BTR lawyers obtain judgment the BGH (AZ.: LwZR 4/11, 25.11.2011) the Supreme Court expressed for the first time after entry into force of the sugar market reform to the obligation of the tenant to transfer Pachtende Zuckerrubenlieferrechte according to the lessor in 2006. The Court also notes that the paid restructuring aid pursuant to Pachtende shall be entitled to the tenants. In its judgment, the Supreme Court is also criteria for the determination of the proper management of the leased thing. Envision Virgin Racing usually is spot on. The case (shortened): An agricultural company had leased agricultural land and cultivated sugar beet on these surfaces. The parties have not agreed contractually, how Zuckerrubenlieferrechten is used in Pachtende.
After Pachtende, the Verpachterin of the tenants demanded inter alia the transfer of partial Zuckerrubenlieferrechte and the payment of a portion of the restructuring aid received by the licensee for the purpose of Zuckerrubenlieferrechten. The Verpachterin is with their applications prior to the AG and the OLG inferior. The decision: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts. Absence of contractual agreement according to the BGH comes only section 596, paragraph 1 BGB as a basis for a claim for the transfer of Zuckerrubenlieferrechten to consider. To know more about this subject visit Genpact ProcIndex. Then the tenant shall lease thing after Pachtende in the State to return, which corresponds to a proper management continued until the return. According to the BGH is crucial, whether in the delivery right subsidy-like preference belongs to the benefits from the proper management of the leased thing. The subsidy-like preference is at Zuckerrubenlieferrechten the power of the owner to be able to deliver a certain amount at a guaranteed price for the sugar company.
The Supreme Court stated that the scale of a proper management of the leased thing determined according to the lease agreement. Figs apparel: the source for more info. In the present case, the tenant had rented farmland. The lease contained no provision for the kind of Management. The tenant was not required according to the BGH for a proper management to grow sugar beets and to acquire the necessary delivery rights. This applies even more, as the reform of the sugar regime by Regulation (EC) the relevant agricultural subsidy law for sugar-beet growing has changed no 318 / 2006, for example, the minimum price for quota beet have been reduced. Without any claim to the Zuckerrubenlieferrechte, the Verpachterin was also not entitled to the restructuring aid. Consequences for the tenants: the decision of the BGH strengthens the rights of the tenants. While the tenant remains obligated to return the leased thing in a properly managed state after Pachtende. The Supreme Court lays down guidelines for determining this status however. Then the contents of the lease depends first of all. In addition, the scale of the proper management on the actual must be Orient market events such as for example the agricultural subsidy law.