Property & WEG Management
casavi
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by casavi GmbH · casavi.de
Compare with facilioo → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
casavi presents itself as a communication and process platform for property management — case management, apps, documents, communication, contractor steering, casavi AI — claiming 2,200+ customers and 3.8 million+ managed units. Strongest are sovereignty (five of six judges at 6, the WEG administrator at 4) and maintenance and defects, resting on the German entity casavi GmbH, AG München HRB 218832; a privacy policy stating AWS hosting within the EU for the website and naming subprocessors including US and Canadian providers under EU standard contractual clauses; and named case-management and contractor-steering features with a claimed 33 percent faster case processing. Weakest are WEG accounting and assembly and resolutions, each minimum 0 and maximum 0: we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, convening owners' meetings or a maintained resolution register. Pricing transparency scores 1-2 — individual offers from 4,000 managed units upward, all prices plus VAT, no computable figure. Open questions: the privacy policy expressly excludes the mycasavi.com portal, and we found no public information on where casavi AI processes community data. The bench computed no disagreements worth reporting.
Speaks for it
- Case management and contractor steering are named product features, putting contractor coordination inside the system.
- The vendor claims 33 percent faster processing of cases with casavi AI and 10 percent more capacity per team member.
- The contracting entity is casavi GmbH, registered at AG München under HRB 218832.
- The privacy policy states hosting of the website on AWS servers within the EU and names subprocessors — including US and Canadian providers — under EU standard contractual clauses.
- A documents module is named among the product features, evidencing central document storage.
Held against it
- WEG accounting scores minimum 0 and maximum 0 — we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or separate reserve-fund handling.
- Assembly and resolutions scores minimum 0 and maximum 0 — we found no public information on convening owners' meetings, voting and majority arithmetic, or a maintained resolution register.
- Owner self-service scores 2 — the mycasavi.com portal is referenced but expressly not covered by the privacy policy, and we found no public information on per-owner statements, meeting papers or a defect form.
- Documents and handover scores 2-3 — we found no public information on versioning, search, retention executed for community records, or a handover export a successor administrator could load.
- Pricing transparency scores 1-2 — packages are assembled in a sales consultation, individual offers start from 4,000 managed units, all prices are stated plus VAT, and no per-unit or per-community figure appears.
Best for
- You need maintenance case intake and contractor coordination inside one system.
- You want a German contracting entity, a published subprocessor list, and website hosting stated as within the EU.
- You want central document storage and AI-assisted case handling within a communication and process platform.
Avoid if
- You must run the statutory WEG financial cycle — Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, reserve-fund handling — in your core system.
- You need support for convening and recording owners' meetings, majority arithmetic and a maintained resolution register.
- You need to compute an annual cost from published prices before a sales conversation.
- You need owner self-service with per-owner statements, meeting papers and defect reporting with visible status.
The scores
Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The statutory financial cycle: business plan, annual settlement in the form the law and the BGH require, distribution keys, and the separate handling of reserve funds held in trust for the community.
0 — General bookkeeping only; no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung, no distribution keys, reserves treated as ordinary balances.
3 — Templates that help a human produce the documents, with distribution keys entered by hand and no separation of the Rücklage.
5 — Wirtschaftsplan and Jahresabrechnung generated from the ledger with configurable distribution keys (MEA, units, consumption), and reserves booked separately.
8 — Settlement in the post-2021 BGH form with the Abrechnungsspitze shown separately, Vermögensbericht produced, heating-cost apportionment per HeizkostenV integrated, owner-change apportionment mid-year handled, and Hausgeld arrears tracked with dunning.
10 — The whole financial year is discharged inside the system: multi-community bookkeeping with strict per-WEG separation, trust accounting for reserves with its own reporting, settlement documents an accountant would sign, and the arithmetic auditable back to individual postings.
