a) The challenged decisions concern a legal dispute between private actors relating to the scope of rights of ownership and possession vis-à-vis third parties under private law. According to the established case-law of the Court, fundamental rights may have a bearing on such disputes by way of indirect horizontal effects (cf. BVerfGE 7, 198 <205 and 206>; 42, 143 <148>; 89, 214 <229>; 103, 89 <100>; 137, 273 <313 para. 109>; established case-law). Fundamental rights do not generally create direct obligations between private actors. They do, however, permeate legal relationships under private law; it is thus incumbent upon the regular courts to give effect to fundamental rights in the interpretation of ordinary law, in particular by means of general clauses contained in private law provisions and legal concepts that are not precisely defined in statutory law. These effects are rooted in the decisions on constitutional values (verfassungsrechtliche Wertentscheidungen ) enshrined in fundamental rights, which permeate private law in terms of “guiding principles” (cf. BVerfGE 73, 261 <269>; 81, 242 <254>; 89, 214 <229>; 112, 332 <352>); accordingly, the case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court has referred to the fundamental rights as an “objective order of constitutional values” (cf. BVerfGE 7, 198 <205 and 206>; 25, 256 <263>; 33, 1 <12>). In this context, the fundamental rights do not serve the purpose of consistently keeping freedom-restricting interferences to a minimum; rather, they are to be developed as fundamental values informing the balancing of the freedoms of equally entitled rights holders. The freedom afforded one right holder must be reconciled with the freedom afforded another. For this purpose, it is necessary to assess conflicting fundamental rights positions in terms of how they interact, and to strike a balance in accordance with the principle of practical concordance (praktische Konkordanz ), which requires that the fundamental rights of all persons concerned be given effect to the broadest possible extent (cf. BVerfGE 129, 78 <101 and 102>; 134, 204 <223 para. 68>; 142, 74 <101 para. 82>; established case-law).