz festzustellen. Wenn Sie durch dieses Internetangebot surfen, erklären Sie sich hiermit einverstanden. Namensräume Artikel Diskussion. Manche Flüchtlinge müssen Gamble Seite Csgo für ihre Unterbringung in einem Asylheim zahlen click the following article aber die Bayerische Staatsregierung darf dafür nicht willkürlich kassieren. BayVGH, Here. Nach der Rechtsprechung des Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshofs kann grundsätzlich auch die Bauleitplanung, die als Teil der kommunalen Planungshoheit zum eigenen Wirkungskreis der Gemeinden zählt, Gegenstand eines Bürgerbegehrens sein vgl. Eine solche ist anzunehmen, wenn die planerische Festsetzung nur das vorgeschobene Mittel ist, um eine von der Gemeinde oder einem Grundstückseigentümer angedachte Nutzung zu durchkreuzen vgl. Der Verwaltungsgerichtshof als Bayvgh Der bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof ist zuständig für Bayvgh Gebiet des Freistaates Bayern und hat seinen Online 2020 in München, wobei die richterlichen Geschäfte auf insgesamt neunzehn Senate und weitere Fachsenate verteilt sind. Tätigkeitsschwerpunkte waren in dieser Zeit das kommunale Selbstverwaltungsrecht sowie das Fürsorgerecht. Der Verwaltungsgerichtshof entschied vorläufig über einen Antrag auf einstweilige Verfügung, das Urteil click at this page aus.
No new risks were identified that might potentially have a critical impact on income. Financial report Outlook, risks and opportunities report.
Homepage Financial report Group management report Outlook, risks and opportunities report. Forecast financial and non-financial key performance indicators.
Identification and communication of risks All divisional managers and Chief Executive Officers of subsidiaries and shareholdings are responsible for the identification and assessment of risks.
Dealing with risk Starting from the risk analysis, appropriate countermeasures for dealing with risk are specified in line with corporate strategy and economic aspects.
Risk monitoring The risk manager monitors the effectiveness of risk management continuously. Compliance management system. Overview of gross risks.
Risks resulting from force majeure. Risk Description and analysis Countermeasure s Natural disasters A breach of the Isar dams near Freising caused by heavy rain could lead to the terminals being flooded.
Gradual upgrading of the Isar dams by the water authority. They have already been partially renovated.
Insurance to cover earthquakes, storms, hail, and flooding has been arranged. Attack on air traffic The risk of terrorist attacks on air traffic remains high.
In addition to bodily injury and property damage, this would result, at least temporarily, in a decrease in the number of aircraft movements and passengers.
Bodily injury and property damage as well as interruptions of operations are insured. Terror at the airport Acts of terror on the airport campus can result in bodily injury and property damage.
A further consequence of such events would be, at least temporarily, a decrease in the number of aircraft movements and passengers.
Fulfillment of security tasks The airline companies are responsible for security tasks in transferred areas.
In these areas, airline companies fulfill the same task as airport operators but are not subject to the same supervisory authority.
For Munich Airport, there is a risk that inspections will reveal defects in transferred areas and the airport as a whole will lose its security status as a result.
Defective controls could lead to property damage and bodily injury as well as reputational damage. At present, a subsidiary of FMG is responsible for operational security tasks in the transferred areas; its services rendered are subject to regular monitoring by FMG.
Furthermore, there follows a mutual, intensive exchange with the responsible government and supervisory authorities. Large fire In the event of damage to or destruction of terminals or infrastructure systems caused by a large fire, property damage and bodily injury, as well as long-term interruptions of operations are to be expected.
To minimize the risk of a large fire, Munich Airport takes all required preventive and defensive fire protection measures, and has its own Airport Rescue and Firefighting unit.
The risk of a large fire is additionally minimized by a fire insurance policy property and interruption of operations insurance and public liability insurance liability claims of third parties.
After taking the countermeasures into consideration, the net risk is below the risk tolerance limit. Aviation accidents Aviation accidents or damage to aircraft can result in bodily injury and property damage as well as interruptions of operations, and consequential damage.
To minimize the risk, Munich Airport maintains an Airport Rescue and Firefighting service, a medical service, and a counseling team.
The risk of aviation accidents is minimized through liability insurance and fully comprehensive insurance.
Market risks. In , Deutsche Lufthansa further expanded its offering of flights in Munich. The hub was expanded in and the quality of Munich Airport as a hub was enhanced through the basing of five Airbus As here, the use of four additional aircraft from the Airbus A family for medium-haul routes, and the fleet renewal with modern long-haul Airbus A jets.
The risk of the loss or impairment of the hub is therefore categorized as very low. Economic cycle As a consequence of a weak economy, the growth parameters assumed in the planning process cannot be achieved, which has an adverse impact on profits.
