Executive Presidium vs. Scientology

Stuttgart, Germany
February 6, 2001
Stuttgarter Nachrichten

The Executive Presidium ["Regierungspraesidium"] is not giving up its goal of revoking legal capacity for Dianetics Stuttgart, a branch of the Scientology organization which is resident in Stuttgart. The Executive Presidium has stated that it filed an appeal to the negative decision by the Stuttgart Administrative Court in the Mannheim Superior Administrative Court. Presidium President Udo Andriof said, "We are convinced that Dianetics Stuttgart can be shown to be not a so-called idealist association, but an organization which is active as a business and which pursues commercial goals." rd


Udo Andriof wants to appeal

Scientology: The Dispute continues

Stuttgart, Germany
February 15, 2000
Stuttgarter Nachrichten

The dispute between Scientology and the Stuttgart administrative presidium ["Regierungspraesidium"] (RP) will possibly go another round. The agency has filed application for appeal to the judgment of the Stuttgart administrative court on the association status of a Scientology branch.

"After carefully checking out the basis of judgment, we decided to have the judgment reviewed by the administrative court," stated administrative president Udo Andriof. His agency has "serious doubts about the justice" of it. In November 1999, the administrative court decided that the Scientology branch of Dianetics could retain its association status. According to judgments of higher hearings, a commercial business operation does not exist when an association offers services to its members which they cannot get from another provider. In addition, the court emphasized that the services could not be separated from the convictions of the members without losing their meaning. Scientology's demanding money for its services was said not to be an index for commercial business operation.

The RP took away association status from Dianetics in 1994 for operating a commercial business under the guise of something else. An RP spokesman estimated income for one year alone at Dianetics Stuttgart at between 2.5 and 3 million marks. Udo Andriof comments that it was difficult to get at Scientology legally. However, he thinks the appeal has a good chance of being granted.

Udo Andriof wants to appeal

Scientology: the Dispute Continues

Stuttgart, Germany
February 15, 2000
Sindelfinger Zeitung, Germany

The disputer between Scientology and the Stuttgart administrative presidium ["Regierungspraesidium"] (RP) will possibly go another round.

"After carefully checking the basis of judgment, we have decided to have the judgment by the administrative court reviewed," stated administration president Udo Andriof. In November 1999, the administrative court had decided that the Scientology branch of Dianetics could retain its association status. According to decisions by higher level hearings, commercial business operation is not taken into consideration when an association offers its members services which cannot be offered by other providers. The services could not be separated from the convictions of the members without a loss of meaning. The RP had withdrawn the status of association from Dianetics in 1994 because it was alleged to operate a commercial business under the guise of something else. The annual income of Dianetics Stuttgart was estimated at between 2.5 to 3 million marks.

Andriof wants to appeal Scientology decision

Stuttgart, Germany
February 15, 2000
Sindelfinger Zeitung, Germany

Stuttgart (stn) - The Stuttgart administrative presidium is undertaking a new attempt to withdraw the legal capacity of Scientology's branch of Dianetics Stuttgart, Inc., because it is said to be operating a commercial business and not pursuing primarily ideal goals. After the agency chalked up a defeat before the Stuttgart Administrative Court in 1999, it is now applying for an appeal. Andriof believes there is a good chance that the Mannheim Administrative Court will have to take up the matter.

Appeal against Scientology?

Basis of decision available

Stuttgart, Germany
January 8, 2000
Stuttgarter Zeitung

by Ludwig Laibacher

Now the Scientologists and the administrative presidium ["Regierungspreaesidium"] have it in writing: the administrative court has declared invalid a state order against Dianetik, Inc., [which means that] the Scientology organization retains its association status. The judgment was made available yesterday.

The administrative presidium (RP) has been trying since 1993 to pull association status and the privileges associated therewith from the Scientologists and their various branches - which includes Dianetik, Inc. However all attempts to date have been fruitless. People in the administrative presidium are not now particularly happy about the judgment which has just been handed down. "We will read the basis very scrupulously and will very probably file an appeal afterwards," said RP spokesman Ralph Koenig yesterday.

The legal experts at the administrative presidium were able to start making plans about further legal steps six weeks ago. As was reported at the time, the parties learned of the basic decision by telephone only one day after the hearing on November 17. Apparently the sect had just barely passed muster on the path of administrative law, administrative president Udo Andriof said at the time. The Scientologists celebrated the retraction of the order as a "win for religious freedom and the legal state."

