{"id":5219,"date":"2017-12-04T15:38:22","date_gmt":"2017-12-04T15:38:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=5219"},"modified":"2026-01-08T08:22:14","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T08:22:14","slug":"arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/german-employment-law-extraordinary-termination-due-to-threatening-the-employees-supervisor\/","title":{"rendered":"German Employment Law: Extraordinary Termination Due to Threatening the Employee\u2019s Supervisor."},"content":{"rendered":"

D\u00fcsseldorf Regional Labor Court, 08.06.2017, Case No.: 11 Sa 823\/16<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to Section 626 (1) BGB, the employment relationship can be terminated by either party to the contract (employer and employee) for good cause without observing a notice period if there are facts on the basis of which the terminating party cannot reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship until the end of the notice period or until the agreed termination of the employment relationship, taking into account all circumstances of the individual case and weighing up the interests of both parties to the contract. Objective criteria must be used to assess whether good cause exists. According to this, the labour courts must, when a Ruling of the Federal Labor Court<\/a> clarify whether, based on an objective assessment, it was unreasonable at the time of the dismissal. An extraordinary dismissal is justified, among other things, if there is a personal, behavioural or operational reason and the dismissal is not disproportionate. In principle, a threat to the employer or a person assigned to the employer or bullying can be assumed to be good cause. However, each assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n

\"What<\/p>\n

<\/span>Facts of the Case:<\/span><\/h2>\n

<\/span>The employee had been repeatedly warned by the employer.<\/span><\/h3>\n

The parties are in dispute about the validity of an extraordinary Legal advice on tenancy bonds and rent increases<\/a>. The plaintiff had been working for the defendant state since 3 October 1988. In the period from 2004 to 2013, the plaintiff received several warnings, including for failing to follow instructions, breaching his duty of loyalty, being reprimanded and insulting superiors and colleagues. The plaintiff has been unable to work since July 2014.<\/p>\n

In 2012, the plaintiff was convicted by the D\u00fcsseldorf District Court for using office photocopiers to make election posters under the false pretense of having permission, despite knowing it was not allowed.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The employee threatens his superior over the phone: \u201eI\u2019ll stab you.\u201c<\/span><\/h3>\n

On December 19, 2014, at 8:50 PM, a disputed phone call took place between the plaintiff and Administrative Manager C. During this call, which was made from a phone booth located about 3.5 km from the plaintiff\u2019s residence, the plaintiff allegedly threatened C. with the words, \u201eI\u2019ll stab you!\u201c The D\u00fcsseldorf Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office initiated a criminal investigation against the plaintiff following a complaint filed by C. Police officers visited the plaintiff at his home at 1:05 AM to issue a warning.<\/p>\n

The defendant state applied on December 30, 2014, to the relevant integration office for approval of the extraordinary dismissal of the employment relationship, and alternatively for an extraordinary dismissal with a social extension period. The personnel council at the North Rhine-Westphalia State Criminal Police Office was consulted on January 6, 2015, regarding the intended dismissal. Neither the integration office nor the personnel council objected to the dismissal.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Employer terminates without notice and alternatively with notice due to the threat.<\/span><\/h3>\n

The defendant state terminated the employment relationship without notice in a letter dated January 13, 2015, and alternatively with notice effective June 30, 2015, or the next possible date.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against this dismissal with the D\u00fcsseldorf Labor Court. The plaintiff argued that he was not fit to stand trial and that the extraordinary dismissal was invalid due to the lack of a compelling reason.<\/p>\n

A psychiatric expert report indicated that the plaintiff was \u201eincreasingly under pressure\u201c due to the fraud allegations concerning the election posters, and his anxiety about losing his job had intensified. The report concluded that it could not be ruled out that, under stressful circumstances, the plaintiff might make decisions that were not based on reasonable judgment. Furthermore, it was noted that the plaintiff\u2019s ability to control his actions might have been significantly impaired, if not entirely absent, at the time of the alleged offense.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The D\u00fcsseldorf Labor Court deems the dismissal valid.<\/span><\/h3>\n

The plaintiff claimed that he had never called C. privately and therefore did not threaten him over the phone. The D\u00fcsseldorf Labor Court found it plausible that the plaintiff could have made the call on December 19, 2014, given the proximity of the phone booth to his residence. Witnesses C., G., and P. were heard by the court. The labor court had no doubts about the credibility of C., who had been threatened by the plaintiff with the words, \u201eI\u2019ll stab you!\u201c This serious and sustained threat disrupted the workplace order at the North Rhine-Westphalia State Criminal Police Office. The threat not only severely strained the relationship between the plaintiff and C. but also negatively affected the plaintiff\u2019s relationship with other colleagues. Consequently, it was irrelevant that the expert psychiatric report found the plaintiff\u2019s ability to control his actions significantly diminished or even absent. The court held that special circumstances justified the extraordinary dismissal, even in cases of blameless behavior.<\/p>\n

