Letteratura scientifica selezionata sul tema "Mortgages (German law)"

Kirsten Lylloff: The Struggle on the German schools in Denmark after 1945 In 1945 there were 58 private and 31 public German schools in Southern Jutland [private school and public school are defined following US-standards], all founded after the reunion of the former German region with Denmark in 1920, and one private German school in Copenhagen founded in 1575.Since Hitler’s seizure of power in 1933 a part of the German minority in Southern Jutland openly opposed the Danish hegemony, demanding return of the region to Germany, and part of the Danish majority feared, as a consequence of Germany’s rising power, a German reacquisition of the region, especially after the German occupation of Denmark in 1940. During the occupation 9 new private German schools were build and 10 of the older buildings restored, and the budgets, which always had been partly subsidized from Germany, were raised. Germany’s payment to the schools was drawn on the German-Danish clearing account, which at the end of the war showed a huge deficit for the Danes.With the German surrender 1945 the time was ripe for revenge for the Danish majority, and as a consequence all German schools in Southern Jutland were closed in the summer of 1945.From January 1946 special classes for German-speaking pupils were established in some of the public schools, but it was no success, partly because of local opposition from the Danish majority, and the classes were suspended in the summer of 1946. The private German schools were allowed to reopen from January 1946, but two other post-war laws, which weren’t intended to harm the German schools, in fact closed the schools, as the laws led to the confiscation of the school buildings. The first law resulted in the confiscation of all German property in Denmark. Because mortgages in some of the school buildings were owned by German juridical persons, the Danish custodian for German property seized the mortgages and required them redeemed. The second law intended to force Danish firms, which have had an unreasonable high profit by trading with and servicing the Germans, to repay to the Danish state the excess profit. It meant that the schools were asked to repay all the payments received over the German-Danish clearing account, and as they of course weren’t able to do this, the buildings were confiscated as security. The Danish public school only had the capacity to absorb 1⁄3 of the pupils from the German schools, and for that reason a large part of the children from the German minority couldn’t attend school until after the summer of 1946, where they were allowed entrance to the public school.The German school in Copenhagen, Sankt Petri School, wasn’t exposed to the same national hatred towards all Germans as the schools in Southern Jutland, even though a considerable part of the pupils were German citizens. The reason was probable, that the school was “less visible” in the Copenhagen environment, than the German schools in Southern Jutland. Sankt Petri School had drawn considerable larger amounts from the German-Danish clearing account than all the German schools in Southern Jutland together, most of it used to build a new prestigious school building in Copenhagen, the rest used to salaries to the teachers.Sankt Petri School wasn’t closed, but managed to hold on with a few pupils and by subordinating to the Danish demand, that teaching and examination were done in Danish.At last in 1949 the social democratic government was able to push through, that Sankt Petri School’s debt to the Danish state was eliminated, and from 1959 the school was again allowed to teach and examine in German. In 1949 too, the government allowed that German private schools in Southern Jutland reacquired 13 school buildings. But pupils were not allowed to pass exams, which were meritorious to further education in Denmark, and they were under strict supervision of the local authorities, – the supervision was eventually lifted in 1952.In 1955 the Danish Prime Minister H. C. Hansen and the German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer agreed on the Copenhagen-Bonn Declaration, concerning minority-rights on both sides of the German-Danish border. In this agreement German private schools in Southern Jutland were permitted to pass exams to their pupils, giving them right to further education in Denmark. That was the end of the struggle, equality between German and Danish private schools was a fact. But the struggle had been expensive for the German minority. The number of pupils has never since reached the heights of the period 1920–1945.Especially the social democrats Hartvig Frisch and H. C. Hansen were at the forefront in reestablishing the German schools, the strongest opposition coming from the political parties, Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti and Dansk Samling. Most of the Danish majority in Southern Jutland and a considerable part of the civil servants were against a reopening of the German schools, but the high ranking civil servants in the ministries followed the intentions of the various governments and did what they were told to do by their ministers, whether they were for or against reopening of German schools.

