Pension adjustment

This article was entered in the editorial right for improvement due to formal or factual deficiencies in quality assurance . This is done in order to bring the quality of articles from the subject area law to an acceptable level. Help to eliminate the shortcomings in this article and take part in the discussion ! ( + )

The transfer of entitlements and entitlements from supplementary and special pension systems in the GDR includes the way in which the rights established in the GDR were incorporated into the statutory provisions on old-age provision in the Federal Republic of Germany .

The legal position for pension claims for former GDR citizens is determined by two groups of legal regulations.

• The first group consists of general statutory regulations that apply to Germany as a whole, including the type of pension (e.g. regular old-age pension ), personal earnings points, the type of pension factor, the current pension value, contribution periods, non-contributory and reduced-contribution periods (including training periods) and the access factor.

• A second additional and special group of regulations on old-age provision only affects former GDR citizens. Among other things, it concerns the type of supplementary or special pension, the employment exercised in the GDR, the start of retirement (existing pensioners on December 31, 1991, entry pensioners - start from January 1, 1992 to June 30, 1995, new pensioners) the date when transfer and pension notices become final.

Basic features of old-age provision in the GDR

In the GDR there was a pension system with three areas:

1. Social insurance as statutory pension insurance with insurance protection against the risks of old age , disability and death

In 1971, in addition to social security, the voluntary supplementary pension insurance was created, which the insured could join if they earned a gross salary of more than 600 marks. Around 85% of those entitled took advantage of this option. With the voluntary additional old-age insurance, those insured under social compulsory insurance were given the opportunity to insure income above the income threshold. A total supply of up to 90% of the cheapest net income was achievable.

2. Supplementary pension schemes

Supplementary pension systems have been set up for members of the intelligentsia (including scientists and university teachers , doctors , engineers , teachers and artists ) as well as for employees of state bodies , for employees of political parties , social organizations and other employees named in laws and resolutions. The supplementary pension supplemented the pension from the pension insurance. The pension target was 60% of gross earnings up to a maximum of 90% of net earnings in the (5 or 10) cheapest years. Four million employees are said to have belonged to these systems .

3. Special supply systems

These existed for members of the National People's Army , the German People's Police , the fire brigade and the penal system , the customs administration and the Ministry for State Security / Office for National Security . These systems combined the tasks of basic security and, moreover, of securing the standard of living . At last there were around 120,000 beneficiaries. Care target: approx. 90% of the net income of the best years.

Contractual obligations before the GDR acceded to the Federal Republic of Germany (1990)

Obligations from the State Treaty

In Article 20 of the Treaty on the Creation of a Currency , Economic and Social Union between the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR of May 18, 1990 ( Federal Law Gazette II p. 537 ), the GDR undertook to align its pension law with that of the Federal Republic.

Among other things, it was stipulated: “The existing supplementary and special pension systems will generally be closed on July 1, 1990. Previously acquired entitlements and entitlements are transferred to the pension insurance, whereby benefits are checked on the basis of special regulations with the aim of abolishing unjustified benefits and reducing excessive benefits. "

In the specialist literature (see list of sources: Christoph, p. 47), the provisions of the State Treaty are commented on as follows: “The State Treaty thus contained neither provisions for the liquidation of pension entitlements beyond the SV pension nor for the reduction of insured pensions criminal pension law. "

To implement this stipulation of the State Treaty, the GDR passed the "Law on the Adjustment of Existing Pensions to the Net Pension Level of the Federal Republic of Germany and on Further Pension Law Regulations - Pension Adjustment Act - of June 28, 1990". The Pension Equalization Act contained a payment guarantee for existing pensions and all new pension pensions, whereby the date of receipt was irrelevant. In other words, the protection of trust for access pensioners was not limited in time.

Obligations from the Unification Treaty

The contract between the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR on the establishment of the unity of Germany - Unification Treaty - of August 31, 1990 deals (in Article 30, Item 5) with old-age pensions.

The following definitions are significant:

• First: "The details of the transition to Book Six of the Social Security Code (pension insurance) ... will be regulated in a federal law."

• Second: For those entering pensioners who retire before June 30, 1995, protection of legitimate expectations is granted and a pension is paid that corresponds to the pension law of the GDR.

