I'll get you, you swine. Many of them posted their hateful tirades openly onto the Web with their full names, says youth protection worker Schneider. Racism isn't limited to the neo-Nazi scene, to the prefab estates of the former East or to people with little education. There is also resentment against the refugees in the middle class, among the wealthy and the very wealthy.
Table of contents
The inhabitants of Tegernsee, in the Bavarian region of Oberbayern, are largely upper middle class. Businesspeople, lawyers and doctors live here, amidst turquoise-blue water and green mountains. Some local citizens regularly met in the Waakirchen community gymnasium to bowl, often multiple times per month. But since the authorities began housing 21 refugees in the basement of the gymnasium in late April, the customers have stayed away. Instead, Heufelder got calls from upset customers. They complained that they didn't want to stand shoulder to shoulder with "blacks" at the urinal, or run into them during their smoke breaks at the tavern.
Heufelder was horrified by his customers' reactions. Rumors are spreading locally: The refugee applicants from Syria, Eritrea, Mali and Senegal are reportedly bringing in disease. The parents of primary-school children asked the community to separate the school's yard from the gymnasium with a fence and privacy screen, purportedly to protect the privacy of the refugees in the basement. Waakirchen's mayor, Sepp Hartl, tried to defuse the anger. Now he's receiving threatening letters. Because Hartl wants to set up containers for refugees in the town, people protested a meeting he attended in May.
Owners are afraid that homes in the area will lose value. According to Bielefeld conflict researcher Andreas Zick, German politicians and society are too tolerant of anti-refugee sentiment. He argues that the state has pushed back sexism and homophobia, but too little has been done to combat stereotypes about asylum-seekers.
Members of the educated classes, of all people, tend to view refugees as economically worthless, Zick says. Only a small number of people with anti-refugee sentiments have ever come into contact with refugees. They know very little about the experiences of those looking for safe haven, or about their often extremely perilous odyssey to Germany.
That ignorance makes it easier for them to demonize refugees as dangerous. The worst, Osman says, is the waiting. He shares a small room with three other men, and can't wait for the authorities to make a decision about his refugee status. Individual communities like nearby Leverkusen or Wuppertal house the majority of their refugees in apartments. But the authorities usually place them in so-called collective housing -- in schools, gymnasiums or containers at the edge of the city. The refugees often feel isolated from society in the camps. The people living in Hilden's shelters claim they were bullied by employees of the immigration office.
A female refugee says helpers from the city were banned from donating a washing machine. The office disputes this. Osman speaks perfect English. He would like to work and make money for his family, which has been stuck in Lebanon ever since they fled from Syria. But the law makes it more difficult for refugees to search for work. Although asylum-seekers are allowed to find a job three months after they arrive, in most cases employers need to prove that they couldn't find any qualified German or EU applicants before they can hire an asylum-seeker. Politicians ask Germans to have more solidarity with migrants, but the country's public institutions themselves play a role in the establishment of racist fears.
People of color are more often stopped at train stations and in trains. The United Nations has described this practice as a form of "racial profiling. In early July, just a few days after the refugee home in Meissen caught fire, the federal parliament, the Bundestag, agreed to toughen Germany's refugee law. In the future, refugees coming to Germany with the help of smugglers and those circumventing border controls could lose their passport, and asylum-seekers making false statements to authorities could be arrested. The frame of the roof truss is visible from afar, the black beams rising up like a memorial in the blue summer sky.
From close up, visitors can spot evidence of the fire's power -- broken roof tiles on the ground, soot covering the facade above the window openings. Refugees were supposed to move into the building in Remchingen, near Karlsruhe, shortly. The people responsible have yet to be caught -- it remains unclear what caused the fire, but the Karlsruhe Criminal Police believe it was likely arson. The fire, which took place in the night of the Saturday before last, didn't merely destroy the building, it also destroyed an illusion: that right-wing attacks take place in the former East, not in West German neighborhoods.
The state has an Integration Ministry at its disposal and State Governor Winfried Kretschmann, a member of the Green Party, organizes refugee summits that bring together representatives from society and the municipalities, with the goal of strengthening solidarity. But that only makes the shock about the Remchingen fire bigger. Kretschmann describes it as a "vile arson attack. Remchingen's mayor, Luca Prayon, sits perplexed in his office a few days after the event.