Abstract: The following paper deals with the national law in England, Scotland and Germany governing real securities over land. After an introduction (under I) a short outline over the generally possible interests in land and their protection within the three considered legal systems follows (under II) to allow a better understanding of some special terms. A brief comparison concludes this overview. In the main part (under III) the different types and contents of real securities over land are shown, compared and discussed. Especially their technical construction (under 1), the English equitable mortgages and charges over legal interests in land (under 2), other rights in land, such as the English equitable interests in land, as security (under 3) and the possibility of a conveyance of land as security (under 4) are examined. Here it is focused especially on the law?s consideration of the arising practical needs and interests of mortgagor/chargor and mortgagee/chargee as well as on the systematical clearness of the law. In the final conclusion (under IV) it is pointed out that within the rules governing real securities over land there are similarities as well as differences between the three legal systems. However the differences partly result from general phenomena which are sometimes deeply rooted in the legal system. Since their harmonisation does not seem probable in the near future the creation of a special international ?land charge or mortgage? is finally recommended.

“Should bankers be publicly hanged for what they have done?” During a visit to Abu Dhabi in March 2009, the author came upon this sarcastic question while reading the well-known United Arab Emirates' journal “The National.” The aforesaid question was part of an interview with Paul Koster, chief executive of the Dubai Financial Services Authority, concerning the financial crisis. He answered in the negative by saying, “There will be court cases, but public hanging is a bit extreme.” His statement has, in a way, anticipated the result of the paper at hand: There should be criminal proceedings in Germany as well; however, they should not result in draconian criminal consequences.

Relevance. For many years in the Russian Federation there has been a steady growth in mortgage lending, which makes it especially important to find ways to improve the legal regulation of mortgage legal relations on the basis of analysis of domestic and foreign experience in this area. Mortgage lending is the most important source of funds for purchasing real estate by citizens of the Russian Federation and foreign countries. In this connection, legal regulation of relations connected with such lending requires continuous development based on a balanced consideration of the interests of debtors and creditors as participants in mortgage legal relations. The analysis of foreign experience in the regulation of mortgage legal relations, including the experience accumulated and fixed in the German legislation, is most important for the solution of this problem. The purpose of the study is to develop theoretical provisions aimed at improving the legal regulation of mortgage legal relations in order to protect the rights of their participants. Objectives: to reveal features of legal regulation of relations connected with granting mortgage loans and pro-tection of rights of their recipients in German legislation; to investigate features of providing balance of interests of mortgage debtors and creditors in German legislation; to determine directions of further development of legal regulation of the considered questions. Methodology. The author relied on the dialectical-materialistic method, the systematic method, methods of analysis and synthesis, the formal-legal method. The results of the research are are of theoretical and applied nature and are aimed at improving the quality of legal regulation of civil relations. Conclusions. The conclusions made in the article are of debatable character, directed to the continuation of researches within the framework of the declared subject, directed to the development of the basic principles allowing uniformly to solve the problems connected with development of legal regulation of questions of mortgage crediting in the Russian Federation taking into account foreign experience. The article is a continuation of the author's research on the issues related to the legal regulation of mortgage lending in the Russian Federation and abroad.

The article presents the basic solutions to be applied in the so-called annuity real rights. These are limited real rights (iura in rem), which permit obtaining certain revenues from real property on a regular basis. Their essential purpose is to secure specified periodical benefits, primarily those of a pecuniary nature. These rights show some similarities, on the one hand, to pledge-type rights (especially mortgage) and, on the other hand, to easements. Currently, no annuity real charges of any kind have been regulated under the Polish civil law (since the entry of the Civil Code into force in 1965), as they were perceived, albeit incorrectly, as a reminiscence of the epoch of feudalism. However, they are still popular in other European civil law legislations, for example in the German, Swiss, Austrian, Spanish, Czech, Estonian, Slovenian or Croatian laws. The prototype for this category of rights is the real burden (German: Reallast). This paper presents various solutions for the latter institution as well as related institutions, such as the Swiss “annuity letter” (German: Gült, French: lettre de rente) and the German annuity land charge (German: Rentengrundschuld). Different concepts for the legal nature of the annuity rights have been presented, in particular the German real burden, which formed the basis for proposals of solutions in the work of the Polish Civil Law Codification Committee at the beginning of the 21st century. The potential usefulness of the real burden rights indicated in this article confirms the legitimacy of introducing this type of legal institution into the Polish law.