• Thirdly: “In addition, the transition should be determined by the objective, with the adjustment of wages and salaries…. to achieve an alignment of pensions. "

From the specialist literature (Christoph. P. 50) reference is made to the following: “He (the unification agreement) decreed ... neither the liquidation without replacement of the legally acquired entitlements / entitlements to pensions from the supplementary or overall pension systems nor from the FZR and also provided does not determine the 'demise' of pension entitlements / entitlements acquired in the GDR that would have had to be 'replaced'. "

The Unification Treaty has confirmed the establishment of the State Treaty to close the supplementary and special pension systems and to transfer acquired rights and expectancies to the statutory pension insurance . They are to be adjusted according to the type, reason and scope of the claims and entitlements according to the general regulations of the social insurance taking into account the respective contribution payments, whereby unjustified benefits are to be abolished and excessive benefits to be reduced. In addition, they must be shortened or withdrawn if the person entitled or the person from whom the entitlement is derived has violated the principles of humanity or the rule of law or has seriously abused their position for their own benefit or to the detriment of others. (Appendix 2, Chapter VIII Subject H Section II No. 9 a and b).

• Regarding the payment amount guarantee: For persons who were entitled to benefits on October 3rd, according to the unification agreement for the adjustment ... the payment amount that had to be paid for July 1990 should not be fallen below.

• For protection of legitimate expectations: For persons who were entitled to benefits from October 4 to June 30, 1995, the payment should not fall below the amount that would have been paid for July 1990 if the insured event had occurred on July 1, 1990.

Pension Transition Act

Conception of the transfer in contrast to the Unification Treaty

The law to establish legal unity in statutory pension and accident insurance (Rentenüberleitungsgesetz - RÜG) of July 25, 1991 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1606 ) made provisions for the transition of claims from the GDR into the pension regulations of the old federal states.

A number of the stipulations made differed from the Unification Treaty.

The protected payments from existing pensions have been reduced.

They were limited to DM 2010 for non-system-related pension systems.

For pensioners with entitlements from system-related supplementary pension systems, it was stipulated that in the event of a managerial position or activity as a judge or public prosecutor or in an appointment function or an optional function in the state apparatus, the wages included in the pension amount are limited. A function was classified as managerial if it received a wage or income above 1.4 times the average wage. In this case, only 1 pension point was awarded for each professional year when calculating the pension.

The payment amount from the special pension system for members of the MfS was set at DM 802.

These provisions violated the provisions of the Unification Treaty, which contained a payment guarantee and protection of legitimate expectations.

The Federal Government and the legislature considered this possible because the Unification Treaty should have become a simple federal law, since one of the contracting parties (the GDR) would have perished when it joined the Federal Republic.

Simple federal laws, so the point of view at the time, are open to change by the legislature.

Property in the form of claims to old-age pensions and with the right to protection by the Basic Law was not inherited from the GDR, but was only re-established after 1990 by laws of the Federal Republic.

The outlined conception is justified in 1994. This happened, among other things, in a research report 238 by the Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs, Constitutionality of the regulations of the Law on Entitlement and Entitlement Transfer Act [AAÜG], paper, page 25.

The originators of the entitlement transfer regulations from 1991 were based on their conviction that the higher a member of certain pension systems in the GDR was paid, the lower the value of the work performed was to be assessed, but political motives played a role.

The conception was refuted in 1999 by the Federal Constitutional Court. Until then, however, it formed the basis of the laws that were passed and applied.

The difference in pension law for the two parts of Germany is shown, among other things, in the current pension values

For the period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005:

Old federal states: EUR 26.13

New federal states: EUR 22.97

Ratio east to west = 87.9 percent

Payment guarantee and protection of trust

In order to avoid breaks and to allow gradual adjustment, transitional regulations were created.

The main regulations are:

• Existing pensions: The conversion of the existing pensions took place on the basis of the working years and the individual average income of the last 20 working years as of January 1, 1992.

Differential contributions were made if the previous payment amount was higher than the newly calculated pension (according to the rules of SGB VI). These differences (top-up amounts) should be melted down with increases in pension values.

• Protection of legitimate expectations: For insured persons whose retirement is between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 1996, a comparative pension based on the law of the GDR is paid if this pension is higher than the pension calculated according to SGB VI. In this case too, the replenishment amounts were and will be melted off.

The supplementary pension systems (27 in number) are listed in detail in an appendix (Appendix 1) to the law.