He looks exhausted. What went wrong? Prayon talks about the things that are going well in his community. A week before the fire, locals and refugees celebrated a farm festival together. This Sunday, the local council has invited people to join a rally for a "cosmopolitan and pluralistic county. But it was likely no coincidence that the fire took place in Remchingen.
The region has been considered a right-wing hotspot for years. Homeowners who wanted to sell their buildings to the community so they could be used as refugee homes received threatening letters. Shortly after the fire, the members of Die Rechte Enzkreis, a right-wing group, put flyers in mailboxes. And "why the expensive integration courses? In a neighboring community, people formed an anti-refugee initiative hoping to use a public petition to block the opening of a refugee hostel.
It didn't take long for them to find the supporters they needed for the petition. Related Topics. Discuss this issue with other readers! Show all comments Page 1. It is time that our nation stands up and weeds out that "vermin" of right-wing fascist riffraff. Behind bars they would be a lot more acceptable to me. One, people are not hearing the true numbers of immigrants by their politicians nor by [ One, people are not hearing the true numbers of immigrants by their politicians nor by the press.
Two, often comments are not printed, if they do not match up to the message the press wants to give, or if they are too nuanced. Peoople must be "ignorant", and indeed, "racist" if they don't want their society to change too drastically. Maybe the german government should listen to the demands of these people who afraid of immigration and conduct some kind of referendum to select a quota for asylum seekers or would be immigrants. The Government stressed that in all cases of violation of the duty of faithfulness, there was a right of appeal to independent courts, which was not always exercised.
As far as the Government was aware, none of the officials or employees named by the WFTU had appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court against their dismissal. The Government transmitted comments by the Confederation of German Employers' Associations which fully supported the position expressed in the Government's observations.
The Committee set up to examine the representation submitted its report to the Governing Body at its th Session February The Governing Body examined the report at its th Session June At that session, the Government representative of the Federal Republic of Germany indicated that his Government was not able to accept the Committee's conclusions and indicated the points on which it disagreed with them. He stressed however that the Government subscribed wholeheartedly to the ILO's supervisory procedures for promoting and ensuring the application of ratified Conventions.
In view of the experience and authority of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the universality of the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, his Government was in favour of continuing and deepening the exchange of views in those two bodies. The Government was also prepared to consider any other method of continuing the procedure.
After a discussion the Governing Body decided, in application of Article 10 of the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the ILO Constitution, Endnote 4 to refer the matter to a Commission of Inquiry, in accordance with article 26, paragrah 4, of the Constitution. Endnote 5 Appointment of the Commission At its st Session November , the Governing Body adopted proposals made by the Director-General concerning the composition of the Commission, as follows: Chairman: Mr.
Members: Mr. In conformity with established practice, the Governing Body decided: a that the members of the Commission should serve as individuals in their personal capacity, and should undertake by a solemn declaration, corresponding to that made by the judges of the International Court of Justice, to perform their duties and exercise their powers honourably, faithfully, impartially and conscientiously; b that the Commission should determine its own procedure, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
The Commission held its first session in Geneva on 25 and 26 November At the beginning of this session, the members of the Commission made a solemn declaration, in the presence of Mr. Francis Blanchard, Director-General of the International Labour Office, by which they undertook to perform their duties and exercise their powers honourably, faithfully, impartially and conscientiously.
The Commission noted that the decision to refer the case to a Commission of Inquiry had been taken by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, in accordance with article 10 of the Standing Orders concerning the examination of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the ILO, in the course of consideration of the representation made by the World Federation of Trade Unions. The Commission was consequently called upon to examine, in accordance with articles 26 to 28 of the Constitution, the issues raised in the said representation. The Commission took note of the information and documentation submitted in connection with the aforesaid representation.
It adopted a series of decisions on the procedural arrangements for the investigation of the questions at issue. The Commission was informed that a number of communications providing information on matters relevant to its work had recently been addressed to the International Labour Office by individuals and organisations in the Federal Republic of Germany.
It decided to take cognisance of these communications, and to transmit copies thereof to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and to the World Federation of Trade Unions, for their information and to enable them to make such comments thereon as they might wish to present to the Commission. Several other communications addressed to the International Labour Office referred to the situation of persons employed in the private sector.
