The Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has undertaken to advise people "in case of clearly identifiable consulting needs" and to provide advice beyond ir own specialist field on entitlement to social benefits (AZ. III ZR 466/16).
A man who had been sued had to get a disability pension with his disability. He did not apply for pension due to incomplete advice from social welfare office. Instead, he only applied for significantly lower basic security. Since 2004, it has escaped more than 50,000 euros. The III. Civil Senate of Federal Court of Justice now claims compensation, amount is still unclear. "A comprehensive consultation of insured is basis for functioning of increasingly complicated social performance system", statement of reasons states.
The confusion arose among or things by different responsibilities: plaintiff had applied for basic security in 2004 at district board in Meissen in Saxony. However, pension insurance is responsible for applications for significantly higher disability pension. According to judgement, clerk in District court would have to give him indication that a pension advice would be useful. The plaintiff had worked in a workshop for handicapped, so he was in charge of a social insurance activity. The reasoning that re may have been pension entitlements would have had to be formalised, said his lawyer Joachim Kummer.
However, plaintiff only became aware of pension entitlement in 2011 by a new clerk and n complained of damages. The Dresden Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint. For clerk re was no obligation to provide advice outside ir jurisdiction, it was stated in explanatory memorandum of Dresden judges.
The case finally went to BGH. The latter believes that it is "no longer just answering questions or requests for advice" at time of authorities, but " understanding of support of insured person". Specific questions have already been asked about expertise that insured person often does not have. The BGH judges rejected argument that a more comprehensive consultation would have required special knowledge in pension insurance law. At very least, one would have to indicate that a disability pension should be considered.
A full disability pension is given to people who can no longer or hardly work at all because of health restrictions. Normally, applicants must have been insured for at least five years. The plaintiff worked only two years, but he would have benefited from a special scheme: se five years do not apply to people who can no longer work in first six years after ir training and who neverless have paid contributions for at least one year Have.Updated Date: 03 August 2018, 12:00