Another annex (2) names the special supply systems (4 systems)

Introduction of an assessment ceiling

For each calendar year, a maximum amount has been set as earnings (according to Section 6 (1) AAÜG). This was done with Annex 3 to the law. The maximum annual earnings mentioned there allows the crediting of 1.8 pension points per year as a maximum.

So if 45 working years have been reached and the income threshold has always been reached (an extremely rare, favorable case), the gross monthly pension in 2005 would amount to EUR 1,860.57.

Reduction in managerial positions

In the case of claims from supplementary pension systems, if managerial functions were exercised, the remuneration that could be taken into account for the pension was reduced so that only 1 pension point could be achieved per year of work. (Example 45 years of work * 1 pension point * 22.97 euros = 1033.65 euros pension in 2005)

Right from the start, the regulations on pension caps were heavily criticized. Those affected sued in courts.

Easing of Pension Cuts (1993)

Mitigation for system-related functions of middle management level (1993)

In January 1993 the Federal Social Court had to decide lawsuits from former GDR citizens who felt they had been disadvantaged by the transfer of claims regulations.

The decisions in favor of the plaintiffs were based on the principle that no reduction in pension entitlements should take place if the remuneration paid corresponds to the benefit.

An amendment to the Pension Transition Act was due. It took the form of the law to supplement the pension transition (Rentenüberleitungs-Zusatzgesetz - Rü-ErgG -) of June 24, 1993.

With this law various reductions in pension entitlements were withdrawn or mitigated.

Previously, in certain “state or system-related” pension systems, individual labor income was only taken into account if it did not exceed 1.4 times the average income (otherwise the reduction to 1 pension point per year), the new regulation provided for a more complicated procedure. If the individual wage was not more than 1.6 times the average, 1.4 times the amount was taken into account. In addition, the reduction to 1 pension point remained.

Furthermore, the payment amounts (according to § 10 of the AAÜG) have been newly regulated. Instead of DM 2010, a limit of DM 2,700 was set. In particular, the members of the pensions of the intelligentsia were better off, provided they were not subject to any special income limit (state-related functions). However, the agreements in the Unification Treaty were still not being adhered to. Such upper limits were not provided.

There were further changes in the regulations on non-recognition of actual earnings when calculating pensions from January 1, 1997.

Restriction of the group of people - 1996

For retirement periods from January 1, 1997, the limitation regulations were reorganized. The group of people affected by cuts in pension calculations has been significantly reduced.

A new criterion has been applied to the new reduction scheme. It was assumed that the salary received in the function of a main department head at salary level E 3 in the central state apparatus also contained income components that were an expression of a politically, socially or income-wise privileged position with special responsibility for strengthening or maintaining the political system of the former GDR.

This redefinition of the group of people suspected of having received politically excessive pay was carried out with the law amending and supplementing the entitlement and expectancy transfer act (AAÜG-Amendment Act - AAÜG-AmendmentG) of November 11, 1996.

With the new regulation, among other things, employees of the state apparatus who earned more than 31,800 marks in 1988 (2650 marks in the month) were downgraded to one pension point, while 1.8 pension points were credited with earnings of 31,799 marks (one mark difference!) .

Even after the new legal regulation, many complaints and petitions were made by those affected. Above all, they opposed the blanket equation of high wages and politically excessive wages.

Judges of social courts also doubted the constitutionality of many regulations on pension transition. They made use of the right and duty of Article 100 of the Basic Law. There it says: “If a court considers a law, the validity of which is important in the decision, to be unconstitutional, the proceedings are to be suspended and, ... if it concerns a violation of this Basic Law, obtain the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court. "

Return to the Unification Treaty and Protection of Property

On April 28, 1999, the Federal Constitutional Court passed 3 judgments on essential points of the transfer of entitlements and entitlements. The file numbers and sources of these judgments on the Internet are listed in the list of sources.

Guidelines of the Federal Constitutional Court

It was particularly significant that guidelines were named against which the legal provisions challenged in the lawsuits must be measured. Most importantly:

• The claims and expectancies acquired in the GDR from supplementary and special pension systems enjoy the protection of property under Article 14, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the Basic Law (GG), insofar as they have been recognized in the Unification Treaty as asset-forming legal positions of the all-German legal system. With the accession and recognition by the Unification Treaty, the pension entitlements and entitlements have come under the protection of the fundamental right of Article 14.1 of the Basic Law. The constitutional protection of property comes to them in the form that they have received on the basis of the provisions of the Unification Treaty.