The Commission decided not to take those communications into account, since the representation made by the World Federation of Trade Unions, and therefore the scope of the investigation which the Commission was called upon to make, related to persons employed in the public service. The Commission decided to afford an opportunity to the World Federation of Trade Unions to submit additional information and observations. The organisation was requested to send any such information and observations by 31 January By virtue of article 27 of the ILO Constitution, all member States, whether or not directly concerned by a matter referred to a Commission of Inquiry, are bound to place at the disposal of the Commission all information in their possession which bears upon the subject-matter of the inquiry.
Bearing in mind that the present case related to employment in the public service, the Commission decided to invite the Governments of countries neighbouring upon the Federal Republic of Germany namely, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, the German Democratic Republic, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland to communicate such information. An invitation to communicate information to the Commission was also addressed to several organisations having consultative status with the ILO, namely, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the World Confederation of Labour, and the International Organisation of Employers.
The Commission requested the above-mentioned governments and organisations to submit any information by 31 January It informed them that any such information would be transmitted to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and to the World Federation of Trade Unions. The Commission informed the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany that any additional information and observations which it might wish to submit should be communicated by 15 March The Commission decided to hold its second session in Geneva from 14 to 25 April , and to proceed to the hearing of witnesses during that session.
It adopted rules for the hearing of witnesses, which it communicated to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and to the World Federation of Trade Unions. Endnote 6 The Commission requested the Government to communicate, by 31 January , the names and descriptions of witnesses whom it wished the Commission to hear in the course of the second session. It also informed the Government that it would like to hear evidence from a representative of the German Confederation of Trade Unions and from witnesses appearing on behalf of certain organisations of persons employed in the public sector, such as officials in the public administration, teachers and postal workers.
The Commission requested the Government to consult the organisations in question and to take the necessary measures with a view to the attendance of such witnesses. The Commission likewise requested the World Federation of Trade Unions to communicate, by 31 January , the names and descriptions of any witnesses whom it wished the Commission to hear in the course of the second session, together with a brief indication of the matters on which it was desired to adduce the evidence of each of them. The Commission indicated that it would decide, on the basis of these indications, whether to hear the witnesses in question.
It requested the organisation to make the necessary arrangements for their attendance before the Commission. The Commission requested the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to ensure that no obstacle would prevent the attendance before it of persons whom it was proposed to present as witnesses or whom the Commission wished to hear.
It also asked the Government for an assurance that all persons appearing before it as witnesses would enjoy full protection against any sanction or prejudice on account of their attendance or evidence before the Commission. The Commission authorised its chairman to deal on its behalf with any questions of procedure that might arise between sessions, with the possibility of consulting the other members whenever he might consider this necessary. Communications received following the first session on questions of procedure The Chairman of the Commission received a letter dated 31 January from Dr.
Winfrid Haase, representative of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on the ILO Governing Body, reading as follows: Translation I wish to thank you for your letter of 27 November , indicating the outcome of the first session of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany takes the opportunity, at the beginning of the inquiry, to stress once more that it fully supports the aims of the International Labour Organisation and recognises the Organisation's procedures for supervising the observance of ILO standards by member States.
It will collaborate in ensuring that also the present proceedings are carried out in accordance with the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has taken note of the contents of the above-mentioned letter of 27 November with great interest. Certain basic questions have arisen in this connection, the decisions on which will in the opinion of the Federal Government have considerable significance for the further stages of the procedure.
When the Governing Body decided on 3 June to refer the matter to a Commission of Inquiry, it had before it the representation of the World Federation of Trade Unions and the report of the Committee which had examined the representation. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that this also determines the subject of the present inquiry.
The Federal Government considers it problematical continuously to widen the inquiry into ever new cases which have been submitted not by the entity which previously made the representation, but by individuals or organisations not entitled to file a complaint. An additional factor is that once again - as already in the representations procedure - several of the newly communicated cases have not yet been the subject of a final judgment and in none of the cases is there a definitive decision by the Federal Constitutional Court.
The representative of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in the Governing Body already drew attention to this fact on 3 June in regard to the then relevant cases. He then raised the question, whether and how far one could judge the practice of a State in applying a Convention so long as the cases referred to had not been decided by the highest national courts.
