懲罰性賠償金係透過課予加害人超出被害人損害之賠償，達成制裁加害人，並嚇阻加害人以及其他行為人從事相類行為。該制度係源自於英國，並自英國傳遞自美國，並於美國廣泛盛行。懲罰性賠償金制度具有懲罰、嚇阻、設立典範之功能、執行法律等功能，惟其係私法下之概念，卻帶有懲罰目的之公法性質，跨越兩種領域使其極具爭議性。 消費者保護法第51條將英美法之懲罰性賠償金制度引進，致使我國民刑分立之法體系產生模糊地帶。關於我國實務對於懲罰性賠償金之態度，得以自其就消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋觀察。然實務就要件之解釋未盡統一，如此將導致當事人無所適從。 2015年6月17日修正之消費者保護法第51條，明確將「重大過失」納入規定，顯見立法者對於企業經營者採取更為嚴格之態度。如此修正固解決長久以來「過失」是否應限縮於「重大過失」之爭議，惟關於消費者保護法第51條其他要件之解釋，仍有尚未解決之問題。 觀諸消費者保護法第51條之要件，「依本法所提之訴訟」於「本法」及「訴訟」即存在寬嚴不同之解釋。另關於該條文之責任主體，企業經營者是否就其受僱人之懲罰性賠償金責任負責，又企業經營者間之責任關係為何，皆有釐清之必要。請求權主體之部分，消費者保護法第7條規定之「第三人」並未出現於第51條懲罰性賠償金之規定中，產生消費者以外之「第三人」是否為請求權主體之爭議。另外，被害人死亡時懲罰性賠償金之歸屬，亦為立法者制定該條文規定時，未審慎思考致生之法律漏洞。究竟被害人死亡時，應由間接被害人抑或繼承人請求懲罰性賠償金，無論如何結論之擇採，皆有賴縝密之法律邏輯推演。最後於懲罰性賠償金之計算，2015年6月17日明確懲罰輕過失行為以及提高倍數上限之修正，其妥適性為何；又消費者保護法第51條規定之計算基礎「損害額」之意義、計算時酌定之因素、與有過失之考量等，皆有待解決。本文以整理消費者保護法第51條懲罰性賠償金適用上之爭議，並嘗試透過學說及實務見解之分析歸納出合理之結論，並就結論之推演，參考部分日本法學說，期能對於消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋提供另一種思考方向。 / Punitive damages are extra monetary burdens which make the offender to pay more than those the injured has lost, in order to deter the offender and other offenders from behaving the same. The doctrine of punitive damages is originated from England and swept America. Punitive damages have the functions of punishment, deterrence, setting examples to the society, law enforcement and so on. However, it is controversial that the doctrine of punitive damages is the concept under civil law, but with the function of punishment, which makes the doctrine in the borderland between public and private law. Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act is the doctrine of punitive damages in Taiwan, which causes a gray area among the separation of civil law and criminal law, and makes Art. 51 controversial. It is not difficult to know the attitude of the judges toward punitive damages by understanding the explanation of Art. 51. But there is no consistency in the explanation of each element of Art. 51, which makes the Article bewildering. On June 17, 2015, gross negligence has been added to the amended Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, which shows the strict attitude of the legislators toward the business operators. This amendment solves the problem that whether negligence should be limited to gross negligence or not, but there still are other issues about Art. 51 Which should be solved. Among Art. 51, “this law” and “litigation” in the element of “in a litigation brought in accordance with this law” are explained in both strict and easing ways. About the subject of the legal responsibility of Art. 51, whether the business operators should be responsible for the act of their employees, and whether business operators should be jointly and severally liable for punitive damages are issues should be discussed. About the claimers of Art. 51, comparing Art. 7 to Art. 51, we can find that “third party” isn’t showed in Art. 51, which brings up to the issue that whether third party other than consumer can claim for punitive damages. Also, who can claim for punitive damages when the victim dies is an important issue. The legislators did not think of this kind of situation, which caused legislation imperfection among Art. 51. Whether the indirect victim or the successor should be the claimer of punitive damages in this kind of situation should be explained carefully and logically. Last but not least, in related to the calculation of punitive damages, the amendment of Art. 51 in June, 17, 2015 specifies that objective negligence and subjective negligence should be punished and the maximum limit on the amount of damages has been raised. Whether the amendment is proper or not, and whether “the amount of damages” should be confined to “property damages” should be clarified. It is also necessary to figure out the considerations of determination of the amount. Whether comparative negligence should be considered while deciding the amount of punitive damages is also controversial, which should be investigated prudently. This thesis will focus on Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act and the issues about it. This thesis will analyze those issues according to the theories