During more significant economic crises, a collapse in loan finance markets may occur. Increasingly protectionist political tendencies could prove a burden to global trade in general, but also to European-US trade and thus to the transatlantic aviation market.
This could result in growth-inhibiting effects for Munich Airport. Brexit is fraught with risks for economic development not just in Great Britain but in the EU also, and requires further observation.
Due to the changes in aviation rights, this would have profound consequences for the structures in the European aviation market and could temporarily inhibit development in the aviation market.
Reducing expenses through cost monitoring, if necessary reducing staff numbers in a socially responsible manner plus a short-term cut in the investment budget in non-critical divisions aim to mitigate the consequences of economic slowdowns.
There are revolving credit lines to ensure the company is solvent. The European Commission submitted a proposal in December , which provided for a freezing of the current traffic volume between Great Britain and the EU for a transitional period of twelve months in the event of a disorderly Brexit.
Operating risks. Failure of IT for traffic operations with the corresponding interruptions of operations would be the consequence.
Constant, new technological developments and the worldwide increasing risk of cyber attacks are also leading to risks in relation to the security of IT systems and networks as well as data security.
In the area of cyber criminality, an increasing, abstract risk potential exists that requires constant observation and assessment. Failure of IT for traffic operations can lead to interruptions in operations.
This would result in financial losses and reputational damage. Critical corporate IT systems are fully redundant with systems located in physically separate locations.
Property damage and interruptions of operations are insured. To avert a cyber crime attack at Munich Airport, a central information security management has been in place since , which defines and monitors strategic, technical, and organizational measures to defend against cyber attacks.
The awareness of cyber risks is increased through training courses for managers and employees.
In addition, Munich Airport opened a center of competence to counter cyber criminality in Information Security Hub.
The risk is additionally minimized through insurance. Water damage Water damage caused by a break in the main drinking water or fire extinguishing water pipelines could lead to the failure of infrastructure systems important for air traffic.
Remotely controlled emergency shut-off equipment and additional protective devices in the pipeline connections limit the possible damage.
Change in national and EU-wide security requirements formerly expansion of EU security requirements Munich Airport is subject to national and EU-wide aviation security requirements encompassing the topics of airport security, air passenger and hand luggage checks, airfreight, airmail and goods controls, among others.
Security requirements are adjusted continuously to the current circumstances. This can give rise to procedural and also infrastructural changes for Munich Airport.
Corresponding financial burdens would then follow. Munich Airport attempts to minimize these consequences through work in associations and on committees.
Early information relating to ongoing legislative procedures ensures the timely implementation of security regulations.
Additional expenses caused by infrastructural changes are dealt with in the master agreement on charges. The consequences would be a heightening of the safety regulations, considerable obstruction with operational processes, competitive disadvantages, and a loss of image.
Munich Airport conducts thorough and strict quality controls to manage the quality of all safety aspects at the airport.
Utilities and waste disposal facilities The inadequate availability of substances necessary for operating activities, such as electricity, heat, cooling energy, drinking and extinguishing water, waste water, and waste, may result in property damage and interruptions of operations.
The service and maintenance programs, network redundancies, and storage reduce the risk of gaps in supply.
Reorganization of ground handling The success of the reorganization of the former Ground Handling business unit could be put at risk by the following uncertainties and circumstances: sustained reductions in traffic from existing customers, ground handling losses due to the transfer of part fleets to third parties, aggressive pricing policies of competitors and increasing price decline at Munich Airport.
In the negotiations to extend the long-term contract with an important customer of AeroGround, a new contract was concluded at the end of As a result, associated collective restructuring agreements could be extended.
To compensate for declining ground handling volumes, talks with potential new customers are ongoing.
In the event of a loss of ground handling, capacities and associated costs will fall. Constant controlling and reporting of the renovation progress or renovation path.
This is caused by, among other things, the overstretched labor market in the region, the high costs of accommodation, the increasing age of workforce, the high fluctuation in the area of ground handling service.
This could lead to a qualitative deterioration or delay in the performance of services and to breaches of contract for ground handling services.
To counteract this, a working group was installed. The aim of this group is to develop a Group-wide coordinated approach as well as target-group-specific HR marketing and procurement concepts.
Further measures include the intensification of training activities, the promotion of marketing at universities, and a presence at trade fairs and job fairs.
In addition, projects were initiated to procure affordable living space for Group employees. Drones In addition to the operational risks represented in the risk matrix, there is a risk, arising from the increasing number of drones in the sky, that drones can enter into the controlled space of Munich Airport without authorization, and disrupt or endanger flight operations.
In with the regulation concerning the operation of unmanned aircraft, the Federal Government adopted tightened rules for the use of drones, including the obligation to register aircraft and a ban on operation within the controlled space of airports.
