What would happen to the churches (physical buildings), works of art, etc. in case of a new schism? In the recent past, in the opinion of some theologians, the German catholic church is close to a schism with the Catholic Church. Regardless of whether you agree or not, I'm interested in knowing what would happen to the physical assets (churches, works of art, etc) of the catholic church in Germany? Would they then belong to the newly founded German church?
Precedents And General Considerations There are cases of similar things happening in Protestant churches and it ends up being quite case by case fact specific with details of how title is held to property, the exact language of governance documents, since Protestant churches are organized at a governance level, and hold property titled in a variety of ways. Usually, the leadership determined in according to the pre-schism governing documents ends up getting the property. But there are property ownership issues specific to the Roman Catholic Church which don't have such clear precedents, because the Roman Catholic Church, due to its great antiquity, wasn't set up in the manner of modern non-profit corporations and associations the way that most modern Protestant churches are, for reasons partly historical, and partly because most Protestant churches are set up either as foundations or as democratically governed institutions with written governance documents tailored to modern legal conventions that are controlling, whereas the Roman Catholic Church, since its inception, has been a non-hereditary monarchy in perpetual succession managed by the College of Cardinals under Canon Law. For this reason, a determination of what would happen in the case of the Roman Catholic Church schism, in which more than one faction of the church claimed to be the legitimate successor to the pre-schism church's property, is even more uncertain and fact specific than in the Protestant church precedents. Among the facts that would matter are the stances taken by the respective factions. If one faction forms a new corporate form of organization and registers with the German government as a new church for church tax purposes, it would essentially cede all of the Roman Catholic church's property, even if it won over 95% of the members of the old Roman Catholic Church and 95% of its lesser clergy, particularly if the new faction did not have the backing of the Pope or the senior members of the pre-schism Roman Catholic Church hierarchy. This is a fairly common fact pattern in Protestant church schisms and is, for example, how schisms in the New England Congregational Churches played out when it was disestablished in the 19th century. Many of New England's formerly established churches, which were organized at a Congregation by Congregation level had board of directors who adopted a Unitarian Christian theological stance, rather than the Trinitarian theological stance shared by the vast majority of Christian denominations. Trinitarian Christians left when this happened and established their own new churches, leaving the property of the rump Unitarian Congregational church in the control of its board of directors. Governance And Title Issues The most common form of ownership of Catholic Church property, globally, is called corporation sole, although the Catholic Church owns property in a variety of means. As explained at the link: In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, ecclesiastical property is usually titled to the diocesan bishop, who serves in the office of the corporation sole. The Roman Catholic Church continues to use corporations sole in holding titles of property: as recently as 2002, it split a diocese in the US state of California into many smaller corporations sole and with each parish priest becoming his own corporation sole, thus limiting the diocese's liability for any sexual abuse or other wrongful activity in which the priest might engage. This is, however, not the case everywhere, and legal application varies. For instance, other U.S. jurisdictions have used corporations at multiple levels. In the jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, a Roman Catholic bishop is not a corporation sole, and real property is held by way of land trusts, a tradition dating back to the suppression of Roman Catholicism by Henry VIII during the English Reformation and the Penal Laws of Ireland. For example, some church property is owned by affiliated non-profit corporations with their own boards of directors, that aren't truly titled in the church itself which own lots of Catholic hospital property. Control of property held in this fashion would be determined by the board of directors for these non-profits, which might be afforded discretion to determine which Roman Catholic church is the true one, or even if that decision needs to be made at all. If the governing documents don't require direct input from the church into succession to the board of directors (e.g. if the board fills its own vacancies rather than having vacancies filled by the local Bishop), it may not be necessary to resolve the dispute at all. Even if the governing documents call for the hierarchy of the church to play a part in filling vacancies in the board, German courts might defer to the board regarding which faction's church officials are the ones with the authority to do so. Other moveable property like the clothing and toiletries and personal effects of individual priests doesn't have a certificate of title, but would probably be treated as owned by the individual priests. For property held in corporation sole, title is vested in the current holder of a particular title in the Catholic Church hierarchy. So, for example, a Cathedral in Bonn might be titled in the Archbishop of Bonn in a corporation sole, which means that the Archbishop has the authority of the shareholders, directors and officers of a regular corporation while in office, but when a new