Bee law

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under bees law refers to the entirety of the legal provisions that the legal status of beekeeping rules. The bee law can be roughly divided into private bee law (neighbor law, liability issues , swarm law ) and public bee law (building law permissibility of beekeeping, food law, animal disease law).

history

The institutions from the Corpus Iuris Civilis of 533 already contain bee law provisions that are similar to those of the BGB: examen, quod ex alveo tuo evolaverit, eo usque tuum esse intellegitur, donec in conspectu tuo est nec difficilis eius persecutio est: alioquin occupantis fit. , German: The swarm of bees that moves out of your hive is regarded as your property as long as it remains in your field of vision and is not difficult to follow. Otherwise it becomes the property of whoever appropriates it next (Inst. 2.1.14).

In the early Middle Ages , there were severe penalties for stealing bees and honey. The oldest bee laws that have been handed down come from the Lex Salica , the Salic law from 510. In 643, the Visigoths anchored wild bee trapping in the Lex Romana Visigothorum code and already introduced liability for damage caused by bees. A document from Duke Odilo of Bavaria documents the Zeidlerei for the first time in 748 .

Germany

Bee private law

Neighbor law

Neighbor law is primarily understood to be the private law provisions according to which it is to be judged whether a beekeeper is allowed to keep bees on a property. Neighboring law in the broader sense also includes the public law provisions that affect properties and their use. This is then a matter of public building law .

The owner of a property can exclude others from any influence, as long as the law or the rights of third parties do not conflict ( § 903 sentence 1 BGB ). Insofar as the owner is not obliged to tolerate, he can demand that the person responsible (the so-called interferer ) remove the impairment ( Section 1004, Paragraph 1, Clause 1, Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code). An obligation to tolerate can arise in particular from § 906 BGB. Bees are not mentioned in the law, but in spite of their physicality they are regarded by the jurisprudence as “similar effects” within the meaning of the law ( imponderables ). The neighbor has to tolerate influences on his property, which emanate from the flight of bees, without further ado, if they only lead to insignificant impairments ( Section 906 (1) BGB). The assessment of materiality does not depend on the personal circumstances or sensitivities of the neighbor. Rather, the yardstick is the perception of an average person who is sensible and who therefore also takes other public or private concerns (such as environmental or nature conservation) into account, as the user of the property in its specific nature, characterized by its nature, design and intended use. The breed of bees kept is also important. The gentleness of the Carnica and Buckfast breeds in comparison to the dark European bee (Nigra) is recognized by case law. In the case of a significant impairment , a further differentiation must be made: First of all, a distinction must be made between whether or not beekeeping is a customary use of the beekeeping property ( Section 906 (2) sentence 1, 1st half-sentence BGB). As a comparison area of ​​a local custom , the whole municipality area is to be assumed. A beekeeping with 161 bee colonies represents a significant impairment, which is not to be tolerated according to § 906 Abs. 2 BGB if the local number of bee colonies is usually only between five and ten colonies. But even if beekeeping is to be regarded as customary in the area, the beekeeper must take economically reasonable measures to prevent harm to his neighbors ( Section 906 (2) sentence 1, 2nd half-sentence BGB). Such measures can u. a. be the erection of a partition wall or the planting of bushes and shrubs to control the approach of the bees.

Liability law

According to § 833 sentence 1 BGB, whoever keeps an animal is obliged to pay damages if the animal injures a person or damages an object. If a person is injured, he or she can also demand compensation for pain and suffering (see Section 253 (2) BGB). The liability of the keeper is as so-called strict liability regardless of fault. The pet owner is also liable if he is not accused of willful or negligent behavior. The background to this stricter liability is the fact that he creates a danger for other legal interests through his animal husbandry due to the unpredictability of animal behavior. However, pet owners are not liable for any damage, but only for such damage that is an expression of a “typical specific animal hazard”, that is, unpredictable behavior based on animal nature that cannot be fully controlled by the pet owner. The beekeeper is regularly to be regarded as the keeper of his bee colonies, because he has the power to determine the bees, is responsible for the costs of the bees out of his own interest, claims their general value and benefits and ultimately bears the risk of losing the bee colonies . The keeper is not necessarily the same as the owner, although ownership is a strong indicator.

By changing the law soon after the Civil Code came into force in 1908, the legislature created the possibility to evade strict strict liability if the animal owner keeps a pet as a farm animal and the animal owner has or has observed the care required in traffic when supervising the animal Damage would also have occurred if this care had been exercised ( Section 833 sentence 2 BGB). Although hobby beekeepers were not covered by this exemption from liability because they did not keep their bees for purchase, there was soon a dispute over the question of whether bees were considered pets within the meaning of this provision. However, the Reichsgericht rejected the classification of bees as domestic animals, "because they are too far from the household and are therefore not subject to such influence as is assumed for domestic animals".