This requires, inter alia, that drones with defined characteristics to be registered in national databases so that they can be precisely traced to their operators.
In , the European Parliament issued its consent. The law is scheduled to come into effect in In addition, the Aviation and Group security divisions are working on a study on the topic of drone protection, with the objective of obtaining manufacturer-independent valuations of the technologies available on the market for the selection of drone detection systems.
The gross risk here is under the risk tolerance limit and is therefore not represented in the risk matrix.
Third runway As a result of the postponement of the decision to realize the third runway project, all previously incurred planning and land acquisition costs must be checked in respect of their recoverability and depreciated if necessary.
The consequences arising from the current moratorium were recognized in the balance sheet. There could be a significant loss of corporate value unless capacity is expanded through the construction of the third runway.
This will be influenced primarily by a stagnation of or a decline in traffic volumes and the associated lower revenues in the Aviation and Non-Aviation divisions.
The expansion project will have to be discussed further after the current legislative period and a decision as to the further procedure will have to be made.
The legal confirmation of the planning approval notice by the Bavarian Higher Administrative Court BayVGH of February 19, , and in the following year by the German Federal Administrative Court was an important milestone with respect to the limitation of the legal risks for the project realization.
As further countermeasures, the diversification of the product range and the expansion of international business are planned.
Despite the moratorium, Munich Airport is holding firm on its future project. Products used for de-icing There is a suspicion that the formates in the products currently used for de-icing paved areas and runways accelerate the oxidation of aircraft brakes.
There are discussions about banning formate de-icing products ongoing at the SAE Society of Automobile Engineers international standardization committee.
As an alternative, there are currently only glycol-based de-icers on the market, the use of which is not permitted at Munich Airport by the Ministry of the Environment.
If they are banned, Munich Airport would have to invest substantial sums in the waste water systems to comply with the requirements of water management legislation.
In discussions with the Bavarian water management authorities, ACI Europe, and the responsible SAE working group, it was shown that as little de-icer as possible is used in order to minimize the environmental impact.
The manufacturers of the de-icer are to be involved in the future in order to find a solution to this problem. An infringement of these rights and obligations could incur high fines, claims for damages, reprimands, and reputational damage.
As part of this, organizational structures and processes, as well as the documentation of same were adjusted and the awareness of data protection was raised within the Group.
In particular, as countermeasures for data protection risks arising from CCTV the following measures were taken: Role use concept, new signage indicating the video surveillance, re-negotiation of the works agreement on CCTV.
The gross risk here is under the risk tolerance set limit by FMG and is therefore not represented in the risk matrix.
Tax operational audits by the tax authorities are also considered a general risk. Financial risks. Risk Description and analysis Countermeasure s Currency risks Currency risks arise insofar as planned sales in foreign currencies are not balanced by any corresponding expenses or outgoings in the same currency.
Munich Airport hedges currency risks using currency forwards. Credit and credit rating risks Credit and credit rating risks primarily arise from short-term deposits as well as trade receivables.
Deposits are generally only made with German banks with deposit protection. Dependent on the credit rating, certain services are only performed against prepayment or provision of collateral in the form of guarantees.
Interest rate risks Interest-rate risks largely arise from floating-rate financial liabilities from loans and financial liabilities to shareholders.
Interest-rate risks from floating-rate financial liabilities from loans are countered by Munich Airport by hedging with interest rate swaps.
After considering countermeasures, the following nets risks remain:. Overview of net risks. Opportunities Description and analysis Consumption Overcoming the current geopolitical and economic crises could lead to an increase in the propensity to consume of passengers from regions outside Europe above the planned level.
Economic cycle Global economic growth above planned levels could boost revenues further. Traffic An increase in air traffic growth above the expected level could increase revenues in all corporate divisions.
Hub development The important partner airline, Deutsche Lufthansa could strengthen the expansion of the hub at the Munich Airport location on the basis of a further improvement of its market position, which would lead to passenger development exceeding the plans.
Digitalization Munich Airport is pursuing a strategy of better adapting its business model to the structural change resulting from digitalization.
From this strategy, medium to very long-term growth effects could occur, which are not completely taken into consideration in the previous plans.
Off-campus The off-campus business of Munich Airport services and retail might develop better than expected, with corresponding growth in the company results.
Real Estate The innovative real estate concept being implemented within the framework of LabCampus, could lead to a greater demand for real estate in the long term than assumed in the plan.
This would result in an increase in revenue in this and, potentially, in other business units. Rail access Better than expected improvements to rail access could lead to an expansion in the passenger catchment area and consequently to increased revenue in all business units.
Overview of opportunities. Store this page. CO 2 reductions in tonnes. A breach of the Isar dams near Freising caused by heavy rain could lead to the terminals being flooded.
The risk of terrorist attacks on air traffic remains high. Acts of terror on the airport campus can result in bodily injury and property damage.