With this determination, the Federal Constitutional Court has rejected the position previously taken by the Federal Government that the Unification Treaty only has the character of simple federal law and its regulations could be changed by federal laws - also in the form of pension cuts.

The new laws to be enacted had to be based on the wording and meaning of the Unification Treaty. The following years should show that the federal government did not fully comply with the guideline drawn.

Reasons for unconstitutional regulations (to be changed in content)

In the judgments, a number of legal regulations were identified as unconstitutional. The federal government was asked to change the laws and make them constitutional.

An inadmissibly typifying procedure was based on the limitation of the allowable remuneration for “system-related” special and supplementary pension systems as well as in cases of performing “system-related” functions. The legislature had assumed that the wages or earnings of the people covered by the regulation were consistently excessive. However, it was not apparent to the constitutional judges that excessive wages were being paid to the groups covered by the law, or that wages above the limits set by the law must be viewed as excessive. Likewise, there was no justification for why the management functions listed in the law (AAÜG § 6, Paragraph 2) were said to have been paid “excessive” remuneration compared to other, likewise leading positions in the German Democratic Republic.

A provision (Section 307 b (1) SGB VI) was also classified as unconstitutional, according to which, when pensions from supplementary and special pension systems, which were already paid on December 31, 1991, are transferred to the statutory pension insurance for the entire insurance period related actual wages or earnings were used. In contrast to this, for the other existing pensioners (who did not belong to any supplementary or special pension system), the monthly pension amount was determined using a flat-rate procedure. Your pensions are determined on the basis of a 20-year period. For these pensioners, only the last 20 years of working life are used as the basis for the pension calculation. Since the highest incomes were regularly drawn towards the end of working life in the GDR (which is then inferred from a certain average income during the entire insurance life), the members of supplementary and special pension systems were disadvantaged.

Justification for void regulations (repealed)

The regulations that were declared null and void included in particular those that were enacted although they contradicted the Unification Treaty. That concerned

• The regulation for the provisional payment limit with the limitation of the pension payment to 2,700 DM (§ 10 Abs. 1 Satz 2 AAÜG). This limitation represented an encroachment on the property position protected by Article 14.1 sentence 1 GG.

• The regulation according to which only 70% of the average salary of former members of the Ministry of State Security should be included in the pension calculation. Here the legislature has exceeded the limits set for it. The right to property was restricted disproportionately.

• Regulation for pensioners who belonged to the special pension of the Ministry of State Security. Her pension was limited to a maximum of DM 802 - well below the average for all pensioners.

New regulations following the rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court

The legislature had to make extensive changes to the law. This happened with the 2nd law amending and supplementing the entitlement and expectancy transition law (2nd AAÜG-AmendmentG) of July 27, 2001 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1881 ).

The following was regulated in detail:

• The protection of legitimate expectations for age groups close to retirement is extended to the period up to June 30, 1995.
• The dynamization of the property-protected payment amount, which is required in accordance with the constitution, is carried out in accordance with the interpretation of the Federal Social Court with the adjustment values ​​of the old federal states.
• The payment limit according to § 10 AAÜG is lifted for the "non-system-related" supplementary pension systems; In addition, the payment limit of DM 2 010 per month for special and “system-related” supplementary pension systems remains in place.
• The payment limit for the MfS / AfNS pension system is constitutionally designed.
• The remuneration limit of § 6 AAÜG as amended by the Rü-ErgG is lifted.
• The remuneration limit for the assessment basis for calculating pensions for members of the MfS / AfNS pension system is 70 percent. H. to 100 v. H. of the average wage increased.
• The recalculation of existing pensions (Section 307b SGB VI) is carried out by means of a comparison calculation. In addition to the individual insurance history, a twenty-year period analysis is carried out (based on Section 307a SGB VI). The higher benefit is paid as a (SGB VI) pension.

The Federal Government has emphasized that when implementing the requirements of the courts it was guided by the satisfactory effect of these decisions and that it fundamentally does not want to go beyond the legal requirements in order to avoid renewed ideological discussions. (You can read it on the Internet: Printed matter 14/5640, March 23, 2001)

That is why the Federal Government deliberately only considered those points in the new version of the AAÜG that were expressly designated as unconstitutional or void by the Federal Constitutional Court. The Federal Government has not taken the guidelines of the Constitutional Court as an opportunity to question other parts of the law against which complaints have been made in social courts and to change them on its own initiative.