From the view of state legal experts, Scientology is "only about making money." It is said that all the spiritual, religious and worldview aspects are only protective camouflage. The association is alleged to be profit-oriented and targets sales like a business enterprise and therefore can no longer enjoy the luxury of association law. The RP estimates the yearly sales of the Stuttgart Dianetik association at up to three million marks.

The sect attorneys made their point that on the basis used, large clubs like the ADAC or the Tuev would also have to lose their association rights. It was said that those also function as large business enterprises, but that nobody disputed their status. And as concerned the spiritual matters: outsiders could also have their doubts about the major Christian churches. As the consideration of spirituality and church taxes with the Protestants and Catholics appeared to them, objectivity was unprovable. The statement of a former member also harmed the RP's case. The administrative judge regarded the man a untrustworthy because be vacillated in presenting himself as a member, then an ex-member of the sect. Also, several of his statements verified the position of Scientology instead of the RP. When he admitted to wanting to bring "light into the darkness of the diffuse Scientology organization," he was disqualified by the judge.

Scientology decision will probably be contended

Stuttgart, Germany
January 8, 2000
Stuttgarter Nachrichten

After the setback in the legal dispute with the Scientology Organization in November of last year, the Stuttgart administrative presidium ["Regierungspraesidium, (RP)"] plans on filing an appeal. That was the answer a presidium speaker gave upon being questioned. However, the decision to do that will not be made until the written basis of the decision by the Stuttgart Administrative Court has been evaluated. The dispute has to do with the RP having used a court order to pull the association status from the Dianetik association, which is regarded as being a Scientology organization. In their response to this order, Scientology was backed by the administrative court in saying that the complainant was not operating a commercial business in the sense of current court decision. After the court's decision, CDU State Assembly Representative Paul-Stefan Mauz demanded several days ago that the state administration and the RP try to get the decision overturned on appeal to the administrative court. rd

Association status just

Stuttgart, Germany
November 19, 1999
Stuttgarter Nachrichten

The revocation of association status which had been planned for the Dianetics Scientology branch by the administrative presidium was not in accordance with the law.

Stuttgart. The Scientology Organization has attained a victory in the dispute with the Stuttgart administrative presidium. According to a decision which has just been released by the administrative court of Stuttgart, the sect branch of Dianetics Stuttgart may retain its association status. The administrative presidium had revoked the status of an association with legal rights from the group in August 1994.

Administration President Udo Andriof regretted the judgment. "As far as we're concerned, this organization and all its sub-branches are still dangerous," he said. The agency will not decide whether it will appeal the decision until it sees the basis for the decision in writing.

From the viewpoint of the administrative presidium, the Dianetics group is running a commercial business under the protective cover of a registered association. Therefore association privileges must be taken away because Dianetics Stuttgart realizes economic advantages in its so-called auditing and training for auditors. A spokesman from the administrative presidium estimated the yearly income for Dianetics Stuttgart alone to be from 2.5 to three million marks.

In June a Scientology branch lost a similar legal dispute in the Munich Administrative Court. At that time the judges had decided that the Munich county administration had legally withdrawn the "e.V." [registered association status] from the organization because it was operating commercially (Az.: M 7 K 96.5439). lsw

State taking action against Scientologists

Stuttgart, Germany
November 18, 1999
Stuttgarter Zeitung

The administrative presidium (RP) is going at it again before the Administrative Court with the Scientologists. Stated goal: Dianetics Stuttgart, Inc. to lose its association rights.

From the perspective of the representative of the administrative presidium, Scientology is "only about making money." Anything spiritual, religious or worldview was only feigned, he said. The association targets sales like a commercial business, therefore it could no longer enjoy the privileges of an association. He said the Scientology Church would have to lose its non-profit status.

The opposing side referred, in its arguments, to large sports associations or organizations like Tuev or ADAC. They also were said to function as commercial businesses and nobody seriously contended their association rights. And the accusation that spirituality was feigned was untenable. An outsider could also come to that conclusion about the Catholic or Protestant churches, it was said.