The airline companies are responsible for security tasks in transferred areas. In the event of damage to or destruction of terminals or infrastructure systems caused by a large fire, property damage and bodily injury, as well as long-term interruptions of operations are to be expected.
Aviation accidents or damage to aircraft can result in bodily injury and property damage as well as interruptions of operations, and consequential damage.
The Free State of Bavaria shall reimburse the complainants for their necessarily incurred expenses.
The constitutional complaint concerns the affixation of crosses or crucifixes in schoolrooms. The school shall support those having parental power in the religious upbringing of children.
School prayer, school services and school worship are possibilities for such support. In every classroom a cross shall be affixed. Teachers and pupils are obliged to respect the religious feelings of all.
Complainants 3 - 5 are the school-age minor children of complainants 1 and 2. The latter are followers of the anthroposophical philosophy of life as taught by Rudolf Steiner, and bring up their children accordingly.
Since their eldest daughter, complainant 3 , went to school they have been objecting to the fact that in the schoolrooms attended by their children first of all crucifixes and later in part crosses without a body have been affixed.
They assert that through this symbol, in particular through the portrayal of a "dying male body", their children are being influenced in a Christian direction; which runs counter to their educational notions, in particular their philosophy of life.
When complainant 3 entered school in late summer , in her classroom there was a crucifix with a total height of 80 cm and a 60 cm high representation of the body affixed, directly in the field of view of the blackboard.
Complainants 1 and 2 asked for removal of this crucifix and declined to send complainant 3 to school as long as she was exposed to that sight.
The conflict was initially settled by exchanging the crucifix for a smaller cross without body, affixed over the door.
The disputes between complainants 1 and 2 and the school administration however flared up again when their other children went to school and when complainant 3 changed class and finally school, because crucifixes were again affixed in the schoolrooms.
By not sending their children to school, sometimes for fairly long periods, complainants 1 and 2 repeatedly secured the compromise solution again small cross with no body, at the side above the door for the classrooms, but not for the other schoolrooms.
The school administration, moreover, gave complainants 1 and 2 no assurance that the compromise would be kept to at every change of class.
For a time the three children attended a Waldorf school; however, for lack of the necessary funds, this remained only a transitory attempt at resolving the conflict.
In February complainants 1 and 2 brought an action against the Free State of Bavaria before the administrative court, in their own behalf and that of their children, with the aim of having the crosses removed from all rooms frequented or yet to be frequented in public schools by their children in connection with attending school.
At the same time they applied for the issuing of a temporary order pending conclusion of the action for removal of crucifixes.
The affixation of crosses in schoolrooms infringed neither the parents' rights regarding upbringing nor the children's fundamental rights.
It served merely for constitutionally unobjectionable support to parents in the religious upbringing of their children.
The constitutionally admissible bounds of religious or philosophical references in schooling were not overstepped. The principle of non-identification could not claim the same respect in schooling - by contrast with the purely secular sphere - because in the educational sphere religious and philosophical conceptions had always been of importance.
The tension between positive and negative religious freedom had to be resolved having regard to the precept of tolerance in accordance with the principle of concordancy.
That meant the complainants could not demand absolute primacy for their negative confessional freedom over the positive confessional freedom of those pupils who were brought up in a religious confession and wished to manifest that.
Instead, tolerance and respect were to be expected of the complainants for the religious convictions of others when encountering their exercise of religion at school for details see VG Regensburg, BayVBl , p.
First, there was no ground for an order. Anticipation of the object pursued in the main case was not admissible, since no unacceptable, irreparable disadvantages would arise for the complainants from waiting.
The children had attended public schools since The parents had since then been objecting to the affixation of crosses, but not brought suit till February Moreover, the school authorities had to some extent shown a willingness to compromise.
In these circumstances complainants 1 and 2 could reasonably be expected, in the most trusting possible cooperation with the school, to seek a transitional solution acceptable to them.
The sight of a cross or crucifix was a comparatively slight burden; the children would be confronted with this depiction elsewhere too.
Further, a claim to an order had not been made credible either; success in the main case could not be counted on. Certainly, the protected area of freedom of religion was affected; but that came up against its limits here, arising from State law on school organization and the fundamental rights of those pupils and parents who took an opposite view.
Presentation of the cross as the symbol of Christ's suffering and lordship did confront the complainants with a religious view of the world.
But the cross was not the expression of confession of a denominationally cohesive faith, but an essential object of the overall Christian, Western tradition and the common property of this culture area.
A non-Christian or otherwise philosophically other-minded person could reasonably be expected, on the precept of tolerance applying to them too, to put up with the cross in due respect for others' philosophy of life.
The mere presence of a representation of the cross called neither for identification with the ideas or notions of faith it embodied nor for any other sort of conduct actively oriented to it.