Archbishop takes office, that title passed to the new holder of the office, and the succession is understood to be governed by Roman Catholic Canon law as ultimately interpreted by the Pope. One possibility is that the Archbishop sides with the Pope's party, keeps office, and continues to own the property despite having lost many parishioners in the Diocese. This is pretty straightforward. But there are alternative possibilities. Suppose that the sitting Archbishop sides with a faction not supported by the Pope? At first blush, this would suggest that this Archbishop's faction gets the Cathedral and its contents. But suppose that the faction supported by the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church canon law establishment promptly removes the dissenting Archbishop, after he has already broken away. Does the property revert to the newly appointed Archbishop as his successor, or, by casting his lot with the faction that has broken away, has the Archbishop removed the property he holds in corporation sole from the Pope's faction and instead shifted the succession of that particular Archbishop's post to the new faction? This question doesn't have a clear answer. If all of Germany's Bishops and Archbishops and Cardinals and most of its priests united behind a breakaway German Catholic Church, German courts might be inclined to side with the incumbents in those posts, rather than Papally appointed replacements. But there is really no way to have certainty about what would happen in the situation in advance. In the Great Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, of 1054 CE, the affiliation of the local bishops is what largely prevailed in determining which faction of the church ended up controlling church property. The Precedent Of The Reformation Isn't Helpful During the Reformation, in the 16th century, what happened is that the secular feudal lord or king decided either to stay Roman Catholic, or to join the new Protestant Lutheran or Calvinist or Episcopal or Presbyterian church in the region, as the case might be. If the lord or king stayed Catholic, the Catholic church hierarchy got the Roman Catholic church's property in his domain, and the Protestant converts were persecuted as heretics. In the case that the lord or king sided with the Protestants, the Roman Catholic church property went to the feudal lord's new Protestant church, together with all priests and other members of holy orders who didn't refuse to swear allegiance to the new Protestant church, and all of the residents of his domain were converted to Protestantism (or faced persecution as heretics if they didn't) whether they wanted to or not, because this was considered to be a decision for the lord rather than for the individual. But obviously, that isn't what would happen in Germany today. Historical Succession Fights Within The Roman Catholic Church The other historical precent might be more apt, but equally unclear. There have been several times in the history of the Roman Catholic Church in which the succession to the Papacy was contested. In 20/20 hindsight we call the winners of those succession fights &quot;Popes&quot; and the losers of those succession fights &quot;anti-Popes&quot;. The most recent spate of antipopes were Clement VII (1378), Benedict XIII (1394), Alexander V (1409), John XXIII (1410), although there was also a final antipope, Felix V (1439) (who abandoned his claim after less than a year voluntarily). The first antipope was Saint Hippolytus (217). There were 31 antipopes in between them (give or take depending upon how you count them and who you conclude qualifies). As Wikipedia explains: An antipope (Latin: antipapa) is a person who, in opposition to the lawful pope, makes a significant attempt to occupy the position of Bishop of Rome and leader of the Catholic Church. At times between the 3rd and mid-15th centuries, antipopes were supported by important factions within the Church itself and by secular rulers. Sometimes it was difficult to distinguish which of two claimants should be called pope and which antipope, as in the case of Pope Leo VIII and Pope Benedict V. . . . The period in which antipopes were most numerous was during the struggles between the popes and the Holy Roman Emperors of the 11th and 12th centuries. The emperors frequently imposed their own nominees to further their own causes. The popes, likewise, sometimes sponsored rival imperial claimants (anti-kings) in Germany to overcome a particular emperor. The Western Schism—which began in 1378, when the French cardinals, claiming that the election of Pope Urban VI was invalid, elected antipope Clement VII as a rival to the Roman Pope—led eventually to two competing lines of antipopes: the Avignon line (Clement VII took up residence in Avignon, France), and the Pisan line. The Pisan line, which began in 1409, was named after the town of Pisa, Italy, where the (Pisan) council had elected antipope Alexander V as a third claimant. To end the schism, in May 1415, the Council of Constance deposed antipope John XXIII of the Pisan line. Pope Gregory XII of the Roman line resigned in July 1415. In 1417, the Council also formally deposed antipope Benedict XIII of Avignon, but he refused to resign. Afterwards, Pope Martin V was elected and was accepted everywhere except in the small and rapidly diminishing area that remained faithful to Benedict XIII. Liturgical councils or actual wars and assassinations over the course of history resolved the various disputes, but as the Western Schism which took 39 years to resolve illustrates, the need for practical resolution of the question on the ground could come to head much sooner, and would have to be resolved by German secular courts in the meantime (possibly assisted by certified questions to the German Constitutional Court as freedom of religion issues under the German Constitution might be implicated) in the context of specific questions of control over specific