One of the most spectacular liability cases in connection with bees occurred in 1936 at a military training area near Hanover, where the horse and carriage of an army vehicle had just taken cover from the air during an exercise, as ordered, when it was attacked by a swarm of bees from a nearby apiary . "Three horses perished at the scene of the accident, another one died soon after being admitted to the sick bay". The harnesses of the horses were partly damaged, partly completely destroyed. "In addition, part of the team suffered not inconsiderable injuries."

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had to decide a landmark case in 1992. The owner of a horticultural business had grown large areas of cut flowers outdoors in order to later sell them. As a beekeeper, the lamented neighbor managed several colonies of bees that flew to the flower population and fertilized the flowers so that they quickly faded and could no longer be sold. The plaintiff demanded compensation in the amount of DM 80,000. The appellate court had already dismissed the action on the grounds that pollinating the flowers was a species-typical behavior of the bees and not a typical danger to animals. The same applies to the bees' cleaning flight after winter, which as a species-typical behavior cannot trigger any liability. The BGH did not comment on this question, but rejected the beekeeper's liability for other reasons. In the opinion of the BGH, animal owner liability also requires an illegal interference with third-party legal interests. Since the plaintiff could not ward off his alleged effect of bees as an impairment of property, the defendant beekeeper was also not obliged to pay damages. The effects of the flight of bees, insofar as they are to be regarded as essential at all, are at least customary in the area and measures to prevent them are economically unreasonable for the beekeeper. Therefore, in the opinion of the BGH, the interference was justified in accordance with Section 906 (1) and (2) sentence 1 BGB and the beekeeper was not liable.

Swarm right

The so-called swarm law, which is regulated in §§ 961-964 BGB, deals with the beekeeper's swarm prosecution right and includes special regulations on the loss of property and the right of appropriation with regard to beehives and swarms of bees. In legal doctrine, it is generally considered to be the most insignificant regulatory circle of German private law. The Palandt and the legal information system juris recorded no court decision handed down to this area. Only Schüßler lists three court decisions in this area, all of which concern decisions by the courts of justice in the Weimar Republic. Basically, the task requires the property, the intention of the owner to give up his property (see. § 959 BGB). Based on the loss of ownership of wild animals (see § 960, Paragraph 2 BGB), the beekeeper only loses ownership of an migrating swarm of bees if he does not immediately start pursuing (see § 121 BGB) or he gives up ( § 961 BGB). In this case, the swarm of bees becomes ownerless, with the result that anyone can appropriate it. In order to prevent this, the BGB gives the beekeeper extensive special powers in the pursuit of his swarms, which go beyond the usual self-help rights of the BGB (see for example §§ 229, 867 and 1005 BGB). For example, the beekeeper may enter other people's properties when pursuing them ( Section 962 sentence 1 BGB). For the beekeeper, this represents a justification so that he is not liable to prosecution for trespassing ( Section 123 (1) StGB ). In this case he is not acting unlawfully. If the swarm being pursued has already moved into a foreign unoccupied hive , the beekeeper may open the hive to catch the swarm and remove or break out the affected combs ( Section 962 sentence 2 BGB). He has to replace the resulting damage (removed honeycombs, broken branches, etc.) ( § 962 sentence 3 BGB). If several swarms that have moved out have already united, the question arises as to who has now become the owner of the united swarm. In principle, the share of the co-ownership is measured according to the ratio of the value that the items have at the time of mixing (cf. § 948 in conjunction with § 947 BGB). This would mean that the respective value of the swarms, i.e. ultimately the exact number of bees in the swarm, would have to be determined and the beekeepers involved face unnecessary problems of proof . Instead, the co-ownership shares are calculated according to the number of swarms pursued ( Section 963 BGB). If only one beekeeper pursues his swarm, he becomes the sole owner of all (ownerless) swarms that are associated with his swarm. The legal situation is different, however, if the chased swarm moves into a hive used by someone else. In this case, the owner of the hive becomes the owner of the swarm; ownership and all other rights to the confiscated swarm expire ( § 964 BGB). The previous owner of the chased swarm cannot claim any compensation. However, this case is hardly ever likely to occur, since a swarm is usually not even let into the occupied hive by the guardian bees.

Public bee law

Public bee law deals with the legal relationships between beekeepers and the state. Among other things, this includes questions as to which locations and to what extent bees may be kept (public building law), which protective measures against bee diseases may be ordered (animal disease law) and which requirements the beekeeper must meet in order to market the honey obtained as food allowed (food law). In addition, there are other regulations that mainly concern professional or part-time beekeepers, such as tax law issues or the social law position of the (professional) beekeeper as a farmer ( old-age insurance , professional association ).