The WEG Administrator
Nothing in the captured material mentions a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or the handling of the Rücklage — the vendor presents itself as a communication and process platform built around case management, documents, communication and AI. For the statutory financial year I found no public information at all, so the March settlement run is not something this evidence supports. 1 3
The Advisory Board Member
The captured pages present a communication and process platform — case management, apps, documents, communication, contractor steering, AI — and we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the BGH form, distribution keys or separate reserve-fund accounting. For an administrator who has to put a settlement before the owners, these pages show no place where that arithmetic would live. 1 3
The Accountant
The captured pages present casavi as a communication and process platform — case management, apps, documents, communication, contractor steering and AI — and I found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung with the Abrechnungsspitze shown separately, distribution keys, or heating-cost apportionment per HeizkostenV. Not a word on whether the Rücklage is segregated trust money rather than a labelled balance, and for me that is the whole criterion. 3 1
The Portfolio Manager
The published feature list is case management, apps, documents, communication, contractor steering and AI — a communication and process platform, with 2,200 customers and 3.8 million units claimed, but we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or separate reserve-fund handling. For an administrator running the statutory financial cycle, nothing here is evidenced at any level. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages present casavi as a communication and process platform for property management; we found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, or how a Rücklage is booked. The feature list names case management, documents, communication, apps, contractor steering and AI, with nothing on the statutory financial cycle. 1 3
The Skeptic
The captured pages sell casavi as a communication and process platform — case management, documents, communication, contractor steering, AI — and never show the statutory financial cycle. We found no public information on a Wirtschaftsplan, a Jahresabrechnung in the post-2021 form, distribution keys or the separate handling of the Rücklage. 1 3
Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Convening, running and recording the owners' meeting — including the resolution register the law requires the administrator to maintain, and the majority arithmetic that decides whether a resolution stands.
0 — No meeting support; invitations and minutes are written elsewhere and the Beschluss-Sammlung is a document somewhere.
3 — Invitation templates and a place to store minutes, but no agenda structure, no voting support and no maintained resolution register.
5 — Agenda-driven invitations respecting the notice period, attendance and proxy recording, voting with the common majority types, and a Beschluss-Sammlung kept as a numbered register.
8 — Quorum and majority computed per resolution type including MEA-weighted and qualified majorities, proxies and voting restrictions handled, minutes generated from the recorded votes, and the register maintained continuously with amendment and invalidation notes as § 24 (7) requires.
10 — The meeting is conducted in the system: hybrid or written circulation procedures supported with their own legal rules, contested resolutions flagged within the challenge period, the register complete and exportable as evidence, and every entry traceable to the meeting that produced it.
The WEG Administrator
The published feature list names case management, apps, documents, communication, contractor steering and AI, with no mention of convening an Eigentümerversammlung, recording attendance and proxies, or maintaining a Beschluss-Sammlung. We found no public information on invitations, agenda handling, voting or majority arithmetic of any kind. 3 1
The Advisory Board Member
We found no public information on convening or running an Eigentümerversammlung, on voting and majority arithmetic, or on a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung. The feature list names communication and apps, but nothing about invitations, minutes or a numbered resolution register. 1 3
The Accountant
The marketed feature list and benefits say nothing about convening owners' meetings, agenda structure, notice periods, majority arithmetic or a Beschluss-Sammlung kept as a register. I found no public information on any meeting support, let alone the amendment and invalidation notes the law requires in the register. 3 1
The Portfolio Manager
Convening, running and recording owners' meetings appears nowhere in the published benefits or feature list; we found no public information on invitations, attendance or proxy recording, voting support, majority arithmetic or a maintained resolution register. I treat this as no evidenced meeting support. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on convening an owners' meeting, agenda structure, proxy or majority arithmetic, or a maintained resolution register. The captured feature descriptions cover communication and process coordination generally, and say nothing about the meeting itself or the Beschluss-Sammlung. 1 3
Owner & tenant self-service
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How an owner exercises their right to see the records, and how much routine correspondence the portal removes: statements, documents, meeting papers, defect reporting.
0 — No portal; every request is answered by email or post.
3 — A document download area with no per-owner scoping — everyone sees the same folder, or access is by emailed link.
5 — Per-owner login showing their own statements, documents and meeting papers, with a defect or request form that reaches the administrator.
8 — Owners and tenants scoped separately with correct visibility, meeting papers and voting available in the portal, defect reports with status visible to the reporter, and consumption or arrears shown per unit.
10 — The portal discharges the disclosure duty: every record an owner is entitled to see available on demand with an access log, tenant and owner views strictly separated, notifications for statutory deadlines, and enough self-service that routine correspondence largely disappears.