Because a decision in favor of the Scientologists has already been handed down by the Federal Administrative Court in these issues, the chances of success for the RP look rather slim. The administrative court will announce its decision in the next few days. lai

Scientology dispute

Dianetics, Inc. trial

Stuttgart, Germany
November 18, 1999
Stuttgarter Nachrichten

The Scientology branch of Dianetics Stuttgart, Inc. argued against revocation of its legal ability yesterday, Wednesday, before the Stuttgart Administrative Court. In the verbal discussion, the court signalled that the status of being an association would not be able to be legally revoked. The Stuttgart administrative presidium had revoked association status for the sect in 1993 because the agency viewed the conduct of Dianetics as "a commercial operation." Mainly from so-called auditing courses - sect critics refer to it as brainwashing - the Scientologists earn millions every year in Stuttgart alone, according to the way the administrative presidium sees things. "There is only one idea: namely to make money and yet more money," said an administrative presidium staff member.

The different opinions of the authorities and the sect attorneys clashed in the verbal discussion. The legal counsel of Stuttgart Dianetics accused the administrative presidium of conducting a political trial against Scientology. The Munich Scientology attorney said that if you wanted to ban the Scientology Organization because of its commercial activity, then you would also have to do that to the professional soccer clubs, the technical oversight associations and the ADAC. A decision in the dispute is expect in the coming week. fs

State vs. Scientology

A new round in court

Dianetics Stuttgart to lose non-profit association status

Stuttgart, Germany
November 17, 1999
Sindelfinger Zeitung

This Wednesday the conflict between the administrative presidium and a Scientology organization will begin anew before the Stuttgart Administrative Court. The Stuttgart Dianetics sect branch is to lose its association status.

by Fritz Schwab

The behavior of Dianetics Stuttgart has been a thorn in the side of the authorities since 1994. The Scientology branch has been operating a brisk commercial business under the auspices of a registered association, according to the administrative presidium ["Regierungspraesidium"]. The association articles and the general meetings were said by the speaker of the administrative presidium to be "pseudo-meetings" throughout. As a result, its association privileges must be taken away. Dianetics Stuttgart was said to be striving for commercial advantage in its so-called "auditing" and training its auditors. In early 1996, for instance, about twelve hours of auditing cost 8,652 marks ($6,575). At that time the Scientology Academy was offering Grades 0 through IV at 18,400 marks ($14,000). The administrative presidium estimated the annual intake of Dianetics Stuttgart to be 2 to 3 million marks.

The administrative presidium of Stuttgart had been waging a similar dispute since 1993 with "The new Bridge, Inc." Scientology branch. A final decision never came about because The New Bridge, according to the administrative presidium, dissolved.

The Scientologists' legal counsel, Munich attorney Stefan Bergsteiner, envisions the end of this legal dispute quite differently. "The state of Baden-Wuerttemberg had no material against The New Bridge, now it believes the material against Dianetics Stuttgart will suffice."

"Personnel consulting contract" invalid because of association to Scientology Organization

Stuttgart Superior State Court 12 U 3/99 judgment of 22 June 1999

Stuttgart, Germany
June 22, 1999
last changed 19 December 1999

From NJW 99, 3640

Duty to report connection with Scientology -
Organization culpa in contrahendo

One's own membership or a close connection to the Scientology organization in the closing of a personnel consultation contract presents an essential circumstance for which the contract partner can make a claim for damages from culpa in contrahendo. (Intro from the publisher)

OLG Stuttgart, Urt. v. 22.6.1999 - 12 U 3/99

On the facts of the matter: the accused consummated a personnel consulting contract with the complainant. It stated that a specially qualified technical and management person to fill the position of architect/planning director, a management position, was being sought by the complainant. It did not mention that [the accused] was or is a member of the Scientology Church and was currently, actively promoting its goals. After the complainant received knowledge to that effect, he cancelled the contract which had been closed with the accused. The demand for refund of fees paid in the amount of 12,266.67 DM was successful in the second specification. The reason for that: the complainant was entitled to compensation for the loss of 12,266.67 DM from culpa in contrahendo. The accused had maliciously deceived the complainant in the signing of the contract in that he had not mentioned his membership and close connection to the Scientology Church. In doing that the accused was supposed to have made this known to the complainant as a contract partner.

According to the established decision of the BGH, an obligation exists in regard to making contracts, in which the participating parties keep the interests of the other part in mind by stating conditions which could defeat the purpose of the contract, and could therefore be anticipated to be of vital significance in the decision to buy (BGH, NJW 1971, 1795 (1799) = LM PP 123 BGB Nr. 42; NJW 1979, 2243 = LM PP 134 BGB Nr. 54; NJW 1980, 2460 (24611 = LM PP 123 BGB Nr. 57). Holding back facts is therefore only the basis of a liability if the other party, in good faith, may have expected verbal explanation from the view of making the purchase (Palandt/Heinrichs, BGB, 58. Aufl. [1999] PP 276 Rdnr. 78). These provisions are primarily fulfilled. In view of the actual circumstances of the case at hand here, an obligation exists for the accused to explain to the complainant that he is a Scientology member, that he has close connections to the Scientology Organization, in particular, his orientation to the detailed methods of procedure published by the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises (WISE) upon which the execution of the contract is based.