Public building law

In addition to the Building Code (BauGB) and the Building Use Ordinance (BauNVO), the legal sources of public building law are the building regulations of the federal states. The authority responsible for building applications , but also for regulatory measures , is the building supervisory authority , which must not be confused with the building authority . Spatially, a distinction is made between the so-called interior area , i.e. the districts built on in context, and the so-called exterior area , which essentially consists of the open landscape outside the localities. Often the permitted indoor use is regulated by a development plan of the municipality, which can define a village area or a residential area .

If a structure contradicts public building law, the building supervisory authority can order the removal of the structure in question (so-called disposal order ). Structural structures are not just an apiary or a beehive , but a single bee hive . It doesn't matter whether the system can be carried away by one or two people. The decisive factor is that it is a structure made from building materials that is suitable due to its weight (and also intended to protect the bee colonies) to stand upright on the ground over the long term.

In the outdoor area , a building project is only permitted if public interests do not conflict, sufficient access is secured and if it is subject to a privileged situation. This is the case, for example, if the project serves an agricultural operation ( Section 35 (1) No. 1 BauGB). According to § 201 BauGB, however, only professional beekeeping is considered to be agriculture within the meaning of the BauGB. Professional beekeeping is when the intention of constant profit is clearly in the foreground, the activity is laid out in a secure manner for the long term and yields income that has a certain inherent weight in addition to the income from the main occupation when exercising part-time. Professional beekeeping is therefore only assumed from a population of around 30 colonies. However, a population of more than 30 bee colonies is not a guarantee for permissibility under building law. In the case of a part-time beekeeping with 120 colonies of bees, the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) decided that a planned house for the beekeeper and his family would not serve the "agricultural business"; it is therefore not admissible. The Freiburg Administrative Court (VG) had to decide whether the construction of an apiary with a tool shed in a bird sanctuary is permissible. The VG Freiburg denied this, as the nature conservation interests ( Section 35 (3) sentence 1 no. 5 BauGB) were opposed to the project. It cannot be ruled out that the apiary (but not individual hives) will cause considerable damage to the bird sanctuary. The plaintiff also has no claim that the nature conservation authority declares its consent. Because the construction of the apiary would run counter to the protective purpose of the bird sanctuary. The Bavarian Administrative Court (BayVGH) had to decide a similar case . He refused to build two apiaries in a nature reserve . Since the interests of nature conservation are in conflict, the project is imperatively inadmissible. According to the BayVGH, the advantages of building apiaries for the bee population cited by the plaintiff are no longer relevant. According to the case law, the expansion of a beekeeping by adding a lounge with cooking facilities and sanitary facilities as well as the construction of a toilet facility are also not permitted.

Beekeeping in the city has been seen as a growing trend in recent years . This is accompanied by conflicts of use in residential areas. In contrast to beekeeping outdoors, there is hardly any case law on this. The courts emphasize, however, that for the assessment of the permissibility under building law in the interior, the decisive factor is the specific circumstances of the individual case, i.e. the specific development and not least the extent of the beekeeping. The Mannheim Administrative Court did not want to endorse the assumption that beekeeping is incompatible with today's living habits . Fear of being stung by a bee must also be disregarded as purely subjective when it comes to the question of the requirement of consideration. Beehives in the interior are considered subordinate ancillary facilities within the meaning of Section 14 (1) BauNVO. They are therefore permissible under building law, provided they do not contradict the nature of the building area. In 2005, the Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court (Nds. OVG) had to decide whether a beehive with six colonies over a length of 2.4 meters is permitted in a general residential area. The building supervisory authority had no concerns about the initially only two bee colonies. Due to complaints from neighbors, however, the building supervisory authority later ordered the beekeeper to reduce the number of bee colonies kept on his property (again) to two. After the beekeeper's complaint before the administrative court was unsuccessful, he appealed. The Nds. OVG decided that an accumulation of more than two bee colonies violated the characteristics of a general residential area, but that the permissibility under building law remained a question of the specific individual case.

Animal disease law

Because of their economic importance, bees in Germany have their own animal health regulations in the form of the Bee Disease Ordinance (BienSeuchV). This is to prevent the spread of diseases and parasites such as American foulbrood , the small hive beetle and infestation with various mites such as acarapiose , varroosis (formerly: varroosis ) and tropilaelapsosis . In order to enable appropriate monitoring, the beekeeper is obliged to notify the competent authority ( veterinary office ) of the start of beekeeping , stating the number of bee colonies and their location ( Section 1a BienSeuchV). The competent authority records the beekeeping indicated by issuing a registration number. If bee colonies are moved to another location, the competent authority there must immediately be presented with a health certificate from the official veterinarian responsible for the place of origin ( Section 5 (1) BienSeuchV). The certificate must show that the bees have been found to be free from American foulbrood and that the bees' place of origin is not in a foulbrood restricted area. However, a certificate only has to be submitted if the change of location also involves a change to the area of ​​responsibility of another authority responsible for monitoring beekeeping. In contrast, this should generally not be the case when changing location within a district or an urban district. The owner of bee colonies that are only temporarily moved to another location (so-called bee migration ) has to affix a sign to the apiary with his name and address as well as the number of the bee colonies in clear and durable writing ( § 5a BienSeuchV).

