Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Great Britain, Spain, USA
The work in the area of compensation for the damage of electromagnetic radiation on humans, animals and objects (property value loss, interference with the established and exercised business, etc.) is characterized by the constant attempt to summarize the science on this, so the damage and the courts to mediate that such damages are actually talking.
Here, the difficulty is that no solid scientific realities, but a constant subject to change. Even today, it is clear that in the future, the harmfulness of electromagnetic radiation will be secured recognition. Sun also developed in the field of asbestos, tobacco, certain wood preservatives, etc. discussion.
Courts represented in our country still believes that the issue not before the court heard, but for the regulation donors. We do not share the view that the problem of electromagnetic radiation only by the legislature can be resolved. It is the task of civil courts in the evidence submitted by the parties to pursue the evidence in the decision-making to influence it. The worldwide scientific knowledge presented here may have the situation before the court more favorable. Nor can a violation of duty by the subsequent regulation donor judicially determine if self-evident is that a legitimate system originally designed to protect the health due to new evidence or changed circumstances is constitutionally intolerable become (Federal Constitutional Court).
However, it is still common law, that the science and research so far has not succeeded in demonstrating that athermal effects of electromagnetic fields below the in the 26th BImSchV boundaries to health damage. Therefore, the court often waived to give evidence about the health effects of mobile plant at the end of outgoing electromagnetic fields. Basically, according to the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court (NJW 2002, 1638, 1639) the Court is not obliged to apply the latest scientific knowledge on the dangers of high-frequency electromagnetic fields by obtaining expert evidence to be determined. In the case of complex threats, which is still no reliable scientific evidence, the regulation donor after the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, a reasonable exchange of experience and flexibility to adapt. It is not up to the decisions of the courts of the Regulation to replace the sensor.
This tendency in the jurisprudence, we can only oppose our work and tireless efforts with the fixed resolve of opinion and bring about a trend change.
As part of our activities we pursue for our clients' claims in the area of damage caused by electromagnetic radiation.
In law, damages refer to the money paid or awarded to a person (either natural or legal) following a successful claim by that person in a civil action.