Renewed judgment on the standard for excessive charges in the GDR (2004)

On June 23, 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court dealt with three further judicial review proceedings. It decided that certain, at that time still existing limitations of the allowable wages and earnings of persons with additional and special provision in the GDR in the statutory pension insurance are unconstitutional. They violate the protection of property (source: BVerfG, 1 BvL 3/98 of June 23, 2004 - to be downloaded from the Internet).

The restrictions classified as unconstitutional meant that for the calculation of pensions, the income from which a wage limitation takes place is determined by the GDR salary level E 3 (from 1985: salary level 12) including allowance for expenses. From this limit, the pension calculation is based on the average annual income of employees in the GDR as remuneration (Section 6 (2) and Section 6 (3) number 8 of the AAÜG in conjunction with the appendices mentioned there).

Requirements for evidence of excessive charges in the case of high charges

In the reasoning for the judgment, the court found that the regulations to be examined are not based on any concrete information on whether and, if so, in which areas excessive remuneration was paid in the GDR. High earnings are not necessarily excessive earnings.

The inadmissible equality of “high income” and “excessive income” determined the concept of the regulations to be examined.

The reduction mechanism chosen by the legislature is not constitutionally permissible. Since the regulation of the limitation cuts all recorded wages “like a hatchback” to the average income, the principles that are relevant for regulations of this kind with regard to Article 3 (1) of the Basic Law are ignored.

The legislature cannot rely on the fact that the victims of the SED regime often only received a very low pension on the basis of the law on vocational rehabilitation to justify the regulations it has made. This connection is not sustainable to justify the established unequal treatment of other pensioners.

Further legislative changes on the group of people with pension reductions

The Federal Constitutional Court had declared it (by decision of June 23, 2004 - 1 BvL 3/98) to be inconsistent with the principle of equality under Article 3 of the Basic Law that a wage limit applies to the pension calculation if the earnings are higher than the GDR salary level E. 3 (from 1985: pay grade 12). In the dispute, this issue was polemically referred to as a penal pension , especially since it also affected GDR citizens who were politically unaffected.

Therefore another change in the law had to be made. This happened with the first law amending the entitlement and expectancy transfer law of June 21, 2005 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1672 ).

The regulations on the limitation of the wages that can be taken into account when calculating pensions have been revised.

A new criterion has been set in place of the general wage limit previously applicable for periods of membership in a “system-related” special and supplementary pension system when a certain level of earnings is reached.

The limitation is limited to those times in which such functions were exercised in the party apparatus of the SED, in the government or in the state apparatus, which also included authority to issue instructions to the Ministry for State Security (MfS) and the Office for National Security (AfNS). Furthermore, times in functions at the highest levels of the so-called cadre nomenclature system of the GDR were included. It was assumed that those concerned - like the MfS / AfNS employees - were part of an overall concept of self-privilege within the state in terms of income and benefits. (See Bundestag printed paper 15/5488, May 11, 2005, available on the Internet).

The functions for which, according to the amended law, a salary limit is still applicable when calculating pensions when a certain level of earnings is reached (reduction to 1 pension point per working year) are specified in the law (published on the Internet). The group of people affected by the severe restrictions will continue to receive a monthly pension of a maximum of around EUR 1100 to EUR 1300.

The other pensioners from supplementary pension schemes receive a monthly pension of around 1500 euros, as their earnings are only taken into account up to 1.8 times the average earnings in the GDR (because of the contribution assessment ceiling).

During the vote in the Bundestag, the revised AAÜG encountered doubts as to its constitutionality. Two members of the SPD gave an explanation of vote on the draft of the aforementioned law (see Appendix 7, German Bundestag, Stenographic Report 175th Session, Berlin, Thursday, May 12, 2005 - available on the Internet).

I.a. In this declaration it is stated that the law that is to be voted on is inconsistent, as wage limits are to continue to apply for certain groups of people. This continued validity is not supported by the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court. The reduction mechanism contradicts the principle of equality. It is doubtful whether the assertion that the persons concerned are to be regarded as members of an overall concept of self-privilege on the pension side is supported by the findings in the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of June 23, 2004 (1 BvL 3/98).