and opinions of practice in Taiwan. American theories and Japanese theories will also be discussed in this thesis in order to solve the problems, and to provide a different view of Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Thèse réalisée en cotutelle avec la faculté de droit de l'Université d'Orléans en France. / Menée pour la première fois, l’étude des différentes dimensions de la prévention (la précaution, la cessation et la dissuasion) est rendue possible par la découverte des sanctions préventives en droit de la responsabilité civile. Les sanctions préventives sont nombreuses en jurisprudence en vue de prévenir le dommage à différents stades : avant la réalisation du fait dommageable (mesure de prévention et de précaution), au cours de sa réalisation (mesure de cessation), après sa réalisation (dommages et intérêts provisionnels) et après sa reconnaissance juridique (dommages et intérêts punitifs). Concevoir une notion de sanction préventive devient alors essentiel pour comprendre les évolutions contemporaines du droit. Définie comme l’effet de droit résultant d’une interprétation de la norme susceptible d’être violée, la sanction préventive démontre que l’action introduite précocement par le justiciable peut aboutir. Si ces évolutions bouleversent les conditions classiques de la responsabilité, elles s’expliquent en revanche par une représentation de la responsabilité civile à partir de ses effets. Sous l’angle des effets, l’existence des sanctions préventives met en lumière une mise en effet judiciaire des normes dans une finalité préventive. La mise en effet est une opération effectuée en pratique par le juge entre l’interprétation et l’exécution de la norme. Ce temps de la mise en effet est celui durant lequel le juge choisit l’effet de droit apte à résoudre le litige. Or, le choix de la sanction par le juge n’est pas entièrement libre. En effet, les sanctions préventives naissent d’un besoin sécuritaire. Cette effectivité désirée par les justiciables exerce une influence sur la mise en effet de la norme par le juge par l’introduction précoce de l’action en justice. Qualifier les manifestations préventives de la responsabilité civile de sanctions juridiques naissant d’une opération judiciaire de mise en effet des normes permet ainsi de mieux rendre compte de la pratique du droit au sein d’une théorie renouvelée du procès. / The discovery of Preventive Sanction in the Law of civil responsibility is made possible by studying, for the first time, the various aspects of prevention (deterrence, cessation, precaution). To prevent harm at different stages of realization, case law makes a broad use of Preventive Sanction: before harm is done (precautionary and preventive measures), while it is done (stop and cease order), after it is done (temporary damages) and after is has been legally recognized (punitive damages). Crafting a notion of Preventive Sanction becomes then central to the understanding of contemporary legal developments. Preventive Sanction defined as the legal effects arising from the construction of a norm which might be broken, show that early action brought by a plaintiff can be successful. The transformation of traditional requirements for responsibility by these developments can be explained by reframing civil responsibility from its effects. This perspective allows for the preventive goal of judicial effectuation to be brought to light by the existence of Preventive Sanction. In practice, effectuation is performed by the judge and takes place between the construction and implementation of legal norms. The moment of effectuation occurs when the judge selects the legal effects destined to resolve a dispute. However, the judge is not entirely free when choosing a sanction. Preventive sanction originates from a need of security. Through early introduction of legal action, effectivity sought by plaintiffs impacts judicial effectuation of legal norms. The practice of law, within a renewed theory of judicial action, is better accounted for by reframing “preventive expression” of the Law of civil responsibility as “legal sanction” arising from the judicial effectuation of legal norms.

