Greg Acolla Lightning

three appeals in terms of Scholl and Court of Appeals rejected Zurich mountain

In the wake of the DV of SwissOrienteering of 6 March 2010 in Langenthal Thomas Scholl as a private person, as well as representatives of the Higher Regional Court of Zurich mountain three appeals against the decisions of 'exclusion Thomas Scholl' and 'exclusion OLG Zurich Mountain' was filed. All with the decisions been rejected by Jan 26, 2011th In all three appeals restricted the constitutional, statutory and Statutenwidrigkeit of the decision or its conclusion was discussed.

The three RK-decisions (1 & 2 are almost identical):

1. OLG Zurich mountain from the decision of the delegates meeting of 6 March 2010 relating to restriction of freedom by Thomas Scholl Thomas Scholl
2. against decision of the Assembly of Delegates of 6 March 2010 relating to restriction of freedom by Thomas Scholl
3. OLG Zurich Berg against exclusion by delegates' meeting of 6 March 2010

A few new insights from the decisions:

1. It was already established earlier that were included in the application of the OLG Stäfa information from an ongoing process. The IGC was now able to demonstrate that the information (legitimately) can be reached via the ZV OLG Stäfa. (The fact that the OLG Zurich mountain have 5 members, was mentioned in a Presidential Decree dated October 15, 2009) (decision 1.B.5).
2. The DV of SwissOrienteering may also things that are not in the bylaws and not delegated to officers of the Association unless they are illegal. This is the so-called collecting skills. The mandate of the sanctions against Thomas ZV Scholl express fall under this residuary power (decision 1.B.6)
3. SwissOrienteering may expel members if they work against the special interests of SOLV (sic). The exclusion is not material, but with regard to procedural irregularities and questionable abuse of rights (E3.B.6.). TS makes an abuse claim, because it was not unlawful to charge. The IGC, however assessed TS 'notorious' rekurieren 'exaggerated formalism' and 'has contributed (sic) appeal procedures' with 'unnecessary hindrance of association activities' and a breach of good faith. In order for TS to protect against abuse of rights expires. (E3.B.7.)
4. The IGC notes that SwissOrienteering association is not a monopoly and thus has a vollumflängliches out right. TS therefore can not make personal injury claims. It is free to include maps themselves, to organize competitions to set up or an alternative Orienteering Association. (E3.B.8.) * * A second

---

Orienteering Association (keyword proliferation) can not be in the interests of Swiss Orienteering.