Since the 1960s, there has been discussion regarding the introduction of a flexible real estate pledge law in Europe that could serve to ensure security above all for cross-border loans. Although this issue is not currently undergoing detailed analysis, due to a number of significant changes in variousEuropean legislations, including in Polish law, anticipating new solutions in mortgage law, it is worth considering anew whether they and which ones might constitute a possible model for future security in rem in European Union law. The first section of the article outlines the historical background of solutions breaking with the Roman model of accessory pledge rights, and presents a few selected modern mortgage systems, in which there has been a significant departure from the principle of pendency of collateral security on real estate above all the German, Slovenia, Swiss, French, Estonian and Hungarian systems. Slovenian practice may be taken as an example of solutions that have not worked out in practice due to abuses related to the establishing of a non-accessory pledge right to the detriment of creditors seeking the satisfaction of other debts from the property of the owner of the encumbered property.

After establishing the general legal framework for international bankruptcies, and then examining the competence of the forum state to open bankruptcy proceedings, and the effects recognised by the forum state in relation to a foreign bankruptcy, the present report tries to provide a brief overview of the fate reserved for security rights, whether rights in rem, created by statute (legal mortgage, privilege), or contractual, as well as rights of preference (right of retention, or compensation), in the context of an international bankruptcy under German, English, Belgian, Canadian, Greek, French, Italian, Japanese, Dutch, North American, Swedish and Yugoslavian law.

Institutions that provide credit to consumers have usually included a clause in the loan documentation that allows the credit provider to unilaterally amend the applicable interest rate. Over the past years, these clauses and the way they have been used has come under increased scrutiny. This article charts a number of relevant developments and identifies focus points for the future. Under Dutch law, consumers claim that these clauses are unreasonably onerous and should be invalidated. Dutch courts have to take into account the supranational origin of this provision. The Dutch Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) has given some guidance on the assessment of such clauses in consumer mortgage loans, but has given no principled ruling. In the assessment of the unfairness of an interest rate amendment clause, it is key whether the negative consequences for consumers of these clauses are balanced by the consumer’s contractual rights. Setting aside an interest rate amendment clause can have far reaching consequences, especially if the contract cannot survive without this clause. While the Dutch landscape is still evolving, the German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) solves this through supplementary interpretation of the contract. It is debatable whether this practice is compatible with European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law. In conclusion, it is noted that the discussion about the unfairness of interest rate amendment clauses should take place in the wider context of both interpretation of the clause and the banks’ duty of care when supplying revolving consumer loans.

Abstract: In Comparative and European Property law, there is a clear need for studies into the fundamental basis of the legal systems in Europe. One part of this fundamental basis is the creation and extinction of property rights. One of the most interesting elements of this subject and the reason for this article is the idea of concurrence of the right of ownership and a limited property right burdening that same right of ownership held by the same person. This possibility is not recognized in every legal system. In the discussion on the development of a European property law, this fundamental question and the differing treatments it receives in various European legal systems are very vital. Very interestingly, the argumentation used in German, French, Dutch and English law is very similar but reaches different results. The possibility of holding a property right and ownership over the same object is recognized in German law, but generally not in Dutch, French and English law. Only when the position of third parties is taken into account some convergence between the various approaches to this problem can be reached. The European Commission, when working on property law proposals such as a possible right of Euro-Mortgage, other property security rights, but also in the area of EU consumer law, should therefore take these doctrinal differences and similarities between these four Member States into account. Résumé: Il existe en droit comparé et en droit européen de la propriété un besoin évident d’approfondir les bases fondamentales des systèmes de droit en Europe. Une partie de cette base fondamentale concerne l’acquisition et l’extinction des droits réels. L’un des éléments les plus intéressants sur ce sujet, objet de cet article, est l’idée de concours entre le droit de propriété (right of ownership) et un droit réel limité (limited property right) grevant ce même droit de propriété, détenus par la même personne. Cette possibilité n’est pas reconnue dans tous les systèmes de droit. Dans la discussion sur le développement d’un droit européen de la propriété, cette question fondamentale, ainsi que les différents traitements reçus dans les divers systèmes de droit sont d’une extrême importance. Il est très intéressant de constater que l’argumentation utilisée en droit allemand, français, néerlandais et anglais est très similaire, mais aboutit à des résultats différents. La possibilité de détenir un droit réel (holding a property right) et un droit de propriété (ownership) sur le même objet est reconnue en droit allemand, mais généralement pas en droit néerlandais, français et anglais. C’est seulement lors de la prise en compte de la position des tiers que certaines convergences apparaissent entre les différentes approches de ce problème. La Commission européenne, lorsqu’elle travaille sur des propositions concernant le droit de la propriété tel qu’une éventuelle euro-hypothèque, d’autres droits de sûretés, mais aussi le droit européen de la consommation, devrait donc prendre en considération les différences et similitudes doctrinales entre ces quatre États Membres.