Les avocats, praticiens et universitaires qui sont engagés dans le droit des transports internationaux de marchandises par mer ont l’habitude de travailler avec un régime complexe de responsabilité du transporteur maritime. La coexistence de plusieurs conventions régissant ce régime et l’imprécision des textes de ces différentes législations rendent leur application difficile d’où l’échec permanent du voeu d’uniformisation de ce droit. En premier lieu, nous retrouvons le régime de base celui de la Convention de Bruxelles sur l’unification de certaines règles en matière de connaissement, ratifiée le 25 août 1924 et ses Protocoles modificatifs annexés en 1968 et 1979. Il s’agit d’un régime fondé sur la présomption de responsabilité comprenant une liste de cas exonératoires appelés « cas exceptés ». En second lieu figurent les Règles de Hambourg, édictées en 1978, qui établissent un régime basé sur la présomption de faute du transporteur à l’exception de deux cas exonératoires : l’incendie et l’assistance ou la tentative de sauvetage. Enfin, apparaît la Convention sur le contrat de transport international de marchandises effectué entièrement ou partiellement par mer, adoptée par les Nations unies en 2009, sous l’appellation « Les Règles de Rotterdam », qui adopte un régime de responsabilité « particulier ». Cette étude a tenté d’analyser ces mécanismes juridiques mis en place. Pour ce faire, nous nous sommes concentrées sur les sources du dysfonctionnement de ces régimes, afin de favoriser le développement d’initiatives d’uniformisation des règles de responsabilité du propriétaire du navire. L’analyse des textes positifs, de la doctrine et de la jurisprudence, nous a permis de constater que les différentes approches du régime juridique du transporteur maritime des marchandises sous ces différentes législations ne garantissent pas la prévisibilité et la sécurité juridiques recherchées par les différents acteurs maritimes. Par conséquent, l’absence d’un régime cohérent et unifié a créé des incertitudes au sein de la communauté maritime internationale et au sein des tribunaux en cas de litige. Pour surmonter cette réalité complexe, notre thèse propose une approche qui pourra simplifier ce régime, l’approche objective. / Lawyers, academics and practitioners who are involved in law of carriage of goods by sea are used to working with a complex regime of carrier’s liability. The coexistence of multiple international conventions governing the regime of liability of the maritime carrier and their different and inconsistent legislative styles, have become the main reason for lack of uniformity in the field of the carriage of goods by sea. The Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bill of Lading signed in August 25, 1924 and its Protocols amending 1968 and 1979 are based on presumption liability regime with a list of "excepted cases". A second Convention known as the Hamburg Rules of 1978 established a regime based on the presumption of fault of the carrier with two exceptions: fire and assistance or salvage. Finally, in 2009 the United Nations adopted the Convention on Contract for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea based on a ''special'' regime. This study of the three conventions attempts to analyze their legal mechanisms and the sources of their dysfunction. By analyzing the positive texts, jurisprudence, opinions and thoughts of scholars on this matter, we found that the different legal approaches adopted under these various laws do not ensure predictability and legal certainty sought out by maritime actors and courts. To overcome this complex reality, this thesis proposes an approach that will simplify the applicability of the rules of carrier’s liability, which is the objective approach.

Les réclamations pour dommages punitifs en vertu de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne se multiplient depuis plusieurs années devant les tribunaux. Pour être accueillie, cette réclamation implique la démonstration d’une atteinte illicite et intentionnelle à un droit ou une liberté protégé par cette charte. Les recours en responsabilité peuvent faire l’objet d’une couverture d’assurance. Or, le Code civil du Québec prévoit spécifiquement que l’assureur n’est pas tenu de couvrir la faute intentionnelle de l’assuré. Est-ce à dire que l’assureur n’a pas d’obligation envers son assuré lorsque des dommages punitifs sont réclamés? Il s’agit donc de déterminer si le concept de faute intentionnelle et celui d’atteinte illicite et intentionnelle sont des concepts qui s’équivalent ou qu’il est nécessaire de distinguer. Pour cette analyse, ces deux concepts seront abordés en profondeur. Il sera question de l’origine de ces deux notions, de leurs fondements et de leur interprétation pour finalement définir ces termes le plus précisément possible. Ces définitions permettront d’opposer ces deux notions et de déterminer au final qu’il existe plusieurs éléments qui différencient ces concepts, notamment à l’égard de l’intention requise, faisant en sorte qu’ils ne peuvent être assimilés. Cette conclusion aura un impact certain sur les obligations de l’assureur de défendre l’assuré et d’indemniser la victime pour ses dommages compensatoires lorsqu’il existe une réclamation en dommages punitifs et, par conséquent, l’assureur ne pourra faire reposer son refus de défendre ou d’indemniser sur la seule base de la preuve d’une atteinte illicite et intentionnelle. / Claims for punitive damages have proliferated over the years before the courts. For such claim to be granted, it is required to demonstrate an unlawful and intentional interference with any right or freedom protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Liability claims can be covered by insurance. However, the Civil Code of Québec specifically provides that the insurer is never bound to indemnify the insured’s intentional fault. Does this mean that the insurer has no obligation towards its insured when punitive damages are sought? The question is thus whether the concept of intentional fault and of unlawful and intentional interference are concepts that are equivalent or that need to be distinguished. For this analysis, the two concepts will be adressed in depth. The origin of these two concepts, their founding principles and their interpretation will be discussed to ultimately define these terms as precisely as possible. These definitions will then help to compare these two concepts and determine in the end that there are several elements that differentiate these concepts, particularly in regard to the required intent, with the result that they can not be assimilated. This conclusion will have a definite impact on the insurer’s obligations to defend the insured and to indemnify the victim for compensatory damages if punitive damages are also sought. Therefore, the insurer cannot justify its refusal to defend or indemnify solely on the basis of the evidence of an unlawful and intentional interference.

