George Vor
Owners themselves are fully liable for damage caused by mobile phone transmitters on their property
JUDGMENT OF THE MÜNSTER REGIONAL COURT
All property owners who rent or lease their properties for the operation of mobile phone systems should be aware of the judgment of the district court of Münster, AZ: 08 O 178/21, on personal, unlimited liability for damage caused by mobile phone radiation from mobile phone masts.
The court makes it clear: landlords of mobile phone sites could be held liable for EMF-related damage (EMF = electromagnetic fields). Of course, municipalities, church communities and their representatives can and must know that they are fully liable for damage caused by mobile phone transmitters themselves as site landlords, according to the Münster Regional Court.
Property landlords are fully liable in addition to the cell phone system operators
The court confirms that not only the mobile phone system operator (as the so-called disruptor) is liable for damage caused by his system operation, but also the property owner (as the so-called disruptor) who makes his property available for the operation of the system. In the event of damage, this can be claimed by third parties in the same way as the system operator. And because the municipality and its representatives could/should have known that, their lawsuit for the termination of the tenancy was dismissed. Very few municipalities and landowners who rent or lease their land for the operation of mobile communications systems are likely to be aware of their own liability risk.
Especially for municipalities that intend to conclude a contract with a plant operator, it should be noted that the district court of Münster found in its judgment that no reason for termination is to be seen in the fact that the municipality considered the further possible health hazards below the limit values of the 26th BImSchV when the contract was concluded were not sufficiently evident. This is what it says on page 12, last paragraph and page 13 at the top of the judgment:
“As a public corporation, the plaintiff is not a particularly vulnerable private individual. According to her own presentation, not only have the discussions about possible health hazards from mobile radio systems, even if the limit values of the 26th BImSchV are observed, not only been public for many years, but "scientifically justified doubts" were also known even before the contract was concluded. In this respect, the plaintiff municipality must accept the knowledge of its then mayor.
The risk of an incorrect assessment of the political effects of the decision made by the plaintiff is part of their own area of responsibility and risk, which they do not pass on to the defendant as a contractual partner with the help of information obligations
can.".
The liability risk for landlords is not just theoretical
Lawyer Krahn-Zembol:
"Since even official bodies such as the European Parliamentary Research Service (STOA) of the European Parliament point out that the limit values in the field of electromagnetic radiation fields are at least 10 times too high, owners are not only taking on a theoretical liability risk when concluding a contract with a mobile communications system operator [...]"
STOA Study: Health Impact of 5G
Limit values do not generally protect against liability claims
“Even if the system operators repeatedly argue that they comply with the limit values of the 26th BImSchV during system operation, liability on the part of them or the owners is by no means excluded. On the contrary, the Federal Court of Justice has stated several times that producers or plant operators cannot exonerate themselves by referring to compliance with official limit values if they are accused of further damaging effects and the like. are known or should have been known. This is already obvious today in view of the fact that even the scientific study situation predominantly proves further effects and harmful effects below the limit values of the 26th BImSchV."
In the present case, the court made it clear that the municipality is contractually liable for 30 years (!) in this case. It also has to bear all the new dangers and risks that can be exacerbated by upgrades and new radio technologies! The fact that it is part of the operators' business model to provide mobile phone coverage "deep into the house" makes the matter even more critical, because with ever higher frequencies, higher transmission powers of the mobile phone systems are required overall and the radiation exposure for the entire population thus increases overall.
http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/lgs/muenster/lg_muenster/j2022/8_O_178_21_Urteil_20220617.html
Warning for municipalities, parishes and private owners
LTE masts, 5G small cells, WLAN hot spots: decreasing load?
New BGH ruling regulates the installation of mobile phone antennas
Liability for damage caused by mobile communications
Company with limited liability
The lease contract is concluded by the house/property owner NOT with the cell phone operator, a well-funded stock corporation (AG) itself, but with a subsidiary, a Funkturm GmbH (limited liability company). This sets up and operates the transmitters on behalf of its parent company so that it can operate its mobile network.
Therefore, if the lawsuit is successful, the house/property owner could face very high sums in lawsuit for damage to health and property. In contrast to the AG, which is fully liable in the amount of its company assets, the respective Funkrum GmbH is only liable in the amount of its comparatively significantly lower working capital, which is usually tied up in the transmitter systems, which have usually already been written off - and in such a case these are likely to increase rapidly lose value...
Mobile communications-who is liable?
Mobile communications are not insurable
In addition, insurance companies do not insure mobile phone systems, they reject this because they consider the risks from mobile phones to be incalculable - with video. - If all this were as harmless as operators, politicians and authorities claim, the insurance industry would hardly let the business with over 73.000 locations in Germany go through its fingers... Schweizer Rück (Swiss Re) considers 5G to be one of the five biggest risks for insurers.
https://www.swissre.com/media/press-release/nr-20190522-sonar2019.html
Swiss Re considers 5G to be one of the top five risks for insurers
Insurers fear mobile phone risks
Telecom companies warn shareholders of risks
The Environmental Health Trust published a summary in 2016, which shows that the telecommunications companies keep their customers in the dark about the risks of their products, but they do inform their shareholders about possible risks...
What the Telecom Industry Doesn't Tell You... But Does Tell It's Investors
This post was created by the Option Community. Join in and post your message!
CONTRIBUTION TO OPTION GERMANY