The object of the contract by the parties was the search by the accused for a specially qualified technical and management person to fill the position of an architect/planning director, therefore a management position for the complainant. The search for a suitable applicant for the prominent position in the complainant's operation presents an action for which special trust is required. The close connection of the accused to the Scientology Church fulfills an essential condition which is suited to defeat the complainant's purpose of the contract, to select and install a technically qualified, trustworthy person who is not indebted through a potential connection to the Scientology Church. That is of special significance in consummating the contract. Evidence of this was also given in that the complainant, after having obtained information on a renewal of the contract, avoided more activity by the accused - the accused had still not yet referred a suitable person - and cancelled the contract.

In any case, the accused is closely aligned with the concepts of the Scientology Organization: the accused is a member of Scientology. The accused's staff responsible to the complainant is also a member of Scientology; according to testimony by the accused, the majority of the staff there are members. The accused has also made a noteworthy contribution, namely $40,000 at the least, to the so-called war chest (for operations against critics of Scientology); they have been mentioned as a "Patron" in the "Impact" magazine which is published by the International Association of Scientology (IAS). A patron is a person who has paid a minimum donation of $40,000 into the so-called "war chest." This was determined on the basis of the questioning of witness L. resulting from the first specification. By signing the membership statement in connection with the not inconsiderable financial support for the Scientology Church, the accused has expressed its agreement with its goals (also see LG Bonn, NJW 1997, 2958 [2961]). In addition, the accused has indisputably been a member of the WISE association until 1993. It has paid license fees to this association for which it received questionnaires copyrighted by WISE, and organized its company according to management principles of Hubbard, the founder of the Scientology movement. The objective of WISE is to establish Scientology and Scientology ethics in the business world. Franchise fees were paid for the use of Scientology documents. This was stated in the testimony of witness L. in the first specification. The state goal of the Scientology Organization is the takeover of commerce in the entire world. In this regard, Hubbard issued the operating maxim of the Scientologist: "Hit for the key spots by whatever means, the head of the women's club, the personnel director of a company, the leader of a good orchestra, the president's secretary, the advisor of the trade union - any key spot." WISE is responsible for the implementation of this strategy in business (Bauer/Baeck/Merten, BB 1997, 2534, with evidence of findings). Based on the testimony of witness L. it was determined that the accused was also listed as employee of the organization in earlier WISE publications. The accused had incorporated its company X, under which name it consummated the contract with the complainant on 28 February 1994, sometime in May 1994, after it, as it announced on its court date in the LG and verified in the verbal testimony before the Senate, stood for practically three months with its business under pressure from the press and television cameras and could therefore no longer exist under that logo. The "duration of service performance" of the accused, a component of the contract between the parties from 28 Feb 1994, indisputably corresponds to the fundamentals of WISE. Whether the accused actually stopped its membership in the WISE association, as they claim, in 1993, is uncertain.

The fact that all existing circumstances are of essential significance to the closing of the contract is shown primarily by the close connection between the object of the contract, putting a person in a management position of the operation, and the particular goal of infiltration as mandated by the WISE association. In addition to that, the intervention of the accused, which is closely associated with the Scientology Organization, is capable of considerably influencing the public reputation of the complainant. Because of the mental attitude objectively taken from Scientology Church publications, portions of the population perceive a threat from this organization (LG Bonn, NJW 1997, 2959 [2961]) and publicly attribute the Scientology Church with the character of a sect which pursues odious goals (BVerfG, NJW 1997, 2669 [2670]; also see AG Hagenow, cited by : Abel, NJW 1996, 91 [93 footn. 24[).

Since, as the accused was aware, its work was being very critically regarded and the organization was being publicly attributed the character of a sect which pursued an odious goal, as stated, because of the siege of its offices by the press and television before the close of the contract with the accused, (BVerfG, NJW 1997, 2669 [2670]; LG Bonn, NJW 1997, 2958 [2961]; BAG, NJW 1996, 143) the accused would have had to have known that its membership in the Scientology Organization would have been an essential condition to its contract partner who sought to fill a management position in its business with their help. And also the condition that the complainant had entered a business obligation - also in the area of personnel consulting - with a member of the Scientology Organization which had appeared in the past as a "Patron", would have a negative effect on their public image, as the accused must have been aware of.