Supreme court confirmation of pension cuts for Stasi employees

When the entitlements and entitlements were transferred from the GDR to the pension system of the Federal Republic of Germany, pension cuts for employees of the Ministry of State Security were incorporated into the law from the start. Some of the cuts had to be reversed. This took place on the basis of a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG, 1 BvL 11/94 of April 28, 1999). It was decided:

• The limitation of eligible wages or wages to 70 percent of the respective average wage in the accession area for members of the special provision system of the Ministry for State Security / Office for National Security is not compatible with Article 3, Paragraph 1 and Article 14 of the Basic Law and is void, insofar as for the pension calculation is based on the underlying wage or income is reduced below the respective average wage in the accession area.
• The provision of Section 10, Paragraph 2, Clause 1, No. 1 AAÜG on the limitation of payments to the special pension system of the Ministry for State Security / Office for National Security to DM 802 per month for insured pensions violates Article 14 of the Basic Law and is void.

The judgments have now been incorporated into the law. A new constitutional complaint was brought against this. It was directed against the limitation of the allowable wages and wages of members of the Ministry for State Security / Office for National Security (MfS / AfNS) of the GDR to the respective average income in the accession area.

The constitutional complaint was not accepted for decision. (BVerfG, 1 BvR 1070/02 of June 22, 2004).

The Federal Constitutional Court decided

• that the consideration of the wages of members of the special pension system of the MfS / AfNS is constitutionally permissible only up to the amount of the respective average wages.

• It also stated that the legislature is not constitutionally obliged to take wages into account in any further way.

What is decisive is the passage from the reasons for the judgment, according to which the legislature could assume for the MfS / AfNS that significantly excessive fees were paid in this area.

With this ruling by the highest court, the pension situation for the former Stasi employees has been decided.

The pension situation of scientists in the GDR

The way in which the pension entitlements were transferred from the GDR to the pension law of the Federal Republic of Germany brought particularly high disadvantages for academics from the GDR. This applies primarily to those who did not retire until June 30, 1995. Up to this point in time, there was a payment guarantee for existing pensioners and protection of confidence for those entering retirees after 1990.

In the case of new retirees, the limit on the creditable earnings is effective through the assessment ceiling that was introduced in the transfer laws. There was no such limit in the pension provision for the intelligentsia in the GDR. Relatives were guaranteed a pension of 60% of gross earnings up to a maximum of 90% of net earnings for the (5 or 10) cheapest years. This regulation was not incorporated into the new legislation after 1990.

The case of a professor who retired in 1998 is an example of the disadvantages that occurred. He receives a net pension of 1,554 euros. Before that, his benefit payments were 4850 euros. This scientist was evaluated in 1990, continued to work and appointed professor of new law.

The pension situation of the scientists from the GDR is in contradiction to a fundamental characteristic of pension insurance, according to which the relative position within the respective pensioner generation must be maintained after the insured event occurs. This is formulated by the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG, 1 BvL 32/95 of April 28, 1999, paragraph 149).

In specialist publications, some of the opinion is expressed about the disadvantages for academics in the GDR that this was intentional. In one elaboration, referring to the entitlement and expectancy transfer law (AAÜG), the following was to be read: “This also made a decision about the retirement pensions of the lecturers, professors and academics of the former GDR: From the first state treaty and the unification treaty it follows that the relatives of this Professional groups should not reach the level of care provided by their civil servants in the old federal states. This agreement can in no way be traced back to a misunderstanding, an unwanted loophole or something similar ”. (Scientific services of the German Bundestag, Reg.-No .: WF VI - 91/02, 4/03 “The pension situation of scientists from the former GDR”).

Criticism of the pension transition final act

On June 1, 2017, the German Bundestag passed the final pension transition law. This provides for the adjustment of the eastern pensions to the western level from July 2018. The legal basis of the law is the Unification Treaty of August 31, 1990. This final step is also necessary from a socio-political perspective.

The criticism of this law concerns the financing of the measure and the resulting injustice. The principle of equivalence on which the German pension system is based is fundamentally violated, as the majority of the financing is passed on to the contributors. Of the total calculated total costs of 19.6 billion euros up to 2025, only two billion will be financed through tax revenues. Specifically, this means that high earners, freelancers, entrepreneurs and civil servants will not be affected by the costs, even though it is a decision for society as a whole.