In your letter you requested the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to communicate by 31 January the names and descriptions of witnesses whom it would wish the Commission to hear at its second session. Elsewhere in the letter reference is made in general terms to the questions which are the subject of the inquiry. In the rules for the hearing of witnesses which have been transmitted it is stated that statements and evidence may be presented to the Commission only for the purpose of providing factual information bearing on the questions at issue.
The Federal Government is concerned that it may not be able to respond adequately to the request made in your letter so long as details are not available of the specific subjects on which questions are to be put. When the Governing Body considered the preceding representation on 3 June , all speakers pointed out that the matter under examination was extremely complex and would require thorough study. It was precisely the recognition of this fact which led the Governing Body to the decision not to consider the report of the committee which examined the representation as sufficient and to refer the matter to a Commission of Inquiry.
The Federal Government concurred in this decision and constantly stressed its readiness for dialogue. For a fruitful dialogue, it would consequently be of interest to know what questions concerning the case the Commission wishes to deal with. It would also be important to know whether the Commission would wish rather to look into individual cases or to consider general practice. The answer to these questions will determine whether the witnesses should be chosen to speak about individual cases or practice in regard to appointments or as expert witnesses on the legal position.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the session to be held for the hearing of witnesses should be devoted primarily to questions of law rather than to questions of fact. In so far as questions of fact are concerned, the Federal Government refers above all to the facts found by the independent courts, which have not been questioned by any of those concerned. The laws, ordinances and guide-lines as well as the decisions of the highest German courts are also known. Legal practice, in so far as reflected in these judicial decisions, is not contested by the Federal Government.
In the opinion of the Federal Government, the questions of law to be examined concern the following areas: 1. Applicability of Convention No. At the sitting of the Governing Body on 3 June , in addition to the Federal Government, also speakers on behalf of the Worker and Employer groups indicated that this was one of the basic questions concerning Convention No. Interpretation of Article 1, paragraph 2, of Convention No. Interpretation of Article 4 of Convention No. A further question of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerns the role which is to be played in the present inquiry proceedings by the entity which initiated the preceding representations procedure.
We have the impression that in the present inquiry the initiator of the preceding representation is to enjoy rights and functions corresponding to those of a complainant appearance of a representative at the hearings, right to present witnesses, etc. According to article 26 of the ILO Constitution, a procedure of complaint may be initiated: - by a member State of the ILO article 26, paragraph 1 ; - by the Governing Body of its own motion article 26, paragraph 4 ; - on the basis of a complaint by a delegate to the Conference article In the present case the procedure has been initiated by the Governing Body of its own motion.
The Federal Government has no objection to the fact that factual indications for judging the questions at issue may be provided from all competent quarters. This certainly includes also information provided by workers' organisations which play a role at the level of the ILO. There is however no provision under which an occupational organisation of workers, whose rights in supervisory procedures are expressly defined only in cases of representations under article 24 of the Constitution, is entitled to make a complaint and consequently to play a role similar to that of a complainant.
Also in the present case the Governing Body correctly decided that the Commission should determine its procedure "in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution".
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that it is not compatible with the Constitution of the ILO to permit an occupational organisation to act as if it were a complainant, in addition to the functions which the Governing Body has to exercise of its own initiative. The Federal Government has already pointed out that in its view it would have been preferable to know what specific questions the Commission wishes to consider.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is in contact with an additional expert witness from the educational administration and will shortly provide particulars concerning him. I would in addition like to reserve the right to designate further expert witnesses once the questions concerning the determination of the subject of the inquiry have been decided. The Federal Government has already repeatedly expressed its views on the legal issues involved.
It wishes expressly to recall those views, but reserves the possibility - in accordance with the invitation in your letter of 27 November - to submit further views by 15 March At the same time, I wish to inform you that I have been instructed to appear before the Commission as representative on behalf of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
I assume that advisers to the Government's representative may also attend the sittings of the Commission and speak on particular questions. I will communicate the names of these advisers in due course. By letter of 28 February , the Chairman addressed the following reply to Dr.
Haase: I wish to thank you for your letter of 31 January , in which you informed me that you had been designated to act as representative of your Government at the hearings of witnesses during the second session of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance by the Federal Republic of Germany of the Discrimination Employment and Occupation Convention, No.