In the event of signs that indicate the outbreak of a notifiable animal disease , the beekeeper must immediately notify the competent authority, stating his name and address, as well as the location and type of husbandry of the animals concerned, stating the number of animals ( Section 4 (1) TierGesG ) . If it is to be feared that the American foulbrood, the acariosis (mite disease), the varroosis, the small hive beetle or the Tropilaelaps mite has spread or is spreading, the competent authority can order an official examination of all bee colonies in the suspicious area ( § 3 BienSeuchV) . The beekeeper is obliged to provide the necessary help to carry out examinations ( Section 4 BienSeuchV).

If an apiary is infested with varroa mites, the beekeeper must treat all the bee colonies in the apiary against varroosis annually ( Section 15 (1) BienSeuchV). The same applies to an infestation with tracheal mites ( Section 14 (1) BienSeuchV). For other bee diseases, further protective measures are indicated. These are explained below using an American foulbrood infestation: After the animal disease has been officially established, the apiary concerned is subject to the ban ( Section 8 BienSeuchV). The authority orders the killing of the epidemic bee colonies ( Section 9 (1) BienSeuchV). She can refrain from this and allow treatment by means of an artificial swarm procedure if, according to the official veterinarian's opinion, this can be expected to eradicate the disease. The authority declares the area within a radius of at least one kilometer around the apiary to be a restricted area ( Section 10 (1) BienSeuchV). This has several drastic consequences: All bee colonies and apiaries in the restricted area must be examined immediately by an official veterinarian for American foulbrood, movable apiaries may not be removed from their location, bee colonies or bees may not be brought into the restricted area ( Section 11 (1) BienSeuchV). Honey that is not intended to be fed to bees may, however, be removed ( Section 11 (2) BienSeuchV). The protective measures ordered are to be lifted as soon as the American foulbrood has been extinguished ( Section 12 (1) BienSeuchV). The American foulbrood in the apiary is considered to have been extinguished if all the bee colonies in the contaminated apiary have died or been killed and disposed of, or if the apiary concerned has been disinfected under official supervision and the follow-up examination (see Section 9 (2) BienSeuchV) has a negative result ( Section 12 (2) BienSeuchV).

In addition to bee disease exclusion zones, there are also special protection zones for beekeeping . State laws for the promotion of beekeeping regulate the designation of protected areas for the fertilization of queen bees.

On the basis of the Animal Health Act, the federal states have set up so-called animal disease funds to compensate for the financial losses caused by animal diseases . The maximum rate of compensation for losses in connection with bee diseases is 200 euros per bee colony (see Section 16 (1) sentence 2 TierGesG). According to Section 20 (2) of the Animal Health Act, the animal disease funds can in principle charge bees a fee. However, the federal states may refrain from collecting contributions if this would lead to an unreasonable burden on beekeepers or if there is no need for this due to the animal disease situation. With the exception of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia, all of the federal states have made use of the exemption for beekeepers (status: contribution year 2015). In the states mentioned, the contribution amount is between 0.70 euros (Saxony) and 1.50 euros (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) per people. The minimum contribution varies between 5 euros (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) and 10 euros (North Rhine-Westphalia).

Food law

The most important legal source of food law for the beekeeper is the Honey Ordinance (HonigV). It regulates the nature of honey ( Section 2 HonigV in conjunction with Annex 2 ) and which types of honey (blossom honey, honeycomb honey, etc.) are permitted as a sales description ( Section 3 Paragraph 1 HonigV in conjunction with Annex 1 ). In addition, the country of origin of the honey must be indicated (for example “mixture of honey from EU countries and non-EU countries”). No other substances may be added to honey. As far as possible, it must be free from organic and inorganic substances foreign to honey and, with the exception of baked honey, must not have any foreign taste or smell, nor be fermented or fermented. Honey within the meaning of the Honey Ordinance must also meet specific requirements in terms of its consistency, such as its sugar and water content, its electrical conductivity or the HMF content, which is an important indicator of the freshness of honey.

