from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disturber is a legal term that is mainly used in administrative law and property law .

Administrative law

Disturbers in the sense of administrative or police law are people who are responsible for impairing public safety and order . Danger prevention measures are used to counteract this impairment . The impairment can be linked to dangerous action (then: action or behavior disruptor) or to responsibility for the dangerous state of a thing (then: condition disruptor ). In addition to these two basic forms of police and regulatory responsibility, there are also special forms of liability for troublemakers such as those subject to remediation pursuant to Section 4 (3) and (6) of the Federal Soil Protection Act (including the universal successor of the polluter, the derelict and the previous owner).

Property law

Disturbers in the sense of property law are legal subjects who are responsible for the impairment of a person's property in other ways than by depriving them of property . You can therefore be the addressee of a claim for removal or injunctive relief from the owner ( § 1004 BGB ).

Impairments are, for example, unauthorized entry of a property or causing excessive immissions .

A distinction is made between action disorder and condition disorder as follows:

  • A disruptor is someone who adequately causes the impact on another thing through his or her act or through non- compliance. The direct disruptor is someone who causes the impairment through an independent action. Anyone who allows the impairment to be caused by the action of a third party is an indirect interferer.
  • The disorder is the owner, owner or authorized person of an object from which an impairment originates that can be traced back at least indirectly to his will.


A special form of disturbance liability relates to the file sharing .

Interferers in the sense of copyright are people who are responsible for the violation of copyrights or ancillary copyrights.

According to § 97 UrhG, if absolute rights are violated, claims can be made to cease and desist who - without being a perpetrator or participant - in any way willingly and adequately causally contributes to the violation of the protected right. The support or exploitation of the action of a third party acting independently may also be sufficient as a contribution, provided that the person claimed had the legal opportunity to prevent this action. Since the interferer's liability may not be extended excessively to third parties who have not carried out the illegal impairment themselves, the liability of the interferer presupposes the breach of reasonable behavioral obligations, in particular of inspection obligations. Whether and to what extent the interferer can be expected to carry out an examination as claimed depends on the respective circumstances of the individual case, taking into account his function and task as well as with a view to the personal responsibility of the person who directly carried out the illegal impairment. An inspection obligation can arise when a technical facility is put into operation, but then presupposes that this already poses a risk to absolute legal interests of third parties. Interferers in this sense can therefore be the addressee of an injunction by the rights holder.

If, for example, computer games protected by ancillary copyright law ( § 69a UrhG) are offered for download on an internet exchange or otherwise made publicly available ( § 19a UrhG), the rights holder can take action against the owner of the internet connection.

According to the Federal Court of Justice, parents regularly fulfill their duty to supervise a normally developed thirteen-year-old child who obeys their basic commandments and prohibitions by instructing the child about the prohibition of illegal participation in Internet exchange sites. There is no obligation on the parents to monitor the use of the Internet by the child. Parents are only obliged to take such measures if they have concrete indications of illegal use of the Internet connection by the child.

See also


Individual evidence

  1. on the so-called disturbance majority and official selection process, cf. VGH Baden-Württemberg, judgment of December 18, 2012, Az. 10 S 744/12, full text Rn. 38 ff., 41
  2. Thomas Schotten, Alexandra Fridrich, Till Bannasch: Remediation of contaminated sites ( Memento of the original from September 7, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Technical information, as of October 2009. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.sfb-rae.de
  3. BGH, judgment of February 4, 2005, Az.V ZR 142/04, full text = NJW 2005, 1366.
  4. BGH, judgment of November 15, 2012, Az. I ZR 74/12 full text .