It can be concluded that in regard to informing the complainant, the contract was not consummated. Since the accused neglected to provide information which was due, the complainant has a claim to recompensation in the contract. He can demand refund of the portion of the total which he has paid in the course of the assignment, that is 12,266.67 DM.

The claim of the complainant, deception by omission despite obligation to report, based on culpa in contrahendo, will not be affected by expiration of the time limitation of PP 124 BGB (BGH, NJW 1997, 254 = LM PP 675 BGB Nr. 233; Palandt/Heinrichs, PP. 123 Rdnr. 27).

c) The affirmation of the duty to report by the accused is not contrary to Art. 4 1, II GG. Indeed, the BVerfG (NJW 1997, 2669 [2670])has ruled that membership in a controversial organization which publicly spreads the character of a sect which pursues an odious goal and which, according to self-understanding of the concerned party falls into a religious or worldview community, will in any case be attributed the protected category of an unpopular entity. The membership in a community, which according to its own understanding bears the markings of worldview or religion, is also counted as the financial support of such an organization principally for private life style, that is, for that area applied to the public (BVerfG, NJW 1997, 2669 [2670]). Nevertheless, the object of the decision of the BVerfG was the question of whether the publication of membership and the condition of a donation into the "war chest" of the Scientology Organization presented an interference in one's private sphere. The facts of the case are different here. It was the accused himself who left the area of the private sphere. He himself actively approached the complainant, who had advertised a position, with the desire to enter into a personnel consulting contract. By its involvement in business dealings in the area in which the Scientology Organization is especially critically regarded by the public because of WISE's stated objective to infiltrate the economy, it left the area of a private sphere, so that it cannot be protected by Art 4 GG. It can remain uncertain whether the Scientology Church is regarded as a religious or worldview community in the sense of Art. 140 GG, Art. 137 WRV, which the BAG (NJW 1996, 143) has already denied for the "Scientology Kirche Hamburg e.V."

d) The objection raised by the accused about the time limit running out does not apply. The time limitation is 30 years. PP. 196 1 Nr. 7 BGB applies only to claims by people who have performed commercial services or alien business, not for employees (PP 195, 196 I Nr. 7 BGB; Palandt-Heinrichs, PP 195 Rdnr. 10).

Comment by transcriber: to contend a personnel consulting contract for membership in the Scientology sect, see LG Darmstadt, NJW 1999, 365

Author: Ingo Heinemann 1. Version 18.12.99

Some abbreviations:
BVerfG: Federal Constitutional Court
e.V.: Inc.
GG: Basic Law
LG: state court
OLG: superior state court
Urt. v.: judgment of

Scientology Suit dismissed

From: "Stuttgarter Zeitung," Germany
November 13, 1998

The Scientologists have lost a suit against the city in the Stuttgart Administrative Court. The city had forbid Dianetics Scientology Church Stuttgart, a registered association, on multiple occasions, from offering passersbay personality tests on the public street, or offering their books for sale. That sort of activity, according to the city, is a special activity which requires a permit. The court agrees with this interpretation of the law. The complainant stated before the court, that members were only proselytizing for their own association. No accompanying pressure was said to have been used upon passersby in order to get them onto the premises for a meeting. The recruiter had worked for no pay and had not pursued any commercial interests. In order to prove this, the Scientology attorney had submitted 23 documents for consideration as evidence, which the court had refused.


© 1998 Stuttgarter Zeitung, Germany


Scientology sues the City

From: "Stuttgarter Nachrichten"
November 11, 1998

Demands the right to advertise

Because the city administration has threatened the Scientology sect with a fine if it continued to recruit on the street, the sect brought it to court. On Tuesday the Administrative Court heard the dispute of Dianetics against Stuttgart.

Scientology tried to obtain one thing before the court: that the city administration cancel an order by which it had forbidden sect missionaries to sell books on the open street, distribute hand-outs, and invite people into their building for personality tests. If Scientology should disregard the ban, it is subject to a fine in the amount of 3,000 marks. The city codes office based the the ban on the street operations being a form of commercial activity, which constitutes an impermissible special use of the street.

