What happens if I file a civil lawsuit without a lawyer in Germany? I want to file a lawsuit with the Berlin District Court. in Germany, paragraph 78 of the procedural code applies, according to which all plaintiffs are required to hire a lawyer. I am a capable person and I believe that no one has the right to restrict me in representing my interests. If the documents on the claim are not accepted from me, I will appeal and I will go to the ECHR. What are my chances of breaking the system?
Close to zero, provided that §78 ZPO really applies in your case. You want to overturn established law and precedent on the grounds that it violates your notion of justice and civil or human rights. Such things happen, but doing so without professional representation is close to impossible. You have two realistic options -- get a lawyer for your initial case, or get a lawyer for your appeal as it works through the institutions (which is likely to fail).
There have been cases in the UK where paying someone's legal bills was interpreted as joining their case. So when A with no money libels someone, and B with deep pockets pays A's lawyer, then B risks being held liable for damages if A gets convicted. So B should be very careful. Just giving you money is probably the safest. But attorney-client privilege is between attorney and client. I have been laid off twice with my company asking me to take an employment lawyer and paying for it. (Interestingly each time the bill was exactly the maximum amount the company was willing to pay :-) It would have been absurd if my company could demand information that is under attorney-client privilege just because they paid the bill. Why did two companies pay the lawyers bill? Because that way they ensure that the separation is without problems. The lawyer explained the settlement contract and what it meant exactly. They also checked that the contract didn’t contain anything unacceptable which the company would have fixed. So if I had tried to sue them later I would have no chance to win (but there was no reason to sue). Another reason not to sue was that the company offered I settlement that was very significantly more than was legally required, but if you sued them you would only get what you got in court - most likely less than you would get without suing. So basically they paid to make sure I would have no reason to sue them later.
Attorneys are normal officials (Beamte), so the laws about officials apply to them. So e.g. for North Rhine-Westphalia (there are similar laws in the other states) § 47 Gesetz über die Beamtinnen und Beamten des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (Law about officials of the state North Rhine-Westphalia): (1) Beamtinnen und Beamte sind von Amtshandlungen zu befreien, die sich gegen sie selbst oder Angehörige richten würden, zu deren Gunsten ihnen wegen familienrechtlicher Beziehungen im Strafverfahren das Zeugnisverweigerungsrecht zusteht. (1) Officials are to excuse of official actions, that are against them or their relatives, if they have the right to refuse to testify against them in criminal proceedings. (my bad translation) These relatives are according to § 52 Strafprozessordnung (Code of criminal procedure): fiancée, spouse (even ex-spouse) and any "person who is or was lineally related or related by marriage, collaterally related to the third degree or related by marriage to the second degree." So attorneys do not have to prosecute their relatives. In some (but not all) German states this is not only a right of the attorney, but they are forbidden to perform official actions in processes against their relatives. So e.g. in Saxony-Anhalt, § 14 I n. 2, 3 Ausführungsgesetz des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (Law of the state Saxony-Anhalt to implement the Courts Constitution Act) Ein Beamter, der das Amt der Staatsanwaltschaft ausübt, darf keine Amtshandlungen vornehmen, wenn er [...] Ehegatte oder Eingetragener Lebenspartner, Vormund oder Betreuer des Beschuldigten oder Verletzten oder einer Partei ist oder gewesen ist; mit dem Beschuldigten, dem Verletzten oder einer Partei in gerader Linie verwandt oder verschwägert, in der Seitenlinie bis zum dritten Grade verwandt oder bis zum zweiten Grade verschwägert ist oder war; [...] An official, who exercises the office of a prosecutor, is not allowed to perform official actions, if he is or was [...] the spouse or registered life partner, guardian or legal curator of the accused or of the injured or of a party; lineally related or related by marriage, collaterally related to the third degree or related by marriage to the second degree to the accused or to the injured or to a party; [...] (my bad translation)
It depends Law in international airspace over international waters is the law of the country the plane is registered in - just like a ship is considered land of the registered/owner's country while in international waters. This is, according to the Britannica, also called the quasi-territorial Jurisdiction. So if this were a Lufthansa Flight, technically everything there happens in Germany under the Tokyo Convention and German Law (StGB §4) and the case can be held in Germany. For United Airlines it means, that the act happened in the US and if it was an Air Japan flight, it would be Japan, no matter in which airspace it happens. However, other laws might also make the law of other countries apply and put the people into the jurisdiction by virtue of law applying globally: if the perpetrator or victim were US citizens, any felony that happens between the two on that flight can also be prosecuted in the US, as they claim jurisdiction in those cases. Similarly, the UK and Germany have similar laws, in the latter case for only a subset of crimes (StGB §5, 6-11a). This is the principle of personal jurisdiction. But technically, the quasi-territorial jurisdiction can override that. And that again is overridden once the plane lands and enters the territorial jurisdiction of the harboring country. All involved countries can elect to prosecute or not, and there is no double jeopardy problem as we have separate sovereigns. Who is most likely to prosecute? Depends on the case, but in the least, the country of registration has Jurisdiction and will usually get the first crack at the case. However, extradition treaties and other treaties between two countries can give preference to the country of the nationals. BTW: we had pretty much the same question for murder on a plane.