This not only contradicts the common notions of justice, but according to Ernst Niemeier also represents a violation of the principle of equal treatment according to Art. 3 GG . He also sees a violation of property rights according to Art. 14 GG , since pension contributions develop a property-like claim. A similar approach was taken with the maternal pension , which was also a decision and necessity affecting society as a whole. A partial dismantling of the welfare state is therefore already in sight.

See also

• GDR contaminated sites (pension)

Sources and further reading

• Karl-Heinz Christoph: The pension transition law and the establishment of the unity of Germany , Dr. Wilke GmbH Verlag & Vertrieb, 1st edition Berlin 1999, ISBN 3-929642-24-7
• Henner Wolter: Supplementary supply systems of intelligence. Constitutional problems of pension transfer in the new federal states, Baden - Baden 1992
• Detlef Merten: Constitutional problems with the transfer of care. On the extension of West German pension insurance law to the new federal states, 2nd edition, Berlin 1994, ISBN 3-428-08106-4 )
• Kai-Alexander Heine: The transition of supply, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-428-10996-1

Treaty on the creation of a currency, economic and social union between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic of May 18, 1990 ( Federal Law Gazette II p. 537 )

• The Unification Treaty, Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR on the establishment of the unification of Germany, the complete text with all implementation provisions and explanations, Goldmann, 10/90, 1st edition, ISBN 3-442-12337-2
• Law to establish legal unity in statutory pension and accident insurance (Pension Transition Act - RÜG) of July 25, 1991 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1606 )
• Research report 238 of the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, Constitutionality of the regulations of the Entitlement and Expectancy Transfer Act [AAÜG], paper
• Law to supplement the pension transition (Pension transition supplement law - Rü-ErgG -) of June 24, 1993
• German Bundestag: Printed matter 13/4587 of May 9, 1996, draft law of the federal government, draft of a law to amend and supplement the entitlement and expectancy transfer law (AAÜG-Amendment Act - AAÜG-AmendmentG)
• Law to amend and supplement the entitlement and expectancy transfer law (AAÜG-Amendment Act - AAÜG-AmendmentG) of November 11, 1996
• Judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court :
  • BVerfG, 1 BvL 11/94 of April 28, 1999, paragraph no. (1 - 205)
  • BVerfG, 1 BvL 22/95 of April 28, 1999, paragraph no. (1 - 129)
  • BVerfG1 BvL 32/95 of April 28, 1999, paragraph no. (1 - 201)
  • BVerfG, 1 BvL 3/98 of June 23, 2004
  • BVerfG, 1 BvR 1070/02 of June 22, 2004, paragraph no. (1 - 16)
• M. Mutz: The rise and fall of a concept. - The additional pension systems of the GDR and their transfer . German salaried employee insurance 1999, no. 11, p. 509 ff.
• 2. Law amending and supplementing the law on transferring entitlements and entitlements (2nd AAÜG-AmendmentG) of July 27, 2001 ( Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1881 )
• Hans-Joachim Hacker and Götz-Peter Lohmann (both SPD), explanation of vote, Annex 7, German Bundestag, stenographic report, 175th meeting, Berlin, Thursday, May 12, 2005.
• First law amending the entitlement and expectancy transfer law of June 21, 2005 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1672 )
• Law on the transfer of entitlements and entitlements from special and supplementary pension schemes in the acceding area (entitlement and entitlement transfer act - AAÜG) (826-30-2) of July 25, 1991 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1606, 1677 ), last amended by Article 1 of the law of June 21, 2005 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1672 )
• Scientific Services of the German Bundestag, Reg.-No .: WF VI - 91/02, draft 4/03 on the topic: "The pension situation of scientists from the former GDR"
• Irmgard Wendel: The pension situation of scientists from the former GDR . vhw Berlin, January - March 2005, p. 34 ff.

Web links

• Solos for Margot , Der Spiegel , April 14, 2003

Individual evidence

1. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/12584
2. ↑ German Bundestag: Draft of a law on the conclusion of the pension transition (Pension transition final act). BT-Drs. 18/11923 , April 12, 2017
3. ↑ Ernst Niemeier: Contribution financing of the eastern pension adjustment violates principles of justice, in: Wirtschaftsdienst 97th volume, issue 8, August 2017 https://archiv.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/jahr/2017/8/beitragsfinanzierung-der-ostrentenangleichung-verstoesst- gegen-erechtigkeitsprinzipien /