Forfeiture of property is one of the oldest penalties in Polish law. Its origins can be traced in pre-state law, in the penalty of exclusion from tribe. Anybody could kill a person thus punished and destroy his property, and would suffer no penalty for such acts. Later on, in early Middle Ages, the penalty of plunder was introduced: the offender’s possessions were looted, and his house burned. Destruction of the offender’s property as a penal sanction resulted from the conception of crime and punishment of that time. Crime was an offence against God, and punishment was seen as God’s revenge for crime – that offender’s house was destroyed as the place that had become unchaste, inhabited by an enemy of God. The penalties imposed in Poland in the 12th and 13th centuries were personal, material, and mixed penalties. There were two material penalties: forfeiture of the whole or part of property and pecuniary penalties. The utmost penalty was being outlawed which consisted of banishment of the convicted person from the country and forfeiture of his property by the ruler. Being outlawed was imposed for the most serious offences; with time, it became an exceptional penalty. In those days, forfeiture of property was a self-standing, as well as an additional penalty, imposed together with death, banishment, or imprisonment. As shown by the sources of law, forfeiture of property (as an additional penalty) could be imposed for “conspiracy against state” rape of a nun forgery of coins, cheating at games, and profiteering. Other offences punishable in this way included murder, raid with armed troops and theft of Church property, murder of a Jew committed by a Christian, and raid of a Jewish cemetery. Data on the extent of the imposition of that penalty in the early feudal period are scarce; as follows from available sources, it was applied but seldom. The consequences of forfeiture were serious in those days. Deprived of property, the convicted person and his family inevitably lost their social and political status which made forfeiture one of the most severe penalties. From the viewpoint of the punishing authority (duke), forfeiture was clearly advantageous due to its universal feasibility; to the duke’s officials, it was profitable as they were entitled to plunder the convicted persons’s movables. In the laws of the 16th and 17th centuries, forfeiture was provided for: serious political crimes (crimen leaesae maiestatis – laese-majesty; perduelio – desertion to the enemy), offences against currency and against the armed forces. As an additional penalty, it accompanied capital punishment and being outlawed. The law also provided for situations where forfeiture could be imposed as a self-standing penalty. In 1573, the Warsaw Confederacy Act which guaranteed equality to confessors of different religions banned the inposition of forfeiture for conversion to another faith. Initially absolute – the whole of property being forfeited and taken over by the Treasury where it was at the king’s free disposal – forfeiture of property was limited already in the 14th century. To begin with, in consideration of the rights of the family and third to forfeited property, the wife’s dowry was excluded from forfeiture. Later on, in the 16th century, the limitations concerned the king’s freedom of disposal of forfeited property. A nobleman’s property could no longer remain in the king’s hands but had to be granted to another nobleman. Forfeiture of property can also be found in the practice of Polish village courts; as follows from court registers, though, it was actually seldom imposed. European Enlightenment was the period of emergence of ideas which radically changed the conceptions of the essence and aims of punishment, types of penalties, and the policy of their imposition. In their writings, penologists of those days formulated the principle of the offender’s individual responsibility. This standpoint led to a declaration against forfeiture of property as a penalty which affected not only the offender but also his family and therefore expressed collective responsibility. The above ideas were known in Poland as well. They are reflected in the numerous drafts of penal law reform, prepared in 18th century Poland. The first such draft, so-called Collection of Jidicial Laws by Andrzej Zamojski, still provided for forfeiture. A later one (draft code of King Stanislaw August of the late 18th century) no longer contained this penalty. The athors argued that, affecting not only the offender, that penalty was at variance with the principles of justice. The drafts were never to become the law. In 1794, after the second partition of Poland, an insurrection broke out commanded by Tadeusz Kościuszko. The rebel authorities repealed the former legal system and created a new system of provisions regulating the structure of state authorities, administration of justice, and law applied in courts. In the sphere of substantive penal law and the law of criminal proceedings, an insurgent code was introduced, with severe sanctions included in the catalog of penalties. Forfeiture of property was restored which had a double purpose: first, acutely to punish traitors, and second – to replenish the insurgent funds. When imposing forfeiture, property rights of the convicted person’s spouse and his children’s right to inheritance were taken into account. Yet compared to the administration