Sure, but Qatar is not in the jurisdiction of the ECHR! For the ECHR to apply in a jurisdiction, Qatar would need to have signed it or be in the EU or at least have been in it. It never has been. In fact, not even Den Haque would have power over Qatar unless they allowed it to - and that court rules on matters of war crimes... Qatar does not guarantee the same rights you might be familiar with from most western countries. In fact, not even all western countries are the same. In America, you can use the Sieg Heil gesture, in Germany, you can end in jail for it.. Same for Propaganda materials.
A lawsuit would be unsuccessful. Prosecutors have discretion to prioritize whichever offenses they think are most important, and they are generally immune from civil liability. This is a political grievance, and it comes with a political remedy; voters can recall the DA or vote for a new one when his term ends.
Without prejudice in a legal communication has a similar effect as off the record does in journalism. Without prejudice can be applied to any form of communication written or verbal; mediations, for example, are almost always conducted on a without prejudice basis. The legal effect is that anything said or written in the communication is inadmissible in a court. A typical example is in a settlement offer: "We have your claim for $1,000,000 and we think its a load of c**p for reasons A, B &amp; C, however, without prejudice we offer the amount of $3.50 as full and final settlement of your claim. This offer remains open for 7 days." The party that receives such a letter can not use or rely on anything it says in legal proceedings. It is a practical and invaluable method of allowing real negotiation and concessions to be made without the risk that these will be used against you if it all falls in a heap and you end up in court. Without prejudice, save as to costs has the same effect with the addition that you are specifically making a settlement offer (like my example above). If a matter is resolved by a trial the judge will award costs either against each one party or order that each party pays their own costs; in general, the costs "follow the event" i.e. the losing party usually gets stuck with the costs. If the "losing" party can show that they made a reasonable offer of settlement then they can apply to have the "winning" party pay their costs from that point on. For example see NSW Costs. Now, a document either is or is not without prejudice irrespective of if it carries the words or not - you can’t make a document that is not part or a bona fide negotiation without prejudice just by writing the words on it and one that is part of a negotiation is without prejudice even if it omits the words.
Civil cases are frequently decided by arbitration (a non-court process), so there's nothing particularly problematic here. Both parties have to agree to participate in the process, and one may (but need not) assume that there is a clause that the losing party has to live with the outcome. Odds are good that the parties are paid to participate, so there would be incentive to accept the verdict. One difference between this show (apparently) and a normal binding arbitration clause is that with the latter, this is part of the original contract which would state that all disputes must be resolved by such-and-such arbitration firm. Such verdicts are generally enforceable, unless there is some extreme impropriety (e.g. the defendant bribes the arbitration firm to flagrantly overlook the law). In the present case, torts as well as contracts can be the subject of a show, and the arbitration agreement would be separate from and after any underlying contract. A lot depends on the agreement that the show has participants sign. The Facebook-jury would, of course, not pass any form of scrutiny in a real court. So it is possible that afterwards, an unhappy party can press the case in real court, without prejudice.