items of tangible personal property and of real property came up. Pending final resolutions of these disputes on the merits, the German courts would probably impose some sort of temporary orders to adjudicate the immediate question of control pending adjudication of the issue on the merits, which might take some time to resolve, probably with many appeals (assuming that the dispute remained live, rather than being settled in some sort of agreement between the leaders of the respective factions claiming authority over the property). A Precedent of An Orthodox Church in Germany Commentator K-HB made on a comment on March 19 at 19:34 that is one of the most important precedents in this case, which I reproduce below with a few corrected spelling/punctuation issues: There is sort of a precedent from the conflict around St. Salvator in Munich. The church is property of the state (Bavaria) but was given for use to the Greek-Orthodox parish in 1829. In the 1970s the parish (or the crucial people) seceded from the Greek-Orthodox hierarchy. Bavaria wanted the church back in order to give it to the &quot;official&quot; Greek-Orthodox Church. After many years of litigation up to the German Constitutional Court and the ECHR [ European Court of Human Rights] Bavaria won. But if you read the judgments, you see that it belongs heavily on the individual case (historical background and current situation). The Role Of Germany's Church Tax One factor that might be decisive in resolving this is that German has what is commonly called in English language sources a &quot;church tax&quot; which is a voluntary deduction from worker's paychecks, along with taxes, that is automatically delivered to the church with whom the worker is officially affiliated in German government records. In that system, there are currently about 8 million people who are registered as Roman Catholics who participate in the system and have their payroll deductions turned over to the Roman Catholic church. The details of the administrative process in the German church tax system that determine who in the Roman Catholic church is authorized to receive the church tax payments from Roman Catholics in Germany would probably be highly influential in how secular courts adjudicating property ownership disputes between the factions would resolve those questions.
No, the result of an exam is not actionable. The court could only make a decision whether legal proceedings were met. However, the grader’s decision whether a particular answer (and thus the overall exam’s result) was correct or incorrect is not legal in nature. There is no German law saying “1 + 1 = 2”. Therefore, the court could not make a ruling on that, nor is it really their task to do so. Similarly, it is not the court’s (or the legal system’s) responsibility to ensure a certain share of students pass the exam. […] 93% not passing is just absurd. Welcome to Germany. Such exams did and do exist. I refer you to the local student’s body (specifically the Fachschaft). They will advocate for (future) students, especially if there are “design flaws” with the class to be found. Unfortunately, if it’s the “examiner’s fault”, there are no other options than finding an amicable solution. Sometimes, students change universities just to pass a certain module.
If the photos are exact or "slavish" reproductions of flat (2D) art, then under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) the photos are not original, and have no copyrights of their own. If the art was not under copyright (for example published before 1924) then neither are the photos. If the art is still under copyright, the photos are "copies" and the permission of the copyright holder (of the original art) is required unless they fall under the fair use exception, which photos taken for and used in classroom instruction, and for no other purpose, might well fall under. However, if the photos are so taken that angle, lighting, filters, and other aspects under the control of the photographer make a difference to the photo, then they will generally constitute new works, and if the art is under copyright protection, will be derivative works of the originals, and both the copyright holder on the original art, and the photographer will hold rights. One rule of thumb is if the photo shows the frame of the painting, it probably has original elements of lighting and viewing angle. The more the photo approximates a scan of a flat work of art, the less original it is. Photos of sculpture, architecture, and other non-flat (3D) art works (and objects) inherently involve artistic decisions about viewing angle, lighting, etc, and will pretty much automatically be original enough for copyright protection. If the original art is out of copyright but the photo is an original work the photographer will hold rights, but no one else will (unless the photographer sells or transfers the rights). In that case it does not make much sense to call the photos "derivative works" as that term is intended to indicate that the works are subject to another's copyright, which these are not, because there is no copyright on the original. Or one could call them derivatives of a public domain work -- the effect is the same. Under the case of Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), a work must have a certian minimum degree of originality to be protected by copyright under US law. Both Bridgeman and Feist are US cases, but many other countries have followed their logic and apply similar rules to copyright issues. It is not uncommon for those who have taken photos of art to assert copyright protection which a court would not uphold, but this will not be judged unless someone copies these photos, and the photographer (or someone claiming through the photographer) sues, and then defense challenges the validity of the asserted copyright. The statements in the text quoted by the OP may be based (in part) on such untested assertions of copyright.
