[D+133] Defence

The injunction of a Disabled - care facility in lower Austria against a home critic is rejected by this
In the defence to the allegations about to be Illegality of the home - player being kicked out and maintenance deficiencies maintain

On 20.1.2009, despite the unfinished state of legal investigations and in spite of, on the part of the ORF-issue - editorial-researched and in TV-contribution on 15.12.2008 reported overt care of the damages collected by the home operator action for injunction. Here is the chronology of events: http://katja.at/blog/1731/verantwortung-negiert

In the defence dated 2.3.2009, the allegations of endangerment of minors by care, care, Hygiene and structural deficiencies in the professional world-renowned and competent authorities, the maximum approved disability care facility for intensive care were to be provided by Mr lichtenauer, severely multi-handicapped people.
The assertion of the illegality of the unannounced and immediate care to termination of his severe, multiple disabilities to care for the daughter Katya, which is one-sided, on the part of the nursing home operator (in consultation with the NÖ Supervisory authorities!), four years ago, is reiterated by the foster father.

The action for injunction is rejected in the defence from the defendant's home critics lichtenauer. Here, the action is a response to:
2009-03-02_Klagebeantwortung_Lichtenauer_ra-Messner_an_RA-Ehn_HABIT-Unterlassungsklage_ANY.pdf
(The overall view in new window right click icon)

Download (PDF, 27KB)

Addendum on 18.04.2009:
Presumably, the injunction of the nursing home operator (civil procedure due to alleged reputation and credit damage) will be interrupted until the termination of the criminal proceedings (criminal charges, 4.4.2008, due to maintenance damage, endangerment and neglect of minors, etc.).
In that criminal case, the investigation against the educational Director of the (presumably illegally operated, the suspicion of) nursing home run now for over a year. In both cases, the presumption of innocence applies, of course.

Addendum on 15.05.2009:
First negotiations in six weeks: The o. g. guess (18.04.) was wrong. I got yesterday the summons to the hearing (the first hearing for the hearing) on 29. June 2009 Pölten at the country court of St.. It comes to the question of whether the showed me the “care crisis” in the disabled-care - facility actually existed (or exists). It is somewhat complicated and time-consuming, because the same facts will now be two tracks separated from each other in procedures (criminal law and to treat them civilly in the same house) independently of each other. And I thought the dishes were too busy.

Addendum on 29.06.2009:
Today, “maintenance emergency” hearing in the district court of St. Pölten, room 54, EC, 15:00 (18:00). I am condemned as a home critics for alleged “reputation and credit damage” to 20,000 Euro care is a mess - blackout-grant, and court-ordered truth of an injunction or the denial of the “nursing home”-operator in the sense of “there is is obtained no health-care crisis” as quickly from the truth, as the apodictic Registrar statement of August 2006? I expect but no rapid results, but a lengthy continuation of the with unequal weapons-guided nerve will war up until the “dance of the-favoured-nation treatment”.

Translated by Yandex.Translate and Global Translator