I confirm that, at the proposed hearings, you may be accompanied by advisers, and shall be glad to be informed of their names in due course. I have carefully considered the questions raised in your letter, and have also consulted the other members of the Commission in this connection. As regards the scope of the inquiry with which the Commission is charged, I confirm that the matter referred to the Commission by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office concerns the issues raised in the representation made by the World Federation of Trade Unions.
The Commission is accordingly called upon to examine whether, contrary to the provisions of Convention No. The Commission would not be prepared to consider any allegations or information going beyond those issues. Indeed, for this reason, the Commission decided at its first session not to take account of several communications addressed to the International Labour Office which referred to the situation of persons employed in the private sector.
The question of the scope of the inquiry needs to be distinguished from the nature of the information to be gathered and examined in the course of the inquiry. The Commission's mission is not to review the findings and conclusions of the Governing Body committee which examined the representation of the WFTU, but to undertake its own inquiry into the above-mentioned allegations.
Consequently, the Commission's work is not limited to examining only the documentation submitted during the earlier examination by the Governing Body committee.
37 Fakten, die Dich komplett neu auf Harry Potter schauen lassen
It must inform itself fully on law and practice in the Federal Repbulic of Germany in regard to the matters at issue. It was for these reasons that the Commission decided at its first session to seek information from various Governments and employers' and workers' organisations, to take into consideration communications received from a number of individuals and organisations in the Federal Republic of Germany, in so far as relevant to the issues before it, and to proceed to the hearing of witnesses.
In your letter you also refer to the fact, on which you had already commented at the sitting of the Governing Body in June , that a number of cases referred to in the documentation and communications before the Commission have not yet been the subject of a final judgement and that in none of these cases there is a definitive decision by the Federal Constitutional Court. The Commission will take these observations into account when it deliberates on its findings at the conclusion of the procedure, in order to decide what weight can be given to the information and documents submitted to it, and will bear in mind whether or not cases have been the subject of a final judgement.
There would, however, be no justification for the Commission to exclude the material in question from consideration. The Commission is not called upon to pronounce upon individual decisions of the administrative and judicial authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany. Its task is to examine whether legislation and administrative practice are compatible with the obligations assumed by the Government of the Federal Republic under Convention No.
Information concerning individual cases constitutes evidence of administrative practice and of the practical effect of legal provisions, and as such is admissible. Your letter also seeks clarification as to the nature of the questions to be dealt with at the forthcoming hearings of witnesses. As may be seen from rule 5 of the rules enclosed with my letter of 27 November , the main purpose of the hearings is to enable the Commission to inform itself fully of facts relevant to the inquiry. It would hope that the witnesses will provide information serving in particular to clarify the effect of the relevant legal provisions and the manner in which those provisions are applied in practice.
It appears that the persons mentioned in your letter as provisionally selected to appear as witnesses would be eminently qualified to provide relevant evidence on the issues before the Commission. While the main purpose of the hearings is as indicated above, the Government is entitled to make submissions on questions concerning the scope and interpretation of Convention No.
Eine unerträgliche Partei - DER SPIEGEL 7/
As you mention in your letter, the Government has already on a number of occasions, especially in connection with the examination of the representation of the WFTU, expressed its views on these aspects. It would be helpful to the Commission, and might save time at the hearings, if any further submissions on questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention could be addressed to the Commission in writing.
It has not been the practice of previous ILO Commissions of Inquiry to communicate in advance of hearings the questions which they wished witnesses to answer, and also in the present case the Commission does not propose to do so. The questions which the Commission may wish to put to the witnesses presented by your Government will depend partly on any further information which your Government may submit in answer to my letter of 27 November , on the initial statements which the witnesses themselves may have made and on evidence given by preceding witnesses, including those presented by the WFTU.
The Commission therefore does not propose to communicate in advance the specific questions which it may consider appropriate to put to particular witnesses. However, in order to assist your Government and its witnesses in preparing for the hearings, it intends to draw up an indicative list of issues which it would appear desirable for the Government's witnesses to cover in their evidence. The list will be sent to you as soon as practicable.
