Search

The article describes a legal dispute regarding the affiliation of a plaintiff to the additional pension scheme for technical intelligence. The plaintiff was employed as a project engineer in the state-owned company Mining and Metallurgical Combine "X." A. and was later transferred to the successor company W. AG A. Metallurgical and Processing Works. The plaintiff applied for the transfer of supplementary pension entitlements, which was rejected. The Social Court C. overturned the defendant's decision on the unlawfulness and ordered the defendant to re-decide on the plaintiff's review application. The defendant appealed against the court's decision, but the appellate court agrees with the reasons given by the Social Court and declares the appeal unfounded. In the present case, the legal assessment of the plaintiff's employment relationship with the VEB Mining and Metallurgical Combine "X." A. Combine Management is at issue. It is determined that the stamp imprint "Combine Management" has no legal significance and the Combine Management is not considered the plaintiff's employer. The Federal Social Court has determined that the assignment to a specific ministry can be a criterion for determining the company-determining industrial production. The present text describes a legal dispute between a plaintiff and the defendant regarding the social security status of an emergency physician. The Social Court Lübeck ruled in favor of the plaintiff, while the defendant appealed and referred to judgments of the Federal Social Court. The court ruling states that the plaintiff cannot be considered an employee as her task is limited to the selection of the emergency physician and the organization of the duty roster. [Extracted from the article]

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]

Copyright of Quintessenz Zahnmedizin is the property of Quintessenz Verlags GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Quintessenz Zahnmedizin is the property of Quintessenz Verlags GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Food-Service is the property of dfv Mediengruppe and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses hearing on the future of mini-jobs in German Labor and Social Affairs Committee and applications submitted for this range from the abolition and transfer to employment relationships subject to social insurance contributions and dynamic increase in the earnings limit.