En droits français et italien des sociétés il est difficile d'affirmer l'existence "d'un" droit à réparation en particulier lorsqu'il s'agit du préjudice social, sa réparation étant freinée par le manque d'effectivité de l'action sociale, et du préjudice individuel de l'associé, sa reconnaissance au fond étant limitée. Il est également difficile pour les victimes d'affirmer l'existence "du" droit à réparation, en raison d' obstacles de nature procédurale et financière rencontrés dans la mise en oeuvre de leur droit jusqu'à l'éventuelle condamnation. Les difficultés rencontrées par les victimes révèlent le manque d'effectivité de la réparation des dommages causés par le dirigeant et, par là même, le manque d'effectivité de la responsabilité personnelle de ce dernier. L'étude de certaines dispositions nouvelles des deux pays, en particulier du droit italien, nous invite cependant à réfléchir sur les perspectives d'évolutions. / .

Le lien de causalité est une condition centrale du droit de la responsabilité administrative. Entre la faute et le préjudice, l’examen du lien de causalité est un impératif de justice et une inévitable exigence intellectuelle. Il permet de donner un ordre à la fois rationnel et juste aux faits. Réputé impénétrable, suspect d’arbitraire, acculé à un prétendu déclin par le développement de la logique assurantielle, le lien de causalité n’a pas fait l’objet d’une étude d’ensemble en droit public. L’analyse de la notion de lien de causalité permet pourtant de tromper cette image. Elle révèle, d’abord, qu’il faut distinguer le problème -métaphysique- de la causalité, de la question -pragmatique- de l’explication causale. La nature des problèmes posés par ces deux questions est différente ; celle qui se pose au juge est modeste : donner une explication rationnelle aux faits, sans quête de la vérité. Elle permet, ensuite, d’observer que le lien de causalité, s’il ne relève pas d’un constat objectif des faits, n’est toutefois pas empreint d’une subjectivité singulière par rapport à d’autres notions indéterminées en droit. L’étude de la pratique du lien de causalité en atteste. Le juge administratif a une approche ordonnée du lien de causalité fondée sur un équilibre entre attachement à la matérialité des faits et finalité de l’explication causale. Dans l’identification d’une cause, la hiérarchisation d’une pluralité de causes ou la circonscription du dommage, la jurisprudence administrative se caractérise par cette liberté, fidèle à l’arrêt Blanco, dans la détermination d’une politique jurisprudentielle, que le lien de causalité permet, parfois, mais suit seulement, le plus souvent. / Causal relationship is a central term in the law of administrative responsibility. Between fault and prejudice, the examination of causal relationship is an essential element of justice and constitutes an unavoidable intellectual requirement. It allows the judge to give an order which is both rational and just to facts. Reputed to be impenetrable, suspected of arbitrariness, driven into alleged decline by the development of the logic of insurance, causal relationship has never formed the object of a full-fledged study in public law. The analysis of the notion of causal relationship allows us to correct the image above. It first reveals that we have to distinguish the metaphysical problem of causality from the pragmatic question of causal explanation. The nature of the problem posed by these two questions is different. The question that is put to the judge is modest : give a rational explanation to facts without looking for the truth. It secondly allows to observe that the causal relationship, if it does not come close to being an objective observation of facts, does not bear the imprint of a specific subjectivity with regard to other indeterminate notions in law. The study of the practice of causal relationship bears witness to this. The administrative judge has an ordered approach of the causal relationship founded on a balance between attachment to the materiality of facts and the finality of causal explanation. In the identification of a cause, in the prioritization of multiple causes or in fixing damages, administrative jurisprudence is characterized by this freedom, which is in conformity with the Blanco ruling, in the determination of a jurisprudential policy that causal relationship sometimes renders possible, but which it only follows most often.