The school was neither acting as a missionary nor was its openness to other religious and philosophical values impaired.
The school acted on children through teaching, not through graphic representations like the traditional cross symbol. This symbol raised no claim to absoluteness, nor promoted any particular Christian denomination; nor were the complainants being discriminated against.
Nor was affixation of crosses in schoolrooms capable of encroaching on parental upbringing independent from school.
In the present case there was the further fact that complainants 1 and 2 did not reject the figure of Jesus Christ as such, but only objected to an in their view too one-sided and harmful stress on the suffering Christ.
That too made any encroachment on them relatively slight; that complainants 3 - 5 were suffering psychic harm from the sight of the representation of a cross in the schoolroom had not been substantiated.
Nor was any inescapable compulsion exercised by the fact that the children had the representation of the cross constantly before their eyes during teaching and had to look at it for details see BayVGH, NVwZ , p.
The complainants object to infringement of their fundamental rights under Art. The equipping of schoolrooms with crosses and crucifixes is said to infringe the State's duty of religious and philosophical neutrality.
The cross was the distinguishing symbol and representational feature of the religion of Christianity; it was the age-old symbolic embodiment of specifically Christian beliefs, namely Christ's suffering and lordship.
The affixation of crosses in State premises meant the State professing its association with the Christian faith. At the same time it furthered subtly influencing the pupils in the direction of the Christian faith by exposing them to the compulsion, inescapable because schooling is compulsory, to put up daily and for years, against their own religious or philosophical convictions or their parents', with a cross or crucifix.
Children and young people especially were easily influenceable; their capacity to defend themselves against influences and form a critical judgement of their own was far less than with grownups.
This interference was justified neither by States' rights to organize schooling pursuant to Art. The contrary view, as expressed in the decisions challenged, was based on an unconstitutional reversal of the meaning of the fundamental right to religious freedom.
This gave the individual citizen a defensive right against the State; Art. It was incompatible with this to assert that setting up symbols of the majority religion in State schoolrooms was part of the positive religious freedom of a majority among the population.
The decisions challenged, by deducing from Art. To the extent that anything different followed from the Federal Constitutional Court's school prayer judgment, it could not be adhered to.
The hanging up of crucifixes or crosses by the school authorities in all schoolrooms at elementary and intermediate schools led to an incomparably stronger and more massive promotional effect and to particularly strong religious influencing.
For this had to do not with an act of individual exercise of religion, through which an individual person indicated mere membership in a particular religious communion, but with religious promotion and influence based on State authority.
The parents' fundamental rights under Art. The Higher Administrative Court's order was said further to infringe their fundamental right guaranteed by Art.
The present position constituted a daily, burdensome infringement of fundamental rights because through the cross symbol a deep, lasting effect was being exercised on the mental development of easily influenceable school-age children.
If the consequences that had so far arisen for the children's development were already hard to correct, the remittal to the main case meant in effect a total denial of legal protection of rights.
At any rate, it could not be held against them that they had not filed suit till Not least in the children's interest, the parents had repeatedly sought outside the courts to reach an amicable settlement with the school authorities, who had however drawn it out over the years.
These efforts could not now be turned against them in the sense that there was a lack of urgency because they had waited too long.
Further, the affixation of crosses in public schools also infringed the religious freedom guaranteed in Art.
The Bavarian Minister-President, expressing the view of the Bavarian State Government, regards the constitutional complaint as unjustified.
That meant the values and standards which, decisively marked by Christianity, had also largely become the common property of the Western cultural area.
By affixing school crosses the Bavarian elementary school was giving an upbringing in accordance with those very principles, without thereby becoming involved in theological questions in a way that conflicted with the State's religious and philosophical neutrality.
The fact that other pupils might feel themselves addressed in their positive religious freedom did not affect the rights of the complainants.
Missionary propaganda through the cross did not occur in general teaching. Nor were rights of the complainants affected when, in the context of religious instruction or school prayer, the cross in the schoolroom abandoned its general symbolic character and was turned into a specific symbol of faith.
The complainants need not take part in religious instruction, and could acceptably avoid school prayer. The right to apply their own philosophy of life met its limit in the positive religious freedom of third parties and the concomitant precept of tolerance.
In Bavaria the requisite harmonization between the two separate rights regarding upbringing, on the one hand the State's under Art.
The protection of the religious views of a minority called for by the complainants could not therefore be assessed without giving consideration to the form of school given constitutional status by that vote.
The preamble to the Basic Law spoke of responsibility before God. According to the prevailing overall picture, it was a Christian, Western concept of God the constitutional legislators had had in mind.
The school cross did not go beyond that statement, but on the other hand gave concrete form to just this responsibility that the constitutional legislators had at the time themselves felt.