of justice of the French Revolution with its mass imposition of forfeiture, the Polish insurgent courts were humane and indeed lenient in their practice of sentencing. After the fall of the Kościuszko Insurrection, Poland became a subjugated country, divided between three partitioning powers: Prussia, Russia, and Austria. The Duchy of Warsaw, made of the territories regained from the invaders, survived but a short time. In the sphere of penal law and the present subject of forfeiture of property, that penalty was abolished by a separate parliamentary statute of 1809. After the fall of the Duchy of Warsaw, Poland lost sovereignty and the law of the partitioning powers entered into force on its territories. In the Prussian sector, a succession of laws were introduced: the Common Criminal Law of Prussian States of 1794, followed by the 1851 penal code and the penal code of the German Reich of 1871. Only the first of them still provided for forfeiture: it was abolished in the Prussian State by a law of March 11, 1850. Much earlier, forfeiture disappeared from the legislation of Austria. lt was already absent from the Cpllection of Laws on Penalties for West Galicia of June 17,1796, valid on the Polish territories under Austrian administration. Nor was forfeiture provided for by the two Austrian penal codes of 1803 and 1852. Forfeiture survived the longest in the penal legisation of Russia. In 1815, the Kingdom of Poland was formed of the Polish territories under Russian administration. In its Constitution, conferred by the Tsar of Russia, a provision was included that abolished forfeiture of property. It was also left in the subsequent Penal Code of the Kingdom of Poland, passed in 1818. Forfeiture only returned as a penal sanction applied to participants of the anti-Russian November insurrection of 1831. The Organic Statute of 1832, conferred to the Kingdom of Poland by the Tsar, reintroduced the penalty of forfeiture of property. Moreover, it was to be imposed for offences committed before Organic Statute had entered into force which was an infringement of the ban on retroactive force of law. Of those sentenced to forfeiture in the Kingdom of Poland, Lithuania, and Russia as participants of the November insurrection, few had estates and capital. A part of forfeited estates were donated, the rest were sold to persons of Russian origin. The proces of forfeiting the property of the 1830–1831 insurgents only ended in 1860 (the Tsar’s decree of February 2/March 2,1860). After November insurrection, the Russian authorities aimed at making the penal legislation of the Kingdom of Poland similar to that of the Russian Empire. The code of Main Corrective Penalties of 1847 aimed first of all at a legal unification. It preserved the penalty of “forfeiture of the whole or part of the convicted persons’ possessions and property” as an additional penalty imposed in cases clearly specified by law. It was imposed for offences against the state: attempts against the life, health, freedom or dignity of the Emperor and the supreme rights of the heir to the throne, the Emperor’s wife or other members of the Royal House, and rebellion against the supreme authority. Forfeiture was preserved in the amended code of 1866; in 1876, its application was extended to include offences against official enactments. The penalty could soon be applied – towards the participants of January insurrection of 1863 which broke out in the Russian Partition. The insurgents were tried by Russian military courts. After the January insurrection, 6,491 persons were convicted in the Kingdom of Poland; 6,186 of tchem were sentenced to forfeiture of property. Of that group, as few as 28 owned the whole or a part of real estate; 60 owned mortgage capital and real estate. The imposition of forfeiture on January insurgents stopped in 1867 in the Kingdom of Poland and as late as 1873 in Lithuania. The penalty was only removed from the Russian penal legislation with the introduction a new penal code in 1903. As can be seen, the Russian penal law – as opposed to the law of Prussia and Austria retained forfeiture of property the longest. It was designet to perform special political and deterrent functions as the penalty imposed on opponents of the system for crimes against state. It was severe enough to annihilate the offender’s material existence. It was also intended to deter others, any future dare-devils who might plan to resist authority. It was an fitted element of the repressive criminal policy of the Russian Empire of those days. Forfeiture of the whole of property of the convicted person can be found once again in the Polish legislation, of independent Poland this time: in the Act of July 2, 1920 on controlling war usury where forfeiture was an optional additional penalty. At the same time, the act prohibited cumulation of repression affecting property (fine and forfeiture could not be imposed simultaneously). It originated from the special war conditions in Poland at the time. The ban on cumulation of repression affecting property is interesting from the viewpoint of criminal policy. The Polish penal code of 1932 did not provide for the penalty of forfeiture, and the Act on controlling war usury was quashed by that code’s introductory provisions. In the legislation of People’s Poland after World War II, forfeiture of property was re-established and had extensive application.