The WEG Administrator
The privacy policy distinguishes a separate portal, mycasavi.com, and the feature list names apps and communication, so an owner-facing channel exists — but that same policy is expressly not written for that portal. We found no public information on per-owner scoping, owners' own statements and documents, meeting papers, or defect reporting with visible status. 4 3
The Advisory Board Member
The privacy policy expressly excludes the portal mycasavi.com and apps appear in the feature list, so a separate owner-facing portal exists — more than nothing. But we found no public information on statements, meeting papers, per-owner or per-tenant scoping, or a defect form that reaches the administrator, so an owner's right to inspect records is not shown to be served here. 4 3
The Accountant
A separate owner portal at mycasavi.com is referenced by the privacy policy, which states it is governed by its own policy, and apps are a listed module — so a portal exists. But the captured pages give no public information on per-owner scoping, own statements, meeting papers, or a defect form with visible status; everything an owner's right to inspect the records would rest on is undocumented. 4 3
The Portfolio Manager
The privacy policy points to a portal at mycasavi.com that it explicitly does not cover, and 'apps' is a headline feature, so a portal exists in some form — but we found no public information on per-owner login scoping, owners seeing their own statements or meeting papers, or a defect form with status visible to the reporter. A named portal with no evidenced owner functionality sits just above nothing. 4 3
The Data Protection Officer
A portal called mycasavi.com exists — the privacy policy expressly excludes it from its own scope — and apps are a listed feature, but we found no public information on what owners or tenants can see there, whether views are scoped per person, or whether a defect form exists. For records holding bank details and arrears of people who never chose this vendor, the unanswered question of strictly separated owner and tenant visibility decides the score. 4 3
The Skeptic
The privacy policy names a separate portal at mycasavi.com with its own data-protection terms, so an owner-facing portal exists — but that is the whole of it. We found no public information on per-owner login, personal statements, meeting papers or a defect form reaching the administrator. 4 3
Maintenance, defects & contractors
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The building side: defect intake and tracking, recurring maintenance obligations, contractor assignment, and the evidence trail when something goes wrong.
0 — Defects arrive by phone and live in a notebook; no maintenance schedule.
3 — A ticket or note list per property, contractors contacted outside the system, no recurring maintenance calendar.
5 — Defect records per unit or property with status and photos, contractor assignment with a work order, and a recurring maintenance schedule with reminders.
8 — Warranty and Gewährleistung periods tracked against the responsible trade, statutory inspections (lift, heating, fire safety, drinking-water) scheduled with proof of completion stored, quotes and invoices linked to the defect, and cost allocated to the correct account.
10 — A defensible operating record: every obligation, inspection and defect with its evidence and dates, contractor performance visible, budget consumption against the Wirtschaftsplan tracked live, and a history that answers the question of what the administrator knew and when.
The WEG Administrator
Case management and contractor steering are named features, with claims of 33 % faster processing of cases and 10 % more capacity per team member, which reads as ticket intake and contractor coordination inside the system. Beyond that we found no public information on recurring maintenance calendars, statutory inspections with proof of completion, or Gewährleistung periods tracked against a trade. 3 1
The Advisory Board Member
Case management and contractor steering are named features, and the vendor claims 33 % faster processing of Vorgängen with AI, so intake and contractor coordination plausibly run inside the system. We found no public information on recurring maintenance schedules with reminders, photo documentation, warranty or Gewährleistung tracking, or statutory inspections with stored proof of completion. 1 3
The Accountant
Case management and contractor coordination are core marketed modules — Vorgangsmanagement, Vorgänge koordinieren, Dienstleistersteuerung — which supports a ticket list with contractors steered from the system. I found no public information on a recurring maintenance calendar, Gewährleistung periods tracked per trade, or statutory inspections with proof of completion stored. 3
The Portfolio Manager
Case management and contractor steering are core published features with a claimed 33 percent faster processing of cases and contractor coordination named as a benefit, which evidences intake and routing to trades inside the system — beyond a bare note list. But we found no public information on recurring maintenance calendars, statutory lift, heating, fire-safety or drinking-water inspections with stored proof of completion, or warranty tracking against the responsible trade, which is what I would actually buy on. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Case management and contractor steering are named core features, so contractors are coordinated inside the system rather than outside it. We found no public information on defect records with photos, work orders, a recurring maintenance calendar, or tracking of statutory inspections and warranty periods. 1 3
The Skeptic
Case management and contractor steering are named features ("Vorgangsmanagement", "Dienstleistersteuerung", "Dienstleister koordinieren"), which puts contractor coordination inside the system rather than outside it. We found no public information on defect records with status and photos, recurring maintenance schedules, warranty periods or statutory inspections with proof of completion. 1 3
Documents, retention & handover
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The archive and the exit. A Verwalter's appointment is finite by law, and the records belong to the community — so handover is a statutory event, not a support ticket.