In addition to the honey ordinance, the beekeeper must comply with general food law provisions. According to the Food Hygiene Ordinance (LMHV), the beekeeper must observe preventive protective measures for food hygiene (so-called HACCP concept) during the processing of the honey (uncovering the honeycomb, spinning etc.) to protect the consumer . The specialist knowledge required for this (cf. § 4 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 LMHV in conjunction with Appendix 1 ) is usually acquired by beekeepers through special training courses offered by the beekeeping associations. As a food, the honey jars must meet certain minimum labeling requirements ( Section 3 HonigV). In addition to the count sales name "honey", the indication of the name and address of the manufacturer and a best before date . The requirements for the respective sales description are specified and established , among other things, by the guidelines for honey . These define the general public opinion and are the primary interpretation aid for answering the question of whether there is a misleading within the meaning of the provisions of food law (cf. § 11 Paragraph 2 No. 2 LFGB ). Each jar of honey must also be provided with a lot (cf. § 1 LKV ) in order to ensure the traceability of the respective batch later. Those who meet the quality guidelines of the German Beekeeping Association (DIB) can market their honey under the DIB trademark and under the name “Real German Honey”.

Further regulations

According to Section 13, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the PflSchG , plant protection products may not be used if the user must expect that their use in individual cases will have harmful effects on, among other things, human or animal health. With regard to bee protection, these general requirements for the use of plant protection products are laid down in the § 7 PflSchG a. F. issued Bee Protection Ordinance has been specified. Pesticides relevant to bees are classified into four categories. B1 means dangerous to bees and B4 means not dangerous to bees. Plant protection products that are dangerous to bees must not be used on flowering plants or other plants flown over by bees ( e.g. because of honeydew ) ( Section 2 (1) BienSchV). Within a radius of 60 meters around an apiary, pesticides that are dangerous to bees may only be used within the time of the daily bee flight with the approval of the beekeeper ( Section 2 (3) BienSchV). In 2013, the Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court (Nds. OVG) had to decide on the action brought by a farmer who had had a single payment cut after he had applied tamaron, a plant protection product dangerous to bees, to his fields because of the high level of lice infestation. Numerous bee colonies later perished in the area. The Nds. OVG decided that the reduction in the single farm payment was legitimate as the farmer had neglected the necessary care when using the plant protection product, which is dangerous for bees. The investigation center for bee poisoning at the Julius Kühn Institute in Braunschweig is responsible for examining bees for damage caused by pesticides ( Section 57 (2) No. 11 PflSchG). Upon request, samples sent in will be tested for possible causes of damage.

Despite its ecological and economic importance of the honey bee (pollination of numerous cultivated plants), as a domesticated form, unlike wild bees and bumblebees, it is not one of the particularly protected species under the Federal Species Protection Ordinance. The honey bee is therefore not covered by the special protection regulations of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (cf. § 44 Paragraph 1 and 2 BNatSchG). The background to this is that the honeybees are not counted among the legally protected "wild" animals because they are in the care of the beekeepers and are seen as livestock. This has been criticized on various occasions as "a noticeable deficiency in current nature conservation law ".

Under tax law, the beekeeper is to be treated as a farmer, regardless of whether he practices beekeeping professionally or as a hobby. The profits made from beekeeping count as income from agriculture and forestry (Annex L to the income tax return , cf. § 2 Paragraph 2 Clause 1 No. 1 EStG ). The scope of the tax liability results from the number of bee colonies kept (cf. § 13a Paragraph 6 EStG in conjunction with No. 2 of Annex 1a ). If fewer than 30 colonies are managed, beekeeping counts as a hobby for income tax purposes; the (hobby) beekeeper is not subject to tax. With a number of 30 to 70 peoples, a flat-rate profit of 1,000 euros is assumed. If more than 70 bee colonies are kept, the beekeeper must determine the profit he has made using an income surplus calculation.

If the beekeeper wants to offer his products (honey, wax, etc.) at weekly markets, the question arises whether he has to comply with trade law . As a rule, anyone who commercially sells goods outside of his or her commercial establishment or without having one requires a permit (so-called travel business card , cf. § 55 GewO ). As long as the beekeeper only sells self-made products from his beekeeping, he is exempt from the requirement of a travel trade license ( Section 55a, Paragraph 1, No. 2 GewO).

Every commercial beekeeping must pay compulsory contributions to the agricultural trade association . A beekeeping company is not considered to be commercially operated if no more than 25 bee colonies are kept ( Section 4 (2) No. 2 Sentence 2 SGB ​​VII ). The compulsory insurance in the agricultural old-age and health insurance exists for all farmers whose company reaches the legal minimum size. An entrepreneur is someone who carries out his professional activity independently (§§ 1 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 ALG , 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 KVLG ). In contrast to the agricultural trade association, this only includes professional beekeepers from the outset. Ultimately, only beekeeping companies that have at least 100 bee colonies are subject to compulsory insurance (Section 1 (5) sentence 2 ALG, 2 (2) KVLG).

Austria

The § 383  Civil Code states that it (meaning administrative) the political rules can be seen as the honey harvesting is to be prevented by foreign bees. This regulation, which has not changed since 1812, has not been complied with until today, rather there are some provisions in the state beekeeping laws on predatory bees and robbery.

