Search

The article deals with a legal dispute regarding the recovery of contributions to social security and levies amounting to 2,600.62 euros. The plaintiff association had entered into fee agreements with the co-defendants, but the contributions were not correctly paid. The social security contributions were rightfully demanded, as the co-defendants were considered dependent employees and not self-employed. The article also addresses the insurance obligation of student workers and the criteria for dependent employment. Another part of the article deals with a status determination procedure regarding the social security obligation of a co-driver in rally races. The court ruled that the co-driver is not subject to mandatory insurance, as he did not perform his duties as a co-driver in a dependent employment relationship. The court relied on various criteria for dependent employment or self-employment. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with a legal dispute regarding the social security status of a journalist. The plaintiff worked as an editor for the plaintiff and later applied for a determination that his activity no longer constituted employment. However, the defendant determined that the plaintiff's activity should be considered as a dependent employment relationship. The social court dismissed the lawsuit, but the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The article also addresses a formal error in pension notices and the requirements for their justification. It is determined that the notices have substantive deficiencies and do not meet the requirements for sufficient justification. The article also addresses the question of reimbursement claims under § 63 para. 1 sentence 2 SGB X and the obligation of law firms to contribute to the professional liability insurance of their employed lawyers. It is determined that in this case, there is employment income subject to social security contributions. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with various cases before the State Social Court of Hesse, which concern the assessment of the reduction of earning capacity (MdE) in the event of accident consequences and the compulsory insurance of managing directors in statutory accident insurance. In one case, a plaintiff demands the recognition of further accident consequences and the granting of a pension due to a work accident. However, the court decides that the plaintiff has no entitlement to further accident consequences or a pension. In another case, it is determined that the loss of teeth no longer causes accident-related functional deficits, but chronic pain in the upper jaw is assessed with an MdE of 15%. It is emphasized that the MdE is determined abstractly and not based on the insured person's previous occupation. In another case, the compulsory insurance of a managing director in statutory accident insurance is discussed. The court decides that a social security employment relationship can also exist if there is no employment relationship, but rather dependent employment is exercised. It is emphasized that the labor law definition of an employee does not always correspond to the concept of an employee in social security law. The Federal Social Court (BSG) has determined that managing directors of family companies are not subject to compulsory insurance and there is no protection of legitimate expectations based on outdated case law of the BSG. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with various legal cases before the State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen. In the first case, a woman's application for a stationary rehabilitation measure at the Dead Sea was rejected. The second case concerns the question of whether certain individuals were working for the plaintiff within an employment relationship. The third case concerns the widower's pension of a deceased father and the calculation of the pension insurance. The fourth case concerns a liability notice and the question of whether it was lawful. The article also discusses the legal requirements for protection of legitimate expectations in the Social Code X. Various legal aspects and decisions relevant to the respective cases are discussed. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with various cases related to the entitlement to benefits under the SGB II (Social Code Book II) and the right of residence for foreigners in Germany. In one case, the Social Court decided that a Slovenian citizen is entitled to benefits, even though she is entitled to freedom of movement under the EU Freedom of Movement Act. In another case, the Higher Administrative Court decided that a mother of a German minor child, for whom she exercises parental responsibility together with the German father, cannot be denied subsistence benefits if she has a valid right of residence. Another case deals with the entitlement to unemployment benefits, where the State Social Court decided that the plaintiff did not meet the qualifying period. The text emphasizes the importance of actual payment of wages or at least the entitlement to wages for the fulfillment of qualifying periods. It is also pointed out that short interruptions in the employment relationship are irrelevant for the qualifying period as long as the employment relationship is intended to continue. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with a legal dispute regarding the insurance status of a trainer who is also the chairman of a club. The State Social Court of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has ruled that the board of a club is not able to prevent unwanted resolutions of the general assembly. It does not matter whether the trainer is also the chairman. The article also mentions the parties involved and the relevant sections of the Social Code. It concerns the determination of an employment relationship of dependence between the plaintiff and the intervenor 4). The defendant has determined that the intervenor 4) was employed as a sports teacher for the plaintiff's club and is therefore subject to compulsory insurance. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed and the contested decisions of the defendant were declared lawful. The intervenor 4) was subject to compulsory insurance. [Extracted from the article]