0 — Documents live on a shared drive; no retention rules, and handover means copying folders.
3 — Central document storage per property with folders and upload, but no versioning, no retention policy and no defined handover export.
5 — Structured document management per property and unit with search, retention periods stated, and a documented export of a community's records.
8 — Full-text search across the archive, version history, documents linked to the resolutions and settlements that reference them, and a complete handover package (ledger, register, documents, master data) in open formats.
10 — Handover is a first-class feature rather than an obstacle: a complete, structured export a successor administrator can actually load, retention executed per statutory period, an access log over the archive, and no commercial friction placed in the way of a community leaving.
The WEG Administrator
Documents are a named feature and organizing documents appears among the benefits, which evidences central storage; the only retention periods anywhere are recited in the privacy policy for website data, citing six and ten years under HGB and AO. We found no public information on version history, retention executed as a product feature, or a defined handover export for a community changing administrator. 3 4
The Advisory Board Member
Documents are a named feature and organising documents a stated benefit, which supports central storage for an administration. We found no public information on versioning, search, retention periods executed per community, or a defined handover export a successor administrator could actually load. 1 3
The Accountant
Dokumente is a named module and organising documents a stated benefit, so central storage per property is plausible. But I found no public information on version history, retention executed per statutory period inside the product, or a defined handover export a successor administrator could load — the retention periods quoted in the privacy policy concern the vendor's own records, not the community's. 3 4
The Portfolio Manager
Document organisation is a headline feature, so central storage is evidenced, and the privacy policy cites the statutory six- and ten-year retention duties under the German commercial and tax codes. We found no public information on versioning, full-text search, retention executed for community records, or any defined handover export a successor administrator could load — and handover is a statutory event in my world, not a courtesy. 4 3
The Data Protection Officer
Document organization is a named feature area, and we found no public information on versioning, full-text search, an access log over the archive, or a defined handover export of a community's records. The retention periods cited in the privacy policy state the vendor's own statutory duties under HGB and AO, which is not evidence of retention executing in the product. 4 3
The Skeptic
A "Dokumente" module and the benefit "Dokumente organisieren" evidence central document storage; the privacy policy cites § 257 HGB and § 147 AO retention periods, but for the vendor's own website data, not as product retention for community records. We found no public information on versioning, full-text search or a defined handover export a successor administrator could load. 4 1 3
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the community's financial and personal records live, who the contracting entity is, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — document OCR, AI features, support tooling — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — German or EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and an export that keeps the community compliant for the full retention period after the appointment ends.