For example according to § 5 Upper Austria. Beekeeping Act LGBl. No. 45/1983 as amended:

Paragraph 1) the keeper of the infested apiary must immediately determine the causes of the infestation and, if they are located in his own apiary, eliminate them.

Paragraph 2) The keeper of the apiary from which the predatory bees come must take appropriate measures to prevent the robbery from continuing.

Paragraph 3) There is no right to kill predatory bees from someone else's apiary. Any claims for damages are of a civil law nature.

The fact that the keeper of the infested apiary is held responsible in paragraph 1) is understandable, even if it is not very specific.

For the practitioner, paragraph 2) is less understandable, which instructs the keeper of the robbing apiary to take appropriate measures against the continuation of the robbery. If the robbery is already in full swing, the reasonable and appropriate measures are limited. A transfer during the flight time to a place outside the flight radius appears - apart from the temporally not possible prior notification of immigration - just as unsuitable as a dark detention in the basement, especially since the excited predatory beehives may fizzle out during transport or in the dark detention and thus for one or more strong colonies the keeper of the robbery apiary are lost. If you wait until the end of the flight time, it may be too late for the robbed beehive anyway. Usually the search bees are attracted to stronger colonies by honey remains in the vicinity of the beehives in ejected honeycombs, vessels or honey extractors and then rob the weaker colonies.

Only if the keeper of the robbery beehive can be proven to be at fault in the form of a care error (such as the failure to feed immediately after being thrown off), he may be liable to pay compensation to the keeper of the robbed bees, with any contributory negligence on the part of the keeper of the robbed bees over whose objection should be examined.

As far as can be seen, the Supreme Court has not yet had to deal with such a claim for damages because of “robbery”. Obtaining compensation for “robbery” by other bees appears to be very problematic as a rule, because it will be extremely difficult to prove that the keeper of the “robber apiary” is at fault. For the majority of the occurrence of robbery, however, the phrase recognized in beekeeping circles applies: "Every robbery is preceded by a beekeeper donkey".

Section 384 of the  Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) stipulates that swarms of bees at home are not subject to free animal trapping. The beekeeper can also follow the swarm of bees against indemnification on neighboring properties within two days of their breakout from the mother hive. After this period has elapsed, anyone can appropriate the colony on public property, and only the property owner on private property. If the owner of the bee colony starts the chase within the two-day period, he can continue the chase for a total of 42 days from the swarm departure in order to preserve his property.

In a decision of the Supreme Court from 1921 (SZ 3/107) it was stated that the indemnity is only due for damage caused to the property itself by entering the neighboring property. Any other damage is to be assessed according to the general rules of compensation law.

See also

literature

The following references are limited to German bee law. In addition to the works listed here, there are corresponding representations in the comments on the relevant field of law.

Monographs and manuals

  • Karl Bälzer, The right to bees. At the same time a contribution to the general doctrine of the right to animals. Stuttgart 1891
  • Achim Gercke , The right to bees. Texts and explanations , 2nd edition, Sankt Augustin 1991, ISBN 3-922898-04-1
  • Stefan Schulz, The historical development of the right to bees (§§ 961–964 BGB) , Frankfurt am Main 1990, ISBN 3-631-42776-X (also Diss. Univ. Hamburg 1989)
  • Artur Schüßler, German Bee Law , Mannheim 1934
  • Josef Schwendner, Handbuch Bienenrecht , Munich 1989, ISBN 3-431-03050-5