I have noted the questions relating to the personal scope and the scope of protection of Convention No. The Commission has already taken note of the earlier statements made by the Government on these matters, particularly in its reply to the representation of the WFTU and in your statement before the Governing Body in June As already indicated, it will be pleased to consider any further submissions which your Government may wish to communicate.
The views expressed will be fully examined by the Commission when it deliberates on its conclusions. It appeared from the Government's reply to the representation of the WFTU that it based its position on the argument that the existing law and practice in the Federal Republic of Germany were in conformity with Convention No. In your statement in the Governing Body on 3 June , you also presented observations concerning the scope of the protection afforded by the Convention in respect of the expression of political opinions. In your letter of 31 January , you refer to an additional issue, namely the question of the applicability of Convention No.
The Commission would appreciate receiving your Government's written observations on the last-mentioned question. I have taken note of your Government's comments concerning the role of the WFTU under the rules for the hearing of witnesses. It appears desirable, in the first instance, to draw a distinction between the conditions in which the Governing Body may decide to refer a matter to a Commission of Inquiry and the procedure to be followed by such a Commission once it has been established. The former question is governed by express provisions. The latter is not, and it has therefore been the constant practice, followed also in the present case, to leave it to the Commission to determine its procedure.
You will recall that the decision to refer the present case to a Commission of Inquiry was taken by the Governing Body in application of article 10 of the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination of representations, by virtue of which, when a representation within the meaning of article 24 of the Constitution is communicated to the Governing Body, the latter may at any time, in accordance with paragraph 4 of article 26 of the Constitution, adopt the procedure provided for in article 26 and the following articles that is, refer the matter to a Commission of Inquiry.
The possibility that the Governing Body might consider it appropriate to establish a Commission of Inquiry to examine matters raised in a representation was envisaged when the original ILO Constitution was drawn up in , and was advanced in favour of including in article 26 the power for the Governing Body itself to initiate proceedings before a Commission of Inquiry see ILO Official Bulletin, Vol.
I, , pp. The Commission's main concern, in drawing up the rules for the hearing of witnesses, was to establish arrangements which would enable it to obtain full and clear information on the matter referred to it. As I have already mentioned, and as you yourself emphasise in your letter, the Commission's mandate is determined by the issues raised in the WFTU representation. The Commission must examine, by means of its own investigation, whether the allegations made in the representation are founded. As the initiator of these allegations, the WFTU has a duty to substantiate them.
That explains why the Commission invited the WFTU to supply further information and also to present witnesses at the proposed hearings.
A Study of Right-Wing Political Culture in Germany, 1890–1960
The presence of a representative of the WFTU at those hearings is desirable, so that, as stated in rule 2 of the rules for the hearings, he may "be responsible for the general presentation of their witnesses and evidence". These arrangements are of a practical nature, to permit the hearings to be carried through in an effective manner and to enable the Commission to obtain, in so far as possible, clarification of any conflicting evidence adduced before it. They are in line with the practice followed by earlier Commissions of Inquiry, including the Commission established to examine the observance of certain Conventions by Chile, which was set up by the Governing Body of its own motion in the absence of a representation and of any specific initiator of the allegations examined see Report of that Commission, , paragraphs 17, 18, 27, 29, 31 and I wish to point out that, although rule 9 of the rules for the hearing of witnesses provides for the possibility for the representative of the WFTU to put questions to witnesses, according to rule 10 all questioning of witnesses will be subject to control by the Commission.
The Commission will carefully consider any such questions to ensure that they remain strictly within the scope of the inquiry and are relevant to the clarification of the issues. It may of course itself seek additional explanations from witnesses on points on which clarification appears to it to be desirable. I hope that the foregoing explanations will help to dispel the doubts or reservations to which you drew my attention in your letter.
The Commission remains open to any further observations which your Government may wish to communicate. It would also be glad to receive you, in private, prior to the opening of the hearings to provide any further clarification which you might desire to have. I note that your Government has not yet indicated the names of witnesses on behalf of the German Confederation of Trade Unions and other organisations of persons employed in the public sector.