<\/span>A warning was not required because the violation was so severe that tolerating it was impossible.<\/span><\/h3>\n

The plaintiff appealed the D\u00fcsseldorf Labor Court\u2019s decision to the D\u00fcsseldorf Regional Labor Court, arguing procedural and substantive errors. He claimed that the court had violated procedural rules, such as the principle of immediacy, due to a change in the lay judges between hearings in April 2015 and August 2016.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Judgment of the D\u00fcsseldorf Regional Labor Court:<\/span><\/h2>\n

<\/span>The appeal court confirms the D\u00fcsseldorf Labor Court\u2019s ruling.<\/span><\/h3>\n

The court found the lawsuit admissible but unfounded. The labor court had correctly ruled that the extraordinary dismissal of January 13, 2015, had immediately terminated the employment relationship.<\/p>\n

Contrary to the plaintiff\u2019s claims, the labor court had not violated the principle of immediacy as required by Section 46(2) of the Labor Court Act (ArbGG) and Section 355(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (ZPO). According to the D\u00fcsseldorf Labor Court\u2019s distribution of duties, lay judges Grauert and G\u00fcnther participated in all hearings where disputed matters were discussed. Their absence at the announcement hearings on April 16, 2015, and August 20, 2015, was irrelevant, as only the written decision was read.<\/p>\n

The court also found that the plaintiff had been competent to stand trial under the applicable legal provisions.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The threat justified both the extraordinary and ordinary dismissals.<\/span><\/h3>\n

The appeals court also ruled that the serious and sustained threat against the employer, its representatives, or colleagues constituted a significant breach of the employee\u2019s duty of loyalty under Section 241(2) BGB and was sufficient grounds for extraordinary dismissal under Section 626 BGB.<\/p>\n

The labor court had thoroughly examined the facts and found that the plaintiff had threatened C. with the words, \u201eI\u2019ll stab you!\u201c on December 19, 2014. The D\u00fcsseldorf Regional Labor Court saw no procedural errors in the evidence collection, nor did the plaintiff raise any in his appeal.<\/p>\n

The court did not doubt the credibility of witness C., whose clear memory of the call was explained by the fact that it was a unique and impactful conversation for him. C. had also documented the main points of the call and filed a police report shortly afterward. C.\u2019s testimony was deemed trustworthy because he had no reason to falsely incriminate the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

The court also found it plausible that the plaintiff could have made the phone call from the nearby phone booth and then returned home, as confirmed by witnesses who testified to his later presence there.<\/p>\n

The appeals court agreed with the labor court that the plaintiff\u2019s statements during the first-instance proceedings were not credible. The plaintiff could not convincingly explain how he had been able to recall events almost to the minute in public hearings, without using written notes, and his later statements about that evening were inconsistent.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Plaintiff had made contradictory statements in the hearing<\/span><\/h3>\n

The appeal chamber also shares the opinion of the labour court that the plaintiff's statements during the proceedings at first instance were not credible. The claimant could not have credibly explained how he was able to describe the events for the first time at the public hearing on 26 March 2015, predominantly down to the minute, without the aid of written records, for example. In contrast, the plaintiff was also unable to substantiate his contradictory statements regarding the events of the evening.<\/p>\n

The credibility of the witnesses P. and G. had also been correctly established by the Labour Court as not credible, since on the one hand they did not agree with the plaintiff's statements, but also the statements of the two witnesses themselves did not agree on essential points.<\/p>\n

The LAG D\u00fcsseldorf shares the finding of the D\u00fcsseldorf Labour Court that even a blameless act by the plaintiff is sufficient for extraordinary dismissal. Also a Warning letter<\/a> was not necessary and the balancing of interests could not have been in favour of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

The defendant state had complied with the required two-week period in accordance with Section 626 (2) BGB and had properly involved the staff council within the meaning of Section 74 (2) sentences 1 and 2 LPVG NRW.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the extraordinary dismissal under Section 626 BGB was valid, and the appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n

Source: D\u00fcsseldorf Regional Labor Court<\/p>\n

Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty.<\/strong> Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.<\/p>\n