Essays

  • Balz, do bees belong to domestic animals in Germany? , in: Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung (DJZ) 1908, pp. 415–416.
  • Bendel / Mobis, Beekeeping and Inland Fisheries in Construction Law , in: Agrarrecht (AgrarR) 1978, pp. 66–67.
  • Degen, A question from the bee law , in: Sächsisches Archiv für Rechtspflege 1916, pp. 449–453.
  • Dustmann, On the botanical variety designation of German honey in the DIB standard glass, in: Imkerfreund (IF) 1988, pp. 492–494.
  • Figge, Grundzüge des Bienenrechts , in: Recht der Landwirtschaft (RdL) 1953, pp. 172–175.
  • Gaisbauer, The pulled out swarm of bees , in: Deutsche Wohnungswirtschaft (DWW) 1980, p. 250
  • Gercke, The legal evaluation of bees , in: Natur und Recht (NuR) 1991, pp. 59–64.
  • Kolligs, Das Bienenrecht according to §§ 906-909 of the draft of the civil code for the German Reich , in: Archive for civilist practice (AcP) Vol. 74, pp. 433-444.
  • Küstler, Beekeeping and Law , in: RdL 1983, pp. 32–33.
  • Lehnart, A contribution to bee law , in: Juristische Rundschau (JR) 1929, pp. 183–186.
  • Martinek, The beekeeper and his neighbor - new perspectives in beekeeping neighbor and liability law , in: Die Biene 1994, pp. 584-590, 641-647
  • Martinek, The fence at the apiary - permissibility and limits of the fencing of beehives and apiaries in the outdoor area , in: RdL 1993, p. 78
  • Rohde, On the liability of the beekeeper as an animal keeper , in: Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 1968, pp. 227–231.
  • Schmaltz, Urban planning law and outdoor agriculture , in: AgrarR 1975, p. 29 ff.
  • Schwendner, bees and construction law , in: IF 1988, pp. 150, 182, 232, 361-362, 499-500 and 1989, pp. 27-28, 75-76
  • Schwendner, Deliktsrecht - Damage claims of the beekeeper , in: IF 1987, p. 500 and 1988, p. 16, 62, 102-103
  • Schwendner, Neighbor Law , in: IF 1987, pp. 140, 192, 247-248
  • Schwendner, Schwarmrecht , in: IF 1987, pp. 300, 341
  • Schwendner, Tierhalterhaftung , in: IF 1987, pp. 381-382, 416, 450, 499
  • Schwendner, On the liability of the beekeeper for bee pollination caused by his bees , in: AgrarR 1992, pp. 337–339.
  • Stollenwerk, On the problem of beekeeping in residential areas , in: Verwaltungsrundschau (VR) 2010, pp. 18-20.
  • Strauss, legal protection for and against bees , in: DJZ 1903, p. 367

