Court Decisions

 Prejurisdictional private investigator costs are recoverable, if the bringing in a detective agency is in an immediate coherence with a concrete lawsuit and the commissioning of a private investigator was necessary at an objective consideration from the view of the party to carry out the lawsuit – concerning to an appropriate legal following of right or defensiveness – according to § 91, I ZPO.
(OLG Koblenz, 14 NW 671/90)

 The bringing in a private investigator from a cost legal view is justified, if there is already a certain suspicion, but the information and evidences required for a conclusive filing of application or the defensiveness still must be obtained and this isn't different and not more cheaply possible than by the help of a private investigator.The costs used for this are recoverably according to the § 91 ZPO if their charges are in the immediate connection with the following process.
(OLG Hamm, 23 W 92/92)

 Private investigator costs are recoverable, if the conclusions met by the engaged private investigator after the circumstances of the individual case were necessarily and not elsewhere to attain more simply, what can be made credible by presentation of the inquiry report and specific invoice.The immediately process related observations of the private investigator must also have changed the jurisdictional position of the client advantageously.
(OLG Munich, 11 W 1592/93)

 Private investigator costs for the determination of an otherwise not provable serious demerit can be recoverable in the court proceedings because of separation alimony.
(OLG Stuttgart, 8 WF 96/88)

 In the alimony lawsuit private investigator costs are for the appropriate on the right defense necessary charges, if the entitled to alimony hides earned incomes, a private investigator finds out his place of work, and the conclusions met by him can change the jurisdictional position of the under obligation to pay alimony advantageously.
(OLG Schleswig, 15 WF 218/91)

 Private investigator costs are e.g. in the context of a divorce lawsuit under circumstances allowable for tax purposes as extraordinary burden according in the sense of § 33 ESTG.
(FG Niedersachsen, IX 792/88)

 If the commissioning of a detective agency obviously serves to find out about facts and circumstances to proof the reproach of competition adverse behavior and apply for an interim injunction based on this, the bringing in the detective agency is appropriate and also necessary for the lawsuit to set (§91 ZPO).To be able to cover queried competition adverse behavior, a diurnal participation of the private investigator in advertising journeys into one of the new federal states can be necessary.
(OLG Koblenz, 14 W 268/91)

 If a creditor uses a detective agency at the realization of his demands, then the costs are strictly at the expense of the debtor. However, the creditor has to check before, whether there are more economical ways e.g. for the determination of a debtor address.
(LG Aachen, 5 T 75/85)

 Covered video monitoring is permissible, if goods losses developed and the use of covered cameras offers the possibility of determining the actor.
(BAG, 5AZR 116/86)

 Test purchases suffice as proofs.
(AG Kaiserslautern 5 CA 119/84)

 The employee who recovery adversely behaves during an inability to work certified medically does a deliberate contract breach of duty which commits him to doing the compensation opposite the employer.The damage obligation extends on all charges of the aggrieved as far as they can be considered necessary after the circumstances of the case.The costs for the commissioning of a detective agency also can be part of it if concrete suspicious circumstances have given cause to this.
(LAG Rheinland-Pfalz, 5 SA 540/99, BB2000, 155)