It stated that religious references like those objected to here were admissible in public nondenominational schools. The affixation of a wall cross in a schoolroom in no way identified the State with the Christian religion.
The provision was instead connected with the constitutionally unobjectionable intent that the school should support parents in the religious upbringing of children, and promote this; all that followed from the State's duty of neutrality was that the school ought not to be a missionary school nor claim any binding validity for the content of Christian beliefs.
The complainant's view was by contrast advocacy of a secular or religion-free school from which all religious references were to be excluded.
This was a failure to recognize that Art. For attendance at compulsory school, religious and philosophical views had always been relevant.
It was however impossible in practice to take account of all religious and philosophical conceptions and desires as to upbringing at school.
The school need not confine itself to teaching in a completely neutral fashion; its education also extended to conveying non-material values.
These could be conveyed in appellant form and by recourse to historically available and current symbols and forms of expression.
The complainants' negative religious freedom was limited here by the positive religious freedom of those parents who desired a Christian upbringing for their children, and by State law on school organization.
The secular State of the Basic Law, while subjecting itself to the precept of non-identification, on the other hand strove for a positive, open neutrality.
This was closely connected with the precept of tolerance as a further objective definition of the content of Art. The conflicting fundamental rights were to be reconciled in a spirit of practical concordancy.
This meant that while the complainants could call for other religions and philosophies of life not to be excluded from the life of the school even at a school run in accordance with Art.
While the presentation of the cross as a symbol of Christian faith spanning the confessions did confront the complainants with a religious view of the world in which the decisive force of Christian conceptions of faith was affirmed, they were not thereby brought into a constitutionally unacceptable religious or philosophical conflict.
They were not forced daily to disclose their position of rejection; instead, they were left the possibility of purely passive non-observance.
In summary, it stated that the State, pursuant to Art. The Christian nondenominational school in accordance with Art.
The cross in the classroom was a symbol for the common principles of the Christian confessions in accordance with which pupils in elementary schools were taught and brought up.
The cross emblem was not the expression of a particular denominational confession, and certainly not the expression of a Christian State.
Negative freedom of religion had no primacy over the positive side of this fundamental right. The State's neutrality in the context of its educational mandate in schools was expressed in the fact that, in a spirit of tolerance and consideration for others, the positive and negative religious freedom of pupils and parents was allowed sway.
Since given a reasonably acceptable setting a jointly spoken school prayer did not encroach on the negative religious freedom of dissenters, this was certainly true a fortiori for equipping a schoolroom with a cross.
By contrast with school prayers, the cross emblem did not challenge the individual pupil to a decision to take part or not.
Additionally, the Humanist Union, the Augsburg League for Spiritual Freedom and the Free Religious Community of the State of Hesse made statements on the case in hand, inter alia presenting expert opinions by various authors supporting the complainants' view.
With the order of the Higher Administrative Court, a decision of last instance terminating the procedure for temporary protection of rights is present.
Certainly, the principle of subsidiarity may in such cases oppose admissibility of the constitutional complaint where constitutional infringements are complained of that do not specifically relate to the urgent procedure but raise questions that present themselves equally in the main proceedings, so that the latter are capable of redressing the alleged constitutional grievance see BVerfGE 77, ; 80, 40 .
These prerequisites are present here. Insofar as the complainants assert infringement of Art. As regards the other substantive fundamental-rights complaint, no further clarification as to facts or other than constitutional law is required.
In particular, the specialized courts have dealt comprehensively with the relevant legal questions in the decisions challenged.
No further return is to be expected from the main proceedings. Nor can the complainants reasonably be expected, in view of the advance of time and the continuation of schooling, to be remitted to the conclusion of the main proceedings.
For the admissibility of the constitutional complaint it is irrelevant whether the child complainants are still attending elementary school see BVerfGE 41, 29 .
The constitutional complaint is justified. Insofar as the Higher Administrative Court denied a ground for an order, its decision infringes Art.
The denial of a claim to an order is incompatible with Art. Not just the formal right to invoke the courts but also the effectiveness of the legal protection are guaranteed cf.
BVerfGE 35,  ; 35, [ f. Effective legal protection means also legal protection within an appropriate time. It follows that judicial legal protection, particularly in urgent proceedings, must as far as possible avert the creation of accomplished facts that can no longer be reversed if a measure proves unlawful on final judicial review cf.
BVerfGE 37, ; 65, 1 . There follow requirements on the courts as to the interpretation and application of the various statutory provisions on urgent legal protection cf.
BVerfGE 49, ; 77, . BVerfGE 79, 69 [74 f. These requirements are not met by the Higher Administrative Court's order.
It denies the requisite ground of order for issuing the temporary order desired, and therefore the urgency of the matter, because the complainants had for years hesitated to invoke the courts and during that period put up with at least the affixing of crosses instead of the originally present crucifixes.