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Behrends / Knütel / Kupisch / Seiler: Corpus Iuris Civilis. The institutions, text and translation , 3rd edition, Heidelberg 2007, p. 50
  2. ↑ BGH , ruling v. January 24, 1992 -  Az. V ZR 274/90 -, BGHZ 117, 110 = NJW 1992, 1389; see. also Baur / Stürner, property law , 18th edition, Munich 2009, § 25 marginal number 37.
  3. ↑ BGH, ruling v. October 30, 1998 - Az.V ZR 64/98 -, NJW 1999, 356.
  4. ↑ BGH, ruling v. November 14, 2003 - Az.V ZR 102/03 -, NJW 2004, 1037.
  5. ↑ Cf. Bassenge, in: Palandt, 73rd edition, Munich 2014, § 906 BGB marginal number 17.
  6. ↑ See LG Memmingen, judgment of February 25, 1987 - Az. 1 S 550/86 -, NJW-RR 1987, 530 = MDR 1988, 54; see. especially OLG Celle, ruling v. April 15, 1988 - Az. 4 U 278/85 (“Bees with the characteristics of the Carnica breed do not pose a threat or nuisance if assessed objectively.”).
  7. ↑ OLG Braunschweig, ruling from April 6, 1987 - Az. 3 U 174/86 -, NdsRpfl 1987, 185.
  8. ^ AG Kandel, ruling from June 29, 2009 - Az. 1 C 5/09 -, Law of Agriculture (RdL) 2010, 42.
  9. ↑ BGH, ruling v. July 6, 1976 - Az. VI ZR 177/75 -, NJW 1976, 2130; Ruling v. December 20, 2005 - Az.VI ZR 225/04 -, NJW-RR 2006, 813.
  10. ↑ See BGH, judgment of January 19, 1988 - Az.VI ZR 188/87 -, NJW-RR 1988, 655.
  11. ↑ See Sprau, in: Palandt, 73rd edition, Munich 2014, § 833 BGB marginal number 10.
  12. ↑ Cf. for the domestic property of bees, e.g. B. Bälz, Do bees belong to domestic animals in Germany ?, DJZ 1908, 415, 416; Roscher, liability for animal damage according to § 833 of the BGB as amended by the Reich Law of May 30, 1908 , Leipzig 1909, p. 34; Kolligs, The bee law according to §§ 906-909 of the draft of the Civil Code for the German Empire, AcP  74, 433; Rohde, On the liability of the beekeeper as an animal keeper , VersR 1968, 227, 230; Lehnhart, A contribution to bee law, JR 1929, 183, 184 f .; Figge, Die Grundzüge des Bienenrechts, RdL 1954, 173; Schüßler, Deutsches Bienenrecht , pp. 7, 17, 135 f .; rejecting it, Francke, The special liability of the animal keeper and the person subject to supervision according to the civil code , 1911, p. 24; Butler, Die Honigbiene , Düsseldorf / Cologne 1957, p. 17; Künzel, Legal Issues on Beekeeping , Univ. Diss. , Marburg 1934; Gercke, The legal evaluation of bees, NuR 1991, 59, 61 f .; Schwendner, Handbuch Bienenrecht , Munich 1989, 1st part, C, p. 20 f.
  13. ↑ RG , judgment of September 20, 1933 - Az. V 153/33 -, RGZ 141, 406.
  14. ↑ RG, judgment of November 19, 1938 - Az. V 328/10 -, RGZ 158, 388 f.
  15. ↑ So already the RG, ruling v. September 20, 1933 - Az. V 153/22, RGZ 141, 406, 407; most recently LG Dessau-Roßlau, ruling v. May 10, 2012 - Az. 1 S 22/12 -, NJW-RR 2013, 87; LG Bonn, ruling v. January 16, 2013 - Az. 7 O 181/12 -; in the same direction BVerwG , ruling v. October 6, 1989 - Az. 4 C 14.87 -, DÖV 1990, 205, according to which the cleaning flight is at best an inconvenience that does not reach the level of a qualified disruption, such as is necessary for a violation of the obligation of consideration.
  16. ↑ BGH, ruling v. January 24, 1992 - Az. V ZR 274/90 -, BGHZ 117, 110 = NJW 1992, 1389 = AgrarR 1992, 336 ff with note Schwendner = JuS 1992, 795 f with note Karsten Schmidt ; loc. still RG, ruling v. September 20, 1933 - Az. V 153/33 -, RGZ 141, 406, 407; Figge, The basics of bee law, RdL 1954, 172.
  17. ↑ See Schüßler, Deutsches Bienenrecht , Mannheim 1934, pp. 162–166.
  18. ↑ See Bassenge, in: Palandt, 73rd edition, Munich 2014, § 961 BGB marginal number 1.
  19. ↑ See Bassenge, in: Palandt, 73rd edition, Munich 2014, § 962 BGB marginal number 1.
  20. ↑ See Bassenge, in: Palandt, 73rd edition, Munich 2014, § 963 BGB marginal number 1.
  21. ↑ See Bassenge, in: Palandt, 73rd edition, Munich 2014, § 964 BGB margin no. 1.
  22. ↑ See e.g. B. Art. 76 BayBO or § 79 Paragraph 1 Clause 2 No. 4 NBauO .
  23. ↑ See Mitschang / Battis, in: Battis / Krautzberger / Löhr, Baugesetzbuch, 12th edition, Munich 2014, § 201 Rn 3, 6; Söfker, in: Ernst / Zinkahn / Bielenberg / Krautzberger, BauGB, as of August 1, 2013, § 201 Rn 22.
  24. ↑ VG Munich, judgment of July 18, 2012 - Ref.M 9 K 12.1185; VG Gelsenkirchen, ruling from March 11, 2014 - Ref. 9 K 4545/10.
  25. ↑ BVerwG, decision of December 23, 1983 - Az. 4 B 175/83 -, AgrarR 1984, 163 = RdL 1984, 33.
  26. ^ VG Freiburg, judgment of June 16, 2008 - Ref. 3 K 1850/07.
  27. ↑ BayVGH, decision of March 9, 2009 - Ref. 15 ZB 08.3304.
  28. ↑ BayVGH, decision of December 20, 2007 - Ref. 15 ZB 07.2043.
  29. ↑ VG Neustadt / Weinstrasse, ruling v. November 16, 2006 - Ref. 4 K 1291 / 06.NW.
  30. ↑ VGH Mannheim, ruling v. April 10, 1980 - Ref. 3 S 331/80.
  31. ↑ VGH Mannheim, ruling v. November 11, 1993 - Az. 5 S 2352/92 = NVwZ -RR 1994, 632 = BauR 1994, 210
  32. ↑ Nds. OVG, decision of June 10, 2005 - Az. 1 LA 166/04 -, AUR 2005, 299.
  33. ↑ BVerwG, decision of May 12, 2004 - Ref. 3 B 136/03.
  34. ↑ See e.g. B. Lower Saxony's law regulating bee migration and protecting mating sites from January 10, 1953 (Nds. BienenWG, Nds. GVBl. Sb. I, 660), Link .
  35. ↑ See the announcement of new versions or amendments to certain principles of the German Food Book of May 30, 2011 ( BAnz. No. 111a of July 27, 2011).
  36. ↑ See the DIB quality guidelines (PDF; 75.37 kB).
  37. ↑ See Institute for Apiculture Celle , Plant Protection Products and Bee Protection (last accessed on May 23, 2015).
  38. ↑ Nds. OVG, ruling v. August 20, 2013 - Az. 10 LC 113/11 -, RdL 2013, 298.
  39. ↑ Julius Kühn Institute, Research Center for Bee Poisoning, What to do in the event of damage? ( Memento of May 24, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) (last accessed on May 23, 2015).
  40. ↑ Cf. Gercke, The legal assessment of bees, in: NuR 1991, 59.
  41. ↑ a b c Dr. Otmar Gebetsroither, Dr. Alois Karan (2004) - Legal Guide for Beekeepers ", self-published by the Imkereizentrum, Linz.