If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670<\/strong> or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent you in labour law<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Insults or slander against the employer or superiors generally entitle the employee to ordinary dismissal even without a prior warning. In the event of termination without notice, a warning should have been issued beforehand.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":11959,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3630],"tags":[3051,2943],"class_list":["post-5219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ausserordentliche-fristlose-kuendigung","tag-beleidigung-von-kollegen-fristlose-kuendigung","tag-fristlose-kuendigung-wegen-beleidigung"],"yoast_head":"\nArbeitsrecht: Au\u00dferordentliche K\u00fcndigung wegen Bedrohung des Vorgesetzten des Arbeitnehmers.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Nicht nur die Beleidigung des Arbeitgebers durch den Arbeitnehmer, sondern auch dessen Bedrohung kann zur K\u00fcndigung berechtigen.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/german-employment-law-extraordinary-termination-due-to-threatening-the-employees-supervisor\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arbeitsrecht: Au\u00dferordentliche K\u00fcndigung wegen Bedrohung des Vorgesetzten des Arbeitnehmers.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Nicht nur die Beleidigung des Arbeitgebers durch den Arbeitnehmer, sondern auch dessen Bedrohung kann zur K\u00fcndigung berechtigen.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/german-employment-law-extraordinary-termination-due-to-threatening-the-employees-supervisor\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-12-04T15:38:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-08T08:22:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Arbeitsrecht-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"helmer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"helmer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"German Employment Law: Extraordinary Termination Due to Threatening the Employee\u2019s Supervisor.","description":"Not only insulting the employer by the employee, but also threatening the employer can justify dismissal.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/german-employment-law-extraordinary-termination-due-to-threatening-the-employees-supervisor\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arbeitsrecht: Au\u00dferordentliche K\u00fcndigung wegen Bedrohung des Vorgesetzten des Arbeitnehmers.","og_description":"Nicht nur die Beleidigung des Arbeitgebers durch den Arbeitnehmer, sondern auch dessen Bedrohung kann zur K\u00fcndigung berechtigen.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/german-employment-law-extraordinary-termination-due-to-threatening-the-employees-supervisor\/","og_site_name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","article_published_time":"2017-12-04T15:38:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-08T08:22:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Arbeitsrecht-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"helmer","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_site":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"helmer","Estimated reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/"},"author":{"name":"helmer","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/fbcf627706a8a6151cec2217af8c74b3"},"headline":"Arbeitsrecht: Au\u00dferordentliche K\u00fcndigung wegen Bedrohung des Vorgesetzten des Arbeitnehmers.","datePublished":"2017-12-04T15:38:22+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-08T08:22:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/"},"wordCount":1734,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Arbeitsrecht-1.jpg","keywords":["Beleidigung von Kollegen fristlose K\u00fcndigung","fristlose K\u00fcndigung wegen Beleidigung"],"articleSection":["Au\u00dferordentliche\/Fristlose K\u00fcndigung"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/","name":"German Employment Law: Extraordinary Termination Due to Threatening the Employee\u2019s Supervisor.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Arbeitsrecht-1.jpg","datePublished":"2017-12-04T15:38:22+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-08T08:22:14+00:00","description":"Not only insulting the employer by the employee, but also threatening the employer can justify dismissal.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Arbeitsrecht-1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Arbeitsrecht-1.jpg","width":1200,"height":600,"caption":"Arbeitsrecht"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/arbeitsrecht-ausserordentliche-kuendigung-wegen-bedrohung-des-vorgesetzten-des-arbeitnehmers\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arbeitsrecht","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/category\/arbeitsrecht-rechtsanwalt\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"K\u00fcndigungen & k\u00fcndigungsschutz","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/category\/arbeitsrecht-rechtsanwalt\/kuendigungen-kuendigungsschutz\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Au\u00dferordentliche\/Fristlose K\u00fcndigung","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/category\/arbeitsrecht-rechtsanwalt\/kuendigungen-kuendigungsschutz\/ausserordentliche-fristlose-kuendigung\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":5,"name":"Arbeitsrecht: Au\u00dferordentliche K\u00fcndigung wegen Bedrohung des Vorgesetzten des Arbeitnehmers."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","name":"Law firm Tieben","description":"Lawyer Tieben \/ Law firm Cologne","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization","name":"Law firm Tieben","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","width":254,"height":52,"caption":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","https:\/\/x.com\/mth_Tieben","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/helmer-tieben-09570226"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/fbcf627706a8a6151cec2217af8c74b3","name":"helmer","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"helmer"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5219"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5219\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13018,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5219\/revisions\/13018"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11959"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}