The article describes a legal dispute between a private job placement company and the Federal Employment Agency. The company is demanding a placement fee of 1,000 euros for the placement of a job seeker. The Federal Agency refuses to pay because no wages were paid within a period of five days. The Social Court has ruled that the company is entitled to the fee as the conditions were met. The plaintiff has no claim to the desired placement fee according to § 45 SGB III. The Social Court wrongly dismissed the lawsuit. The requirements for the private job placement agency's claim for payment against the defendant are not met. Among other things, there is a lack of a six-week duration of the employment relationship. Although the plaintiff had a valid placement voucher and was authorized, she is not entitled to the fee. The present text deals with a legal dispute over the validity of a written placement contract between the plaintiff, Regio Personalagentur GmbH, and the intervenor. It is pointed out that a placement contract between a job placement agency and a job seeker requires written form according to § 296 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB III. If the written form is not complied with, the agreement on the payment of the fee is invalid. The amendment to the law on March 27, 2002 introduced the requirement of written form to protect job seekers from exploitation. In the present case, it was determined that there is no valid written placement contract between the parties. The placement contract does not clearly specify who the contractual partner of the private job placement agency is. The Regio Group is mentioned as the contractual partner, but it is unclear who on the side of the agency is the contractual partner. The Regio Group is not a legal entity and consists of various companies that are not legally consolidated under the umbrella of the Regio Group. It is not apparent that the plaintiff, and not the Regio Group, should be the contractual partner for the placement assignment. The contractual provision on data protection also does not provide any information about who the contractor should be. It is important that the client can clearly identify who their contractual partner is. The placement contract cannot be cured through § 141 BGB, as the public law provisions of the SGB III take precedence. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a legal dispute regarding the entitlement to parental allowance during a stay abroad. A plaintiff is contesting the revocation of the parental allowance granted for the seventh to twelfth month of her daughter's life due to a longer stay of the family in Canada. However, the court decided that during this time, the plaintiff neither had a residence nor a habitual residence in Germany and therefore has no entitlement to parental allowance. The State Social Court has determined that during her stay abroad in Canada, the plaintiff could have returned to her fully furnished rental apartment in Germany at any time. However, the circumstances did not indicate that she would use the apartment sufficiently in the future. In order to use an apartment, it must be the center and focus of life. The focus of living conditions is assessed based on economic, legal, and personal circumstances. For planned stays abroad of up to one year, it is presumed that the domestic residence will be maintained unless there are positive indications to the contrary. For stays abroad of more than one year, interim stays in the country must have the character of temporary residence in order to maintain the domestic residence. In parental allowance law, the residence is considered in light of the purpose of this family benefit. The State Social Court (LSG) has correctly determined that the plaintiff gave up her domestic residence in Germany when she moved to Canada with her husband. The LSG has correctly determined that the plaintiff's planned temporary stays in Germany are not sufficient to maintain a comprehensive center of life in Germany. The plaintiff's objections do not demonstrate any forecasting errors by the LSG. It is the responsibility of the factual instances to determine the habitual residence, and the Federal Social Court (BSG) only has to examine whether appropriate criteria were applied. The plaintiff's argument that she received child benefit during her stay in Canada has no influence on the outcome. The parental allowance offices and social courts must independently examine whether the domestic residence or habitual residence continues in the parental allowance procedure. The article addresses the question of whether a domestic residence or habitual residence is required for entitlement to parental allowance. It is stated that the decisions of the family cash offices in tax-related child benefit procedures do not have binding effect on the parental allowance offices. It is emphasized that there are no fundamental differences between the social law and tax law concepts of residence. Furthermore, it is explained that a mere residual employment relationship abroad does not establish entitlement to parental allowance. Finally, it is pointed out that the connection of the entitlement to parental allowance to a domestic residence or habitual residence is constitutionally justified in order to take into account the specific economic conditions in Germany. [Extracted from the article]