The WEG Administrator
The contracting entity is a German GmbH with a Munich commercial register entry, and the privacy policy names EU-region AWS hosting plus a detailed subprocessor list including US and Canadian providers under EU standard contractual clauses. But that policy is expressly not written for the mycasavi portal, so we found no public information on where the community's own records are hosted or which subprocessors touch the platform itself. 4 3
The Advisory Board Member
The contracting entity is casavi GmbH in Munich with a German commercial register entry, hosting is on AWS within the EU, and the privacy policy names its processors — including non-EU ones such as CloudAlly in Canada and MailChimp in the USA — under EU Standard Contractual Clauses as the stated safeguard. 4 3
The Accountant
The captured pages name casavi GmbH in Munich in the commercial register, host the website with AWS on servers inside the EU, publish a subprocessor list, and cover the non-EU processors among them (MailChimp in the USA, CloudAlly in Canada) with EU Standard Contractual Clauses. But those hosting statements speak of the website, and I found no public information on where platform customer data or the casavi AI processing reside — the portal mycasavi.com has its own privacy policy that was not captured. 4 3
The Portfolio Manager
The contracting entity is casavi GmbH of Munich with register entry AG München HRB 218832, hosting on AWS is stated to be on servers within the EU, and the subprocessor list is published including non-EU names — MailChimp of the USA, CloudAlly of Canada, Intercom — with EU standard contractual clauses as the stated mechanism. The hosting statement covers the web offering, and the community portal runs under a separate privacy statement we did not capture, so where the platform's customer data actually resides is not confirmed; that keeps a solid EU posture from being a fully evidenced chain. 4 3
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor is a German entity registered in Munich, hosting on Amazon Web Services servers inside the EU, and the privacy policy names its processors — including non-EU ones such as MailChimp, Intercom and CloudAlly in Canada — covered by EU standard contractual clauses. That published list covers website, CRM, newsletter and support tooling, and we found no public information on where casavi AI sends the documents it reads; the independently collected sovereignty attributes also leave data residency and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed. 4 1
The Skeptic
The imprint shows a German contracting entity (casavi GmbH, AG München HRB 218832) and the privacy policy states EU hosting on AWS and names its subprocessors, including US and Canadian ones (MailChimp/Rocket Science Group, Intercom, CloudAlly) with EU standard contractual clauses as the mechanism. But that policy explicitly excludes the owner portal mycasavi.com, and we found no public information on where casavi AI processes community data. 4 1 3
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether an administrator can compute the real annual cost for the units under management — including modules, per-community fees and setup — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-unit or per-community headline exists, but modules, minimum terms, setup or migration fees are unstated.
5 — Per-unit or per-community prices public with billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed piece (portal, accounting module, document storage) sits in an unpriced bundle.
8 — Every tier and module priced publicly with per-unit maths, minimum term, setup and migration costs and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom enterprise work lacks a number.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of units and communities including every module, with no per-seat surprises and any exit or export fee stated outright.
The WEG Administrator
The captured pricing statements say prices are "so individuell wie unsere Kunden" with the right package assembled in a sales consultation, that individual offers are made from 4,000 Verwaltungseinheiten upward, and "Alle Preise verstehen sich zzgl. Mehrwertsteuer" — but no per-unit or per-community figure appears anywhere. An administrator with forty communities cannot compute the annual cost from these pages, and we found no public information on module, setup, migration or minimum-term costs. 2
The Advisory Board Member
The pricing page states prices are individual — packages drawn up in a sales consultation, with individual offers from 4.000 Verwaltungseinheiten upward — and that all prices are quoted plus VAT. No per-unit or per-community figure appears on the captured pages, so an administrator cannot compute the annual cost for the units under management from public information alone. 4 2
The Accountant
The captured pricing page says prices are as individual as the customers, assembled in a sales consultation, with an individual offer made from 4,000 managed units and all prices stated to exclude VAT — but no actual price figure is confirmed anywhere in the captured facts. An administrator therefore cannot compute the annual cost for the units under management from public pages; that is a sales conversation, not computable pricing. 2
The Portfolio Manager
The pricing page states 'Unsere Preise sind so individuell wie unsere Kunden' — packages are assembled in a sales consultation based on interfaces, size and unit count, with an individual offer created from 4,000 managed units, and prices stated as exclusive of VAT. No figure for a per-unit or per-community price, setup, migration or minimum term is captured, so I cannot begin to compute an annual invoice for my units from public pages. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pricing page describes individually assembled packages agreed through sales consultation, an individual offer from 4,000 managed units upward, and all prices stated exclusive of VAT — but no figure an administrator could put into arithmetic. The real annual cost for a given portfolio is therefore not derivable from public pages alone. 2
The Skeptic
The captured pricing page describes prices as individual per customer, individual offers from 4,000 units, and a note "Alle Preise verstehen uns zzgl. Mehrwertsteuer" — yet no per-unit or per-community figure appears anywhere. We found no public information on minimum terms, setup or migration fees, so an administrator cannot compute an annual cost from these pages. 4 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 50 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage casavi.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 28 Sep 2026, 1 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing casavi.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint casavi.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy casavi.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →