[kuschku]

The right to start, and own, a company, exists only so that they can provide a benefit for all of society (as specified in the German constitution and the EU treaties). According to the same documents, if a company decides to intentionally violate democratically created laws, or decided to hurt society, their right to exist as company can be eliminated, and their property can be seized.

If you disagree with a community’s decision, you can lobby to have them changed, or you can move elsewhere – but you can’t, just because you disagree, disobey them. Or you’ll have to expect that if you try to disobey their decisions, they’ll respond accordingly.

I’m not suggesting anything a society should do as response to a foreign company arriving there, violating laws, and refusing to obey, but generally this simply ends up bad for the company.

I disagree with IP laws, but I can’t just pirate content and sell remixes either, by hiding behind a shell corporation. Not even if I’m willing to pay the fine (Kim Dotcom, for example, made enough profit that he was able, and willing to pay the license fees, and still would have turned a profit, but this was denied).

[tannhaeuser]

> The right to start, and own, a company, exists only so that they can provide a benefit for all of society (as specified in the German constitution and the EU treaties).

Citation needed

[kuschku]

The German basic law (article 14) defines:

> (2) Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.

> (2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.

In Article 9, it also defines:

> (2) Vereinigungen, deren Zwecke oder deren Tätigkeit den Strafgesetzen zuwiderlaufen oder die sich gegen die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung oder gegen den Gedanken der Völkerverständigung richten, sind verboten.

> (2) Associations whose aims or activities contravene the criminal laws, or that are directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international understanding, shall be prohibited.

If you have the commented version, with comments from the creators and several former and current constitutional court judges, I recommend you read the relevant comments. They specifically discusses these part, and argue that the right to own property, start a group (Vereinigung, including Verein, Unternehmen, etc), own something as a group, etc solely exist to serve society.

This right has obligations, such as the obligation that if you do not need your property, but it can be used to serve society, you can lose the right to it (as has happened in Hamburg in Winter 2015/2016, when a company refused to rent a building to the government so they could use it as refugee accomodation, and, as a result, the building was seized from the company, and used as it anyway).

The comments and quoted constitutional court cases also discuss and outline the limitations, and other situations. For example, if property is seized, then the organization has to be given the market value in return.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

[tannhaeuser]

But Art. 14 (2) literally states that "property [...] should also serve the public good", rather than "solely". This isn't just a nuance or gradual difference; it touches the matter of the principal basis of the law. Similarly, the right of assembly is a basic right with no conditions at all, and postulated in and granted in reference to the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen from 1789, which found its way to Germany via napoleonic laws. Property is also a basic right granted therein.

[kuschku]

Actually, Germany limits both of these rights, heavily.

The right of assembly is only given in indoor spaces, which you own, as long as zero aggression happens.

For outdoor assemblies, you'll need approval of the municipal government (and the police can dissolve your assembly, as happened in Hamburg during the G20 protests).

In the same way, as I mentioned, the right to property is frequently limited by nations. In the US, commonly for public projects the state seizes land without repaying the owners, and Germany does similar stuff.

[DocTomoe]

> you'll need approval of the municipal government

* not in all cases (e.g. Spontandemonstration, where there is no time to file an application)

* the municipal government needs a really good reason to not give approval

* the courts are very sympathetic to virtually any cause should a municipal government decide to forbid a gathering.

> (and the police can dissolve your assembly,

* if there is true danger to the general public. Again, courts are going to slap the police around if they do this just because.

I know how easy it is to use a blanket statement as a base for another blanket statement which is equally one-sided, but please try to build arguments in a less ... attackable way.

[kuschku]

That’s in theory.

Have you looked at even one of the cases in Hamburg with G20?

Spontandemonstrationen that were immediately dissolved with teargas.

No approval for demonstrations without reason, or even situations where courts said the demonstration is legal, and the police dissolved them anyway.

[germanier]

> For outdoor assemblies, you'll need approval of the municipal government (and the police can dissolve your assembly, as happened in Hamburg during the G20 protests).

For outdoor assemblies you need to inform a designated authority (which is not the same as an approval) and comply with certain restrictions.

[DocTomoe]

The part about Article 9 is pretty much irrelevant for antitrust considerations, because that's not criminal law.

[tannhaeuser]

Hey downvoters, show me the place where these documents say something to the effect that the right to start and own a company exists only so that they can provide a benefit for all of society or even that an EU member state, not to speak of an EU institution, can grant or revoke such rights.

[1]: https://www.bundestag.de/grundgesetz The text of the German consitution law

[2]: https://europa.eu/european-union/law/treaties_en The text of the EU treaties