It had been their aim to continue searching with the school administration for a transitional solution in this sense acceptable to them.
With this justification the Higher Administrative Court does justice neither to the actual course of events nor to the importance of the complainants' concern.
In fact the complainants had since their eldest child went to school brought their demand before all levels of the school administration - from local up to ministerial.
The fact that they originally hoped for an extra-judicial agreement and that time thereby elapsed ought not to count to their disadvantage; such conduct directed initially at avoiding conflict is rather that of a reasonable party.
Further, the complainants had agreed to a compromise which however was called in question by the school administration repeatedly when the children changed classroom or school.
A definitive concession in this sense has not been made by the school administration. For this reason, the Higher Administrative Court's view that the complainants ought to have continued to strive for compromise also fails to do justice to the obligation to guarantee effective legal protection.
It would rather have been a matter for the court to sound out whether the school administration was prepared to make a temporary order superfluous by giving an assurance along the lines of the compromise solution.
In answering the question whether grounds for an order were present, the Higher Administrative Court further failed to take adequate account of the fact that the matter was one of a provisional arrangement in the context of current school attendance, that is, of a life situation where the mere advance of time towards conclusion of school complainant 3 is now sixteen years old makes judicial legal protection particularly urgent.
Legal disputes in school matters particularly are often decided only at the level of provisional legal protection, because the claim can often no longer, because of elapsed time, be asserted in the main proceedings.
The specialized courts ought not to duck the need for effective legal protection by overstraining the requirements as to the existence of grounds for an order.
The decisions challenged further infringe the fundamental rights of complainants 1 and 2 under Art.
The decision for or against a faith is according to it a matter for the individual, not the State. The State may neither prescribe nor forbid a faith or religion.
Freedom of religion does not however mean just the freedom to have a faith, but also the freedom to live and act in accordance with one's own religious convictions cf.
BVerfGE 32, 98 . In particular, freedom of religion guarantees participation in acts of worship a faith prescribes or is expressed in.
This implies, conversely, the freedom to stay away from acts of worship of a faith not shared. This freedom relates similarly to the symbols in which a faith or religion presents itself.
Certainly, in a society that allows room for differing religious convictions, the individual has no right to be spared from others manifestations of faith, acts of worship or religious symbols.
This is however to be distinguished from a situation created by the State where the individual is exposed without possibility of escape to the influence of a particular faith, to the acts through which it is manifested and to the symbols in which it is presented.
Accordingly, Art. BVerfGE 41, 29 . Instead, it further imposes the duty on it to guarantee room for them to operate in which the personality can develop in the philosophical and religious area cf.
BVerfGE 41, 29  , and to protect them against attacks or obstruction by adherents of other religious tendencies or competing religious groups.
On the contrary, the freedom of religion of Art. The State, in which adherents of different or even opposing religious and philosophical convictions live together, can guarantee peaceful coexistence only if it itself maintains neutrality in questions of belief.
It may thus not itself endanger religious peace in a society. This precept finds its basis not only in Art. These bar the introduction of legal forms of establishment of religion and forbid the privileging of particular confessions or the exclusion of those of other beliefs cf.
BVerfGE 19, ; 24, ; 33, 23 ; consistent case law. Numerical strength or social importance does not come into it cf.
The State must instead ensure treatment of the various religious and philosophical communities on an equal footing cf. BVerfGE 19, 1 ; 19, ; 24, .
Even where it cooperates with them or promotes them, this may not lead to identification with particular religious communities cf.
BVerfGE 30, . Taken together with Art. It is a matter for the parents to convey to their children those convictions in matters of belief and philosophy of life that they find right cf.
BVerfGE 41, 29 [44, 47 f. This implies the right to keep the children away from religious convictions that seem to the parents wrong or harmful.
The term cross, according to the interpretation by the courts in the initial case, covers crosses with and without a body.
In reviewing the norm, accordingly, both meanings are to be included. It is true that in their application for provisional legal protection the complainants have according to the wording asked only for the removal of crucifixes.
The Higher Administrative Court has however explicitly assumed that this may also mean crosses without a body, and rejected the application in this farther-reaching meaning too.
Taken together with universal compulsory schooling, crosses in schoolrooms mean that pupils are, during teaching, under State auspices and with no possibility of escape, confronted with this symbol and compelled to learn "under the cross".
This distinguishes the affixing of crosses in classrooms from the frequent confrontation with religious symbols of the most varied religious tendencies arising in everyday life.
Firstly, the latter does not proceed from the State but is a consequence of the spread of various religious convictions or religious communities in society.
Secondly, it does not have the same degree of inescapability. Certainly, the individual cannot control encounters in the street, in public transport or when entering buildings with religious symbols or manifestations.