I assume that particulars concerning these witnesses will be communicated in due course. I should also be glad to hear from you regarding the assurances requested from your Government in the last paragraph of my letter of 27 November Further to the above-mentioned letter of 28 February , an indicative list of issues to be covered by the Government's witnesses in their evidence was approved by the Commission and communicated to the Government by letter of 14 March The Commission emphasised that the list was of an indicative and non-exhaustive nature and that it was not intended to limit in any way the freedom of the Commission at the forthcoming hearings to ask witnesses whatever questions it might consider appropriate.
By letter dated 17 January , the General Secretary of the World Federation of Trade Unions informed the Commission that, in accordance with the rules for the hearing of witnesses, it had designated as its representative, to act on its behalf before the Commission, Mr. It also communicated the names and brief particulars of 12 witnesses proposed by the WFTU to appear before the Commission at its second session. Having regard to the relatively full documentation already available to the Commission on the cases of a number of these persons and in view of the limited time available for the hearings to be held on the occasion of the Commission's second session, the request was made that the number of witnesses be somewhat reduced.
This would be on the understanding that, in respect of any of the witnesses originally proposed who would not be called to give evidence, the WFTU would be given the opportunity to submit written particulars of their circumstances and relevant documentation or to supplement such information as might already be in the Commission's possession. Such additional material was to be communicated to the Commission by 15 March By letter of 21 February , the WFTU informed the Commission that, having considered the above-mentioned request, it proposed to present six witnesses at the Commission's second session, whose names it indicated.
Kaldor communicated the names of persons who would attend as advisers to Mr. By a communication of 27 March , the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany supplied the full list of the representatives designated to appear on its behalf at the Commission's second session, as well as the names of witnesses due to appear on behalf of the Government and of witnesses designated to appear on behalf of certain trade unions of workers in the public sector.
By a letter of 11 April , Dr. Haase communicated a statement worded as follows translation : "On behalf of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, I give the assurance that all persons who appear before the Commission need fear neither sanctions nor prejudice, if their statements are truthful and do not violate penal provisions of the Federal Republic of Germany. The WFTU also referred to a Parliamentary debate which was to take place at the end of January and in which the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany was to express its views about "Berufsverbote", Endnote 7 and to the discussions and findings of the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the International Labour Conference in , and By letter of 31 January , the Government of the German Democratic Republic indicated that the treatment of the representation made by the WFTU was being followed with attention in the German Democratic Republic, and that it valued the efforts of the WFTU in seeking to defend the rights of working people everywhere in the world.
It also emphasised its declared policy to ensure the basic rights of workers in law and practice, including the right to work, irrespective of nationality, race, philosophical or religious beliefs, social origin or status. By letter of 16 April , the Government of Czechoslovakia stated that, in its view, all the essential aspects of the matter had been effectively dealt with in the report on the representation of the WFTU submitted to the Governing Body in February The conclusions in that report, that existing practices went beyond what was provided in Article 1, paragraph 2, and Article 4 of Convention No.
The Governments of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Netherlands and Switzerland, as well as the International Organisation of Employers, informed the Commission that they had no particular information on the matters before the Commission. By letter of 30 January , the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions informed the Commission that it was generally in agreement with the conclusions reached by the Committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, and stated that it had no information on the issues referred to the Commission other than that contained in the submission to be made by its affiliate, the Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, and its affiliated organisations.
The Commission received communications from a number of individuals and organisations in the Federal Republic of Germany, some of which provided information on recent developments in cases of exclusion or attempted exclusion from the public service already known to the Commission, while others gave information on further cases of this kind. The Commission decided to take these communications into consideration.
- MicroRNAs in Plant Development and Stress Responses: 15 (Signaling and Communication in Plants);
- Lernen macht intelligent: Warum Begabung gefördert werden muss (German Edition)?
- Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience.
Innovation-based regional structural change - theoretical reflections, empirical findings and political implications Koschatzky, Knut. Technology transfer from polytechnics and universities in Germany. Some "best practices" Koschatzky, Knut; Heijs, Joost. Wie evaluiert man organisatorischen Wandel in einem komplexen Umfeld?
Cluster policy adjustments in the context of smart specialization? A theoretical view on public-private partnerships in research and innovation in Germany Koschatzky, Knut. Forschungscampus - a new public-private partnership initiative in strategic research in Germany Koschatzky, Knut; Stahlecker, Thomas. Forschungscampus in the light of international PPP models in research and innovation - General conclusions Koschatzky, Knut.