As for plagiarism, that is not a legal concept, so he can define plagiarism however he wants. It certainly isn't, under any definition I have ever seen on Earth and I have seen many (it has to do with "claiming someone else's work as your own"). As for copyright, a set of questions is (potentially) protected by copyright. If they are copied from somebody else's book of questions, then the book author (or publisher) holds copyright. Let's say that QM invented the questions, such as "What is the Turkish word for Janissary?", "What is the most prominent feature of Jannissary garb?" and so on. Then that set of questions, when put down in fixed form, are protected by copyright, and cannot be copied without permission.
Depending on the bridge, you might be trespassing in some way. Railway bridges are the property of the railway company, they don't allow to go there unless specifically allowed and even the absence of a sign is not an ok in those cases. Similarly, highway bridges usually are communal property and they don't need to be marked as off limits if there are laws that prohibit being there. The absence of signs and fencing is not a carte balance to go there: If your starting point for the climbing is not easily accessible, they don't have to fence it. But besides trespassing, you might make a huge dookey: Depending on the attorney general, you might be, in Austria, in violation of § 46 StVO for being a pedestrian on the Highway, as the bridge in whole is part of the highway structure. Even if you are under the lanes, you are technically on or inside the highway structure. If the attorney really wants you in, they could pull out § 89 StGB "endangerment" as well as the § 176 / § 177 "endangerment of the commonality" (by reckless or negligence). After all, you might or might not be climbing the bridge to perform something to endanger all the people using it. In Germany, you will get fined for violating traffic laws if you go onto railway tracks or climb onto a railway bridge as you violate the railway code and the minimum charge is 25 €. You could get also sued for Reckless endangerment of the train traffic (§ 315 StGB) and locked up for between 6 months and 10 years. If you do delay trains in any way (and even if it is to allow a crew to get to you), you are also liable damages - this is very easy in the 5 to 6 digits. Similarly, if it was a highway, you'd get billed 10 € for being on foot on a motorway without special privilege under $ 25 StVO and again, you could get jailed in extreme cases under § 315b StGB.
There is no "theft" without a law that defines what "property" is and what "theft" is. Laws derive from the state that has the power to enforce them. A state may issue the laws and decrees and stablish who owns the lands. It can later make changes to that ownership. When the Normans invaded England, Willian I became the legal authority and with that he could award, confiscate and keep lands as he saw fit, without that being considered "theft" in any legal sense of the word. The English government (and all others) still have the authority to take away, redistribute and otherwise change the ownership of lands as they see fit, and nothing of it would be theft. Internally most of them have chosen to stablish some procedures to ensure that this is only done when needed by meeting some tests (eminent domain), but even if they didn't have those (again, self-imposed) restrictions they still would be able to change ownership as they saw fit. That does not mean that a government using that power to punish political opponents or ethnic minorities would not face internal and external protests.
a few quick notes that come to mind. As the commenters point out: DSGVO is indeed the German equivalent name to the GDPR (English term) "Imprint" isn't a privacy related topic that much, as such it's not really changed by the upcoming GDPR The GDPR changes many things, but the requirement for up front information isn't one of them - so it would've already been a rule to follow Sometimes the question who is responsible for privacy information might not be that easy to decide when you're on platforms. I take this situation as being pretty clear though. You are basically given a blank slate, you can do with that page whatever you want, and the visitor has no clue whatsoever that it might be hosted by Github. In addition to this, Github would be classified as a data processor (providing the tool) and you as the data controller who is in charge of practically everything except for the provision of the page. I hope this helps. Btw. it's not that hard anymore to write a privacy policy these days.
Is a country an institution or an entity? Neither. It's a sovereign state (a &quot;political entity&quot;, not an entity in the sense of a legal persona).