Dissertation Thesis Abstract - Liability for Damage Caused by A Defective Product JUDr. Petr Šťovíček The subject-matter of the dissertation thesis is the relationship of legal liability for damage inflicted upon a consumer by a defective product. The paper describes the statutory definition of the relationship, in particular, without limitation, the preconditions to the establishment of liability of the individual entities on the part of entrepreneurs participating in all phases of the product distribution from the moment of its manufacturing, or, as the case may be, it import to the Czech Republic, to the moment of its sale to the end consumer; limits of the liability and possibilities through which the consumer may claim compensation of the caused damage. The first part of the paper focuses on the above mentioned issued of general legal regulation applicable to liability, its historical development and types; it has a rather generally descriptive nature. Special civil law regulation of liability is provided for also in a number of special Acts, in particular in Act No. 59/1998 Coll., on Liability for Damage Caused by A Product Defect. The second part of the thesis provides an outline of the legal regulation covering the sphere of consumer protection with respect to liability relationships incurring in...

IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE The subject of my doctoral dissertation is an exploration of fishing rights as a collection of a wide range of legal norms regulating the behavior of the recipients only in the performance of fishing, but also in civil, administrative and criminal relations with the breeding and hunting fish related. Due to the current lack of scientific literature on this topic, the thesis also basic definition and status of the Czech Fishing rights in the legal system of the Czech Republic and important connections not only in relation to the institutions of environmental law, but also of civil and criminal law. Basic Institutes of fishing rights are always described as in historical context, as from the time of its inception developed, as well as in international comparisons of countries that their cultures are very close to us.

O objeto da tese de doutorado é a análise da relação entre a defesa da concorrência e a proteção do consumidor, duas políticas públicas que proporcionam benefícios mútuos e devem ser executadas de modo harmônico, havendo substrato normativo e teórico para incluir a preocupação com o bem-estar do consumidor como um dos objetivos da política de defesa da concorrência. No Brasil tal harmonização é uma imposição constitucional, já que a livre concorrência, a repressão ao abuso do poder econômico e a defesa do consumidor são princípios conformadores da ordem econômica. É defendida a utilização de um conceito unificado de consumidor, sendo adotada a teoria finalista, que o define como o destinatário final econômico do bem ou serviço. As duas políticas utilizam diferentes instrumentos e perspectivas na tutela do bem-estar do consumidor, o que fica claro na proteção do direito de escolha. O Código de Defesa do Consumidor oferece a isonomia como remédio para compensar a vulnerabilidade, estabelecendo regras destinadas à uma escolha consciente, sobretudo o direito à informação adequada e veraz. Já as normas de defesa da concorrência resguardam a liberdade preocupando-se em preservar a possibilidade de escolha entre mais de um fornecedor de produtos ou serviços. O exemplo mais contundente dá-se no controle de estruturas: a atuação das autoridades responsáveis pela análise dos atos de concentração é vinculada à preservação do excedente do consumidor e das condições imprescindíveis ao exercício do direito de escolha, sendo vedada a aprovação de fusões que prejudiquem o bemestar do consumidor. No âmbito repressivo a harmonização das duas políticas é intensificada com a colaboração entre as autoridades de defesa da concorrência e de proteção do consumidor para a fiscalização de condutas que configurem, ao mesmo tempo, infrações contra a ordem econômica e práticas abusivas, cuja dupla capitulação não acarreta bis in idem, pois são distintas as esferas jurídicas tuteladas, havendo assim diversidade de fundamentos. É salientada a importância das ações coletivas para reparação de danos causados aos consumidores por infrações contra a ordem econômica e defendida a adoção dos danos multiplicados e a manutenção da destinação dos valores arrecadados por multas a infrações contra a ordem econômica ao Fundo Federal de Direitos Difusos. / The thesis analyzes the relationship between the competition defense and the consumer protection, both public policies that offer mutual benefits and must be carried out in a harmonic way. So, there is a normative and theoretical substratum concerning the consumer welfare as one of the objectives of the antitrust policy. In Brazil such harmonization is imposed by the Constitution, since the free competition, the repression of the abuse of the economic power and the consumer protection are principles that pertain to the constitutional economic order. In this paper consumer is regarded as a unified concept, i.e., the economic final user of goods or services. Both policies use different instruments and perspectives for the protection of the consumer welfare, what is clear in the enforcement of the right of choice. The Consumer Defense Code refers to the isonomy as a remedy to make up for the vulnerability, establishing rules for a conscious choice, especially the right to the proper, true and accurate information. The antitrust rules are concerned with the freedom of choice and the possibilities of option from more than one supplier of products or services. The most outstanding example is related to the merger control: the antitrust authorities are required to guarantee a consumer surplus and the necessary conditions to exercise the right of choice, being totally banned the approval of mergers that may be harmful to the consumer welfare. The harmonization of both policies in the repression scope is intensified with the cooperation between antitrust and consumer protection authorities regarding to the law enforcement against practices that may represent infractions of the competition and of the consumer protection rules, as well. The thesis emphasizes the importance of class actions to repair consumer damages caused by antitrust law violations and defends the adoption of the multiplied damages and the maintenance of the allocation to the Diffuse Rights Federal Fund of amounts raised by fines collected by the Antitrust Authorities.