Prevailing wisdom dictates that without banks countries would be mired in poverty. Yet somehow much of Europe managed to grow rich long before the diffusion of banks. This book draws on centuries of loan data from France to reveal how credit abounded well before banks opened their doors. The book shows how a vast system of shadow credit enabled nearly a third of French families to borrow in 1740, and by 1840 funded as much mortgage debt as the American banking system of the 1950s. The book traces how this extensive private network outcompeted banks and thrived prior to World War I—not just in France but in Britain, Germany, and the United States—until killed off by government intervention after 1918. Overturning common assumptions about banks and economic growth, the book paints a revealing picture of an until-now hidden market of thousands of peer-to-peer loans made possible by a network of brokers who matched lenders with borrowers and certified the borrowers' creditworthiness. The book challenges widespread misperceptions about French economic history, such as the notion that banks proliferated slowly, and the idea that financial innovation was hobbled by French law. By documenting how intermediaries in the shadow credit market devised effective financial instruments, this compelling book provides new insights into how countries can develop and thrive today.

Abstract Although work on the civil code started immediately after the German Confederation had finished legislating, planning was hampered by the fact that the only field in which the Empire had legislative competence under the Con stitution of the North German Federation and that of the Bismarckian Empire as originally drafted was the law of obligations. It was the national liberals, the dominant party in the Reichstag of 1871, who with their drive for unification procured that the Empire acquired power to legislate in the fields of land law, family law, and the law of associations. This notable victory of the progressive liberals over the reservations of the conservatives determined the thrust of codification, but it took four attempts before Lasker and Miquel, the principal pro ponents, managed to overcome the votes of the conservatives and the centrist party (which rightly feared a conflict with the Church over marriage), and obtained an amendment to art. 4 no. 13 which extended legislative competence to the whole of private law. This law of 20 December 1873 made a national civil code possible. Behind the decision lay political considerations: the state was interested in law which liberated associations and corporations, the liberals wanted civil marriage outside the Church, a matter which was already threatening to be conflictual (the Kulturkampf), and the economic liberals wanted a generally applicable law which increased the mobility of land and facilitated mortgages. Only now did the liberals gain the upper hand in the areas of land law, family property, and succession, so crucial for the whole social order. The North Ger man (now Imperial) Trade Ordinance of 1869 had opted for freedom of trade and profession, so the decision was now really inevitable.

Abstract Bulgarian law1 provides in Article 133 of the Law on Obligations and Contracts that in principle the debtor’s ‘entire property’ shall serve as a basis for the satisfaction of the creditors’s rights. However, Articles 138 to 148 of the Law introduce the guarantee as a means of securing obligations by a personal right. In its 1950 Law on Obligations and Contracts, Bulgarian law sets out a number of traditional security rights.2 They are the traditional security rights of the civil law tradition, namely the possessory pledge of movables;3 the pledge of receivables, which requires the notification of the debtor of the pledged receivables for its enforceability against the debtor;4 and the mortgage in immovables which must be recorded with the recording office administered by the regional courts.5 The possessory pledge of movable things and the pledge of receivables are similar to the pledges found under many other civil law jurisdictions (including German law) and meet the same practical limitations in modern business