The decision of the 13th Chamber of the Stuttgart Administrative Court can be expected in several weeks. In the Tuesday proceedings a total of 23 offerings of evidence submitted by the Scientologists were turned down on the basis that they had no bearing on the decision.

The dispute over commercial activity on the open street has been going on for years. The sect has raised objections to the order on numerous occasions. The court now has to decide whether the administration has reacted appropriately.



Scientologists bring proceedings against street ban

The Scientologists are bringing proceedings before the Stuttgart Administrative Court against a ban in the pedestrian zone: The city, through a total of 3 orders in 1995, has forbidden them from addressing passersby on Konig Street, from offering personality tests or from suggesting that they buy Scientology books. The city, whose legal interpretation has also been supported by findings in an Administration Court in Mannheim, sees this as commercial activity for which special permission would be required.

The complainant, on the contrary, sees itself as a religious community whose missionary activity in a pedestrian zone is protected by Basic Law. The recruiters are said to have had no commercial motive.

Yesterday the court turned down 23 submissions of evidence in the almost two-hour hearing. The written judgment will be presented the middle of December.



© 1998 Stuttgarter Zeitung, Germany

Legal Proceedings against Scientology Reinstated

From: "Stuttgarter Nachrichten" May 30, 1998

This article was written for a specific audience which may not be understood by a non-German (like me) without notes. The notes, in italics, are provided by a resident of Stuttgart.

Fight against Dianetics

Andriof: Not non-profit

Important for the understanding of the newspaper article is that in Stuttgart there are two Scientology organizations: the Dianetics Association and the New Bridge Association.

The Administrative Presidium[1] of Stuttgart will reinstate legal proceedings against the Dianetics Association. Proceeding had temporarily been suspended by the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht). The objective is to make it clear that the Scientology organization is not a non-profit organization.

The Administrative Presidium is of the view that the associations activities are unequivocally for-profit. Scientology tries to use public law to circumvent commercial regulations. The Administrative Presidium had begun an administrative process against the Scientology New Bridge Association. The Administrative Presidium discontinued this process while awaiting results from a decision of a federal administrative court. Because the Association was established for the direct purpose of commercial activity, corresponding proof, along with the provision for the revocation of the legal capacity, could no longer be furnished.

The reason the proof can no longer be furnished is that New Bridge is no longer active. The federal administrative court had decided that you cannot prove that an inactive association is "commercially active." All Scientology had to do to avoid the proceedings was to declare the association inactive, then start up a new "Dianetics" association up under a new name.

Since that is the case, the Administrative Presidium thinks it much more sensible that the judicial process be continued. For all that, Executive President Andriof believes it "important and correct" to proceed, with all means offered by administrative law, against the machinations of Scientology. The dispute would have to carried out predominantly in the political arena.


  1. Administrative Presidium "Regierungspraesidium" (RP): this is a state administrative agency. For anyone who may be interested, here is a short lesson in local German government (Administrative Presidium is third down on the list):
    1. Community, City: the citizens elect a city council for a duration of six years. Election results can get complicated, as candidates can be transferred between lists. This is called "proportional representation" ("Panaschier-system"). The voters may also select three candidates of their choice. This is called the "cumulative system" ("kumulieren"). Both systems may be combined with each other, as long as the number of votes do not exceed the number of voters. The mayor is voted in directly by the citizens for 8 years. If he/she gets more than 50% of the vote when the ballot is first cast, then he is elected. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there is a second election, of which a relative majority will determine the outcome. The mayor has the office of the head of the city council and also has one vote.
    2. District, Rural District . District councils are elected by citizens. The process is similar to that of the city/community councils. The state council, chief of the districts, is elected by the district councils, not directly by the citizens. The Rural District has the legal charge of the communities, and takes care of the things which the communities cannot do themselves or have not been permitted. Examples of this are waste disposal, hospitals, automobile licensing, local traffic, social welfare, etc.
    3. Administrative Presidium (Regierungspraesidium): this is not an elected position, it is commissioned by the state administration. The Administrative Presidium carries out the decisions of the the state assembly and has legal purview over the district councils and large cities.
    4. State: for example Baden Wuerttemberg. The state assembly is elected by the citizens - normal government. In Baden-Wurttemberg there are four Administrative Presidiums: Nordbaden,Karlsruhe; Suedbaden, Freiburg; Nordwuerttemberg, Stuttgart; Suedwuerttemberg-Hohenzollern, Tuebingen.