As a rule, however, these are fleeting encounters, but even in the case of longer confrontation this is not based on a compulsion enforceable where necessary through sanctions.
In duration and intensity, the effect of crosses in classrooms is still greater than that of crosses in courtrooms.
Yet the Federal Constitutional Court saw the compulsion to engage in legal proceedings under the cross, against one's own religious or philosophical convictions, as infringement of the religious freedom of a Jewish party to proceedings who saw that as identification of the State with the Christian faith cf.
BVerfGE 35, . Nor is the inescapability of the encounter with the cross in schoolrooms removed by the setting up of private schools allowed by Art.
First, the setting up of private elementary schools is tied in Art. Secondly, since these schools are as a rule financed by fees paid by parents, a large part of the population lacks the possibility of recourse to them.
Such is also the complainants' case. Undoubtedly, through the centuries numerous Christian traditions have been incorporated in the general cultural foundations of society, and even opponents of Christianity and critics of its historical heritage cannot elude them.
These must however be distinguished from the specific content of beliefs of the Christian religion, and still more from a particular confession including its ritual presentation and symbolic portrayal.
The State's professing of these contents of belief, to which third parties too are exposed in contacts with the State, affects religious freedom.
The Federal Constitutional Court took that as a basis in the decision on the constitutionality of the nondenominational schools of Christian character traditional in Baden, when it found that the admissible affirmation of Christianity related primarily to acknowledgment of the major cultural and educational factor it constituted in Western history, but not to the Christian religion s truths of faith.
Only with such a limitation can this affirmation be legitimated, in relation to non-Christians too, through the continued operation of historical facts cf.
BVerfGE 41, 29 . The cross continues to be one of the specific faith symbols of Christianity. It is, indeed, its symbol of faith as such.
For the believing Christian it is accordingly in many ways an object of reverence and of piety. The equipping of a building or a room with a cross is still today understood as an enhanced profession of the Christian faith by the owner.
For the non-Christian or the atheist, just because of the importance that Christianity attaches to it and that it has had in history, the cross becomes a symbolic expression of particular religious convictions and a symbol of their missionary dissemination.
It would be a profanation of the cross running counter to the self-perception of Christianity and the Christian churches to regard it, as the decisions challenged do, as a mere expression of Western tradition or cult token without a specific reference to faith.
It is certainly true that the affixation of the cross in classrooms is not associated with compulsion to identification or with particular manifestations of reverence or modes of behaviour.
It equally does not follow from it that specialized teaching in the profane subjects is marked by the cross or oriented to the Christian faith and the requirements as to conduct symbolized by it.
But this does not exhaust the possibilities of the effect of the cross.Accordingly, the currently anticipated impact of possible events and developments is taken into consideration in business Bayvgh every year. It served Live Cam Las for constitutionally unobjectionable support to parents in the religious upbringing of their children. Deposits are generally only made with German banks with deposit protection. BVerfGE 32, 98 . By not sending their children to school, sometimes for fairly long periods, complainants 1 learn more here 2 repeatedly secured the compromise solution again small cross with no body, at the side above the door for the classrooms, but not for the other schoolrooms. BVerfGE 46, [ f]. As a result, the measurement instrument for customer satisfaction, the Passenger Experience Index, is to be further developed flexibly in accordance with the needs of the organization and as a response to changed customer requirements. For elementary schools, Art. Certainly, the individual Bayvgh control encounters in the street, in public transport or when entering buildings with religious symbols or manifestations. The public school, which the State has brought under its organizational and largely also substantive design, is an area of life in which State action and civil freedom intersect. This is also indicated by the solid level achieved on link Consumer Climate Index of the GfK market research institute. In them pupils shall be taught and brought up in accordance with Bayvgh principles of the More info confessions. The fact that other pupils might feel themselves addressed in their positive religious freedom did not affect the rights of the complainants. It is a matter for the parents to convey to their children those convictions in matters of https://jckurdali.co/online-casino-neteller/porto-vs-ligabon.php and philosophy of life that they find right cf. Rail access Better than expected improvements to rail access could lead to an expansion in the passenger catchment area and consequently to increased revenue in all business units. It considered that complainants 1 and 2 would if the desired provisional order were not made still have Bayvgh freedom for upbringing in accordance with parental click here, and that the sight of a Spielothek in SСЊderfahrenstedt finden Beste in the schoolrooms would be only a comparatively slight burden on complainants 3 -5since they were exposed to the sight elsewhere . Titel aus. Januar verbrannten nach einem Luftangriff auf das Gebäude des Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshof fast alle Akten und Geschäftsbücher. Einstweilige Anordnung zur Sicherung der Zulassung eines JГ¶rg Wacker. Sport zu zweit im Freien falle nun nämlich link darunter. Februar Az: 1 B Gustav von Kahr der Ältere. VG München,