Parke-Davis submitted Lipitor’s New Drug Application to the FDA in June 1996 and received approval in December 1996, a relatively short turnaround due to its priority review status. At the time, four statins were already on the market: Merck’s lovastatin (Mevacor, 1987) and simvastatin (Zocor, 1991), Bristol-Myers Squibb’s pravastatin (Pravachol, 1991), and Sandoz’s fluvastatin (Lescol, 1994). Th e sixth statin, Bayer’s cerivastatin (trade names Baycol and Lipobay), another optically pure synthetic statin like Lipitor, was soon to be on the market. The success of the four existing statins had already educated physicians about the benefits of lowering cholesterol levels. More important, Merck’s “4S” clinical trials (the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study; see chapter 3) decisively demonstrated the positive impact of lower cholesterol levels in decreasing coronary heart disease. As a consequence, not only did the FDA approve Lipitor in only six months, but it was also widely and warmly accepted by general practitioners and patients immediately after it was available. When the drug was launched at the beginning of 1997, Warner-Lambert chose Pfizer as its comarketing partner because Pfizer had the strongest sales muscle in the drug industry. Today it is hard to imagine that when Pfizer was founded in 1849, it was a modest laboratory in Brooklyn, New York. By 2008, more than 150 years later, it had grown to become the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. In the revolutionary year of 1848, thousands of Europeans immigrated to America to seek new opportunities. Among them were a chemist (the equivalent of today’s pharmacist), 20-year-old Charles Pfizer, and his brother-in-law, 22-year-old confectioner Charles Erhart, from the small town of Ludwigsburg in Wuerttemberg, Germany. Unlike many German immigrants at the time who immediately joined the Gold Rush, Pfizer and Erhart decided to stay in New York City and make a living by taking advantage of the crafts that they learned in Germany. With $2,500 borrowed from Pfizer’s father and a $1,000 mortgage, they bought a small brick factory in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, largely a German neighborhood. Thus, Chas. Pfizer Co., Inc., Specialists in Fine Chemicals was founded.

My dear colleague Rainer Prokisch, residing in Germany and working at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, is the perfect example of a frontier working who falls under the scope of the Schumacker-doctrine as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Because of the deductibility of mortgage interest on personal dwellings in the Netherlands, that was expanded by the CJEU to non-residents in the Renneberg-case, the Schumacker-doctrine is still very much alive in the Netherlands. It led to a steady flow of case law in the Netherlands, of discussions concerning the legal implementation of the doctrine in the Dutch Individual Income Tax Act 2001 and raises a number of unanswered questions. In this contribution I will shed my light on a number of these issues.

The German residential real estate market has thrived in recent decades, driven by low-interest rates, demand and supply factors. However, concerns arise about the impact of changing interest rates. This paper explores the nature of interest rate risk and its effects on the German real estate market. Interest rate risk, affecting instruments and portfolios, extends to residential real estate. Interest rate changes can affect mortgage costs, influencing demand and prices. It can alter interest rate risk can lead to immune to interest rate risk, as research suggests an 11% overvaluation. Understanding the interplay between interest rate risk and the German real estate market is vital for risk interest rate risk are key factors in its future. In conclusion, this paper underscores the intricate relationship between interest rate risk and the German residential real estate market, interest rates and demographic shifts. Such analyses will provide a more comprehensive understanding of how interest rate risk influences real estate pricing and market dynamics.

Wind turbine technology has improved dramatically in the last two decades as demonstrated by their plummeting capital costs ($0.08/KW), the enhanced reliability, and the increased efficiency. Large-scale wind turbines and wind farms provided 94.1GW of electrical grid capacity in 2007, and are expected to reach 160 GW by 2010 according to WWEA. Wind energy is plentiful and sustainable energy source with an estimated potential capacity of 72 TW. In Denmark the inland and offshore implementation of wind energy generation adds 1/5 of their electrical grid capacity. In Germany, it is forecasted to attain 12.5% by early 2010. Offshore wind farms have lower ecological impact due to lack of land mortgage, easier transportation, and low perception of noise issue. In the gulf region, the generated power can fulfill the power needs of UAE’s islands, while the excess capacity can be channeled to the inland grids fulfilling the peak demand. In this work we will investigate the implementation of low-turning moment wind turbines in the UAE, suited for low wind speeds (∼3–5m/s) and that consists of two research components: (i) Collection of wind data, analysis, recommendation for implementation strategies, and using Masdar wind data to assess its characteristics and its fit for wind turbine implementation; (ii) Carry out flow analysis on a downwind, two-bladed, horizontal-axes wind turbine to investigate the flow lift, drag and wake characteristics on the tower blade interaction. The interaction is studied utilizing Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian method. Downwind turbines are self-aligned, pass up yaw mechanisms and its needed power, and have fewer moving parts that necessitate regular maintenance. These factors however play in favor of wind turbine that is subjected to low wind speed.