Public-private partnerships in Australia: The evolution of the cooperative research centres Koschatzky, Knut; Dwertmann, Anne. Public-private partnerships in research and innovation: Trends and international perspectives Koschatzky, Knut Hrsg. New forms of regional interaction between universities and industry evidence from Germany Koschatzky, Knut.
Technologietransfer in regionalen Innovationssystemen: Akteure und Funktionsdefizite Koschatzky, Knut. Cluster quo vadis? The future of the cluster concept Koschatzky, Knut. Clusterpolitik quo vadis? Fraunhofer ISI's systemic research perspective in the context of innovation systems Koschatzky, Knut. Heterogeneous cooperations - new forms of research collaboration in the german innovation system: Presentation held at Second Sino-German Innovation Forum, Berlin, The impact of regional institutional characteristics on the location of MNCs - a european perspective Koschatzky, Knut; Baier, Elisabeth.
Location pattern of the headquarters of research-oriented multinational enterprises in Europe: Presentation held at Conference "Geography of Innovation", St. Etienne, Regional embeddedness of multinational enterprises in european regions Koschatzky, Knut; Zenker, Andrea; Baier, Elisabeth. Regionale Innovationspolitik Koschatzky, Knut. April , Innsbruck Koschatzky, Knut. Multinational enterprises and innovation: Regional learning in networks Heidenreich, M.
Regional innovation governance Koschatzky, Knut; Heidenreich, Martin. Regionale Innovationspolitik: Vortrag gehalten auf der Tagung Strukturpolitik 3.
Oktober Koschatzky, Knut. The changing role of universities in the german research system: Engagement in regional networks, clusters and beyond Koschatzky, K. Cohesion policy in the light of place-based innovation support: New approaches in multi-actors, decentralised regional settings with bottom-up strategies? A new challenge for regional policy-making in Europe? New forms of strategic research collaboration between firms and universities in the German research system Koschatzky, K.
- Movement, Manifesto, Melee: The Modernist Group, 1910-1914.
- Prof. Dr. Knut Koschatzky.
- Contact - Fendt.
- The Dream Keeper (In Sleep Book 1);
- General Book on Infectious Diseases!
- Hans Jonas: Das Prinzip der Verantwortung des Menschen unter den Augen eines ohnmächtigen Gottes (German Edition)!
- Releases - Turtle Beach Corporation?
Cohesion policy at the interface between regional development and the promotion of innovation Koschatzky, K. Firm formation and economic development: What drives academic spin-offs to success or failure? Multi-level governance in regional innovation systems Koschatzky, K. Piedmont, Italy Davies, A. Science-based regional development in a small region: Scope of collective action for regional governments Koschatzky, K.
The spatial multidimensionality of sectoral innovation - the case of information and communication technologies Koschatzky, K. The uncertainty in regional innovation policy: Some rationales and tools for learning in policy making Koschatzky, K. An-Institute und neue strategische Forschungspartnerschaften im deutschen Innovationssystem Koschatzky, K. The role of clusters and regional networks in economic transformation - empirical evidence and conclusions from the east german innovation system Koschatzky, K. The spatial embeddedness of multi-national enterprises' research activity: A bibliometric analysis Jappe-Heinze, A.
Methodological framework for cluster analyses Koschatzky, K. Positionspapier: Strategische Forschungskooperationen zwischen Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft: Zur Rolle von An-Instituten und neuen strategischen Partnerschaften im deutschen Innovationssystem. Promoting regional networking and cluster formation in East Germany: A chance for setting up new regional growth regimes in an economically volatile environment? Social capital and cooperation within innovation systems Koschatzky, K. Which side of the coin?
The regional governance of science and innovation Koschatzky, K. Structural couplings of young knowledge-intensive business service firms in a public-driven regional innovation system: The case of Bremen, Germany Koschatzky, K. Foresight as a governance concept at the interface between global challenges and regional innovation potentials Koschatzky, K.
Regionalization of innovation policy: New options for regional change? Forschung und Entwicklung in der Privatwirtschaft Koschatzky, K. On the significance of geographical proximity for the structure and development of newly founded knowledge-intensive business service firms Stahlecker, T. A fragmented innovation system?