Supplementary pension for the public service

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The supplementary pension of the public service (ZÖD) belongs to the old age pension systems and represents a supplementary pension measure for the employees of the public service . The largest carrier of the ZÖD is the pension institution of the federation and the states (VBL). In addition, there are 24 additional pension funds for the municipal and church service, which are operated under the umbrella of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kommunale und Kirche Altersversorgung (AKA) e. V. are summarized.

The ZÖD from 1967 to 2001 - The time of total supply

Due to the overlap of the fields of activity of employees and civil servants in the public service, there have been efforts since the beginning of the 20th century to largely align the old-age security of the two types of employment in addition to wages. A special circumstance was that the public sector employees are usually already compulsorily insured in the statutory pension insurance. With the aim of providing collective bargaining employees with a pension that was as civil service-level as possible, the task of the ZÖD was to increase the statutory pensions of the insured in such a way that the total was a pension that was comparable to the corresponding civil service pensions.

For this reason, the so-called comprehensive pension system was introduced in the ZÖD in 1967 by means of a collective agreement. In this case, the collective bargaining employees were no longer promised a specific amount of the additional pension, but an overall pension, which was essentially based on the provisions of the civil servant pension (pension from the last office, pro-rata pension). However, only the difference between the promised total pension and the statutory pension insurance that the insured person received was paid out as a supplementary pension. Due to the various adjustment modalities of civil servant pensions and statutory pensions as well as the different tax and social security regulations for civil servants and collective bargaining employees, the goal of providing the collective bargaining employees as civil servants as possible could only be achieved to an unsatisfactory degree. In particular, there have been drastic cases of oversupply until then, in which the collective bargaining employees sometimes received retirement income that exceeded their last net earnings after retirement. It was only with the introduction of the so-called peak crediting of current statutory pensions in 1981 and the conversion to the so-called total net pension in 1983 that the ZÖD's level of benefits could be brought into line with that of civil servants (albeit with lengthy transitional provisions to safeguard vested interests). The result, however, was a right to benefit from the supplementary pension that was, on the one hand, highly complex and opaque, and on the other hand, was subject to various dependencies on tax, social security and pension law.

Even if the right to benefits for the total pension was based on the civil service pension, an adjustment of the financing side was never up for discussion. With the introduction of the full pension in 1967, the financing of the supplementary pension was modified and switched to a pay-as-you-go system . For the greater part of the total pension, the supplementary pension at the VBL and the municipal supplementary pension funds was financed through employer contributions. However, under tax law, these were considered part of the wages and were therefore subject to tax and social security contributions for the employee. The overall pension system was thus financed by components of the wages of the employees, which clearly distinguishes the ZÖD from the civil service pension, where no contributions or levies are charged.

The system change in the ZÖD in 2002

The need to move away from the overall pension system was favored by structural, financial and legal factors.

The structural deficits lay in the various dependencies of the overall pension system on reference systems outside the decision-making authority of the social partners. This forced constant adjustments. Changes in the statutory pension insurance, in tax law, in social security contributions and in the civil service pension always required adjustments to the supplementary pension. This led to additional financial burdens. In addition, reforms of the statutory pension insurance were foreseeable, which in turn would require high additional costs for the additional pension of the public service.

At the level of financing, high deficits in the pay-as-you-go financing in the segment cover procedure were foreseeable due to the development of the insured population. With the downsizing in the public sector, the number of insured persons decreased. However, the number of people retiring rose due to the wave of recruitment in the 1960s and 1970s. Anyway, rising costs due to the increase in the number of pensions contrasted with the decreasing contribution base. This increased the contribution rate by leaps and bounds. At the VBL, for example, the contribution rate rose from 4.8% in 1998 to 7.86% plus 2% restructuring funds in 2003.

In addition, the highest court rulings forced a system change of the supplementary pension. The complicated benefit law sometimes brought with it judgments and resolutions that led to new additional costs for supplementary pension funds. These included the ruling on insured pensions for those who left early or the ruling on the supplementary pension for part-time employees. Since the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court on the offsetting of previous working hours fundamentally called into question the overall pension system, the overall pension system with the "Pension Plan 2001" contract was replaced by a company pension model based on the private sector based on pension points. Existing pensions and entitlements were transferred to the pension point model. The new supply point model made many insured persons financially worse than before in the overall supply system. The regulations for the transfer of entitlements were implemented in 2018 after many years of legal disputes.

The ZÖD from 2002 ("company pension")

As of January 1, 2002, the ZÖD was converted into a supply point model. The legal basis for this is the collective agreement on additional old-age provision for public sector employees of March 1, 2002 (ATV for federal / state or ATV-K old-age provision TV municipal).

Decisive for the amount of the company pension are the amount of the annual remuneration subject to supplementary pension provision and the age of the insured in the year in which the remuneration is received. The remuneration subject to supplementary pension provision corresponds roughly to the taxable gross wage, but differs from this because some remuneration components are not subject to supplementary pension provision and, on the other hand, an additional amount increases the taxable gross wage. This additional amount results from the fact that the contributions to the supplementary pension, which are paid by the employer, must be partly taxed by the employee - and also paid into the social security system.

The pension points for a calendar year are determined by dividing the insured's gross annual remuneration that is subject to supplementary pension provision by 12 and then dividing it by a so-called reference remuneration of 1,000 euros. The amount of the reference fee is specified in the ATV or ATV-K. The result of this division is multiplied by the age factor. The age factor depends on the age of the insured. It results from a table.

Social components are also taken into account: if there is a reduced earning capacity or a survivor's pension (additional periods) or for periods of parental leave and maternity leave, supply points are credited without any payments from the employer.

The monthly company pension results from the multiplication of all care points reached by the measurement amount of 4 euros. The amount of the measurement is also specified in the ATV or ATV-K. If the company pension is claimed early, it is reduced by 0.3% for each month of early claim. The discount is a maximum of 10.8%.

The transition

Most of the current employees of the public sector belong to the so-called transition group. You will receive a so-called "start credit", in which the entitlement to a pension that was previously achieved in the old overall pension system is converted into pension points. A distinction