Nach der nationalsozialistischen Machtübernahme im Jahre 1933 wurde schon bald klar, dass es an der 1810 gegründeten Friedrich – Wilhelm – Universität zu Berlin, der größten deutschen Universität, zu einem Umbruch in der finanziellen und materiellen Ausstattung kommen würde. Bereits für das Rechnungsjahr 1934 wurde der Universität durch Erlass des Preußischen Ministers für Wissenschaft das Recht zur Aufstellung des jährlichen Haushaltsplanes entzogen. Damit war die Übernahme ihrer Einnahmen auf den Preußischen Staatshaushalt verbunden. Die Ausgabemittel für die Universität wurden nun im Staatshaushalt bereitgestellt. An die Stelle des Universitätshaushaltsplanes traten Kassenanschläge der Wissenschaftsverwaltung, in welchen den Fakultäten und Instituten die jährlichen Etatmittel zugewiesen wurden. Der staatliche Verwaltungsdirektor/Kurator überwachte deren Ausführung; denn ihm oblag die Aufsicht über das Haushalts- und Kassenwesen der Universität. Die Gründung der fünften und sechsten Fakultät sowie die Errichtung neuer (NS-) Institute wurde allein durch das Wissenschaftsministerium – weitgehend ohne Beteiligung der Universitätsleitung - entschieden. In der Folge stiegen die Etatmittel für das wissenschaftliche Personal exorbitant. - Die Betriebsmittel- und Geschäftsbedürfnisfonds der wissenschaftlichen Anstalten stagnierten auf dem Niveau der Jahre 1933/34. Investitionen in das Universitätsvermögen mussten hinter anderen für kriegswichtig erachteten Ausgaben des Deutschen Reiches zurückstehen. Selbst für die Behebung der Luftkriegsschäden an den Universitätsgebäuden standen Geldmittel nur in eingeschränktem Umfang zur Verfügung. Zudem verhinderte der eklatante Rohstoffmangel den Wiederaufbau. Bei Kriegsende 1945 war die Friedrich – Wilhelm – Universität zu Berlin in Trümmer gefallen. / After the national socialists came into power in 1933 it soon became clear, that financial and material changes were supposed to happen to the 1810 founded Friedrich-Wilhelms-University of Berlin, Germany´s largest university by that time. Already for the financial year of 1934 the Prussian Ministry of Science revoked the right of the university, to put together the annual financial budget. Thus, its earnings were now being taken over by the Prussian state budget and its expenses allocated by the state budget. Instead of a university budget the state administration allocates a certain amount of money for the faculties and institutions. The State Director of Administration / Curator supervised their execution; because he was the one responsible for overseeing the budget and cash management of the university. The foundation of the fifth and sixth faculty as well as the construction of new National Socialists („NS“) Institutes was decided solely by the Ministry of Science – largely without the participation of the management of the university. As a consequence, the budget funds for scientific personnel increased exorbitantly. Operating funds and funds for business needs of the scientific institutions stagnated at the level of 1933 / 1934. Investments into the assets of the university had to stay back behind war expenditures that were deemed essential of the German Reich. Even for the elimination of the air warfare damages at the buildungs of the university funds were allocated only to a very limited extent. In addition, the glaring lack of raw materials made the reconstruction almost impossible. When the war ended in 1945 only ruins were left of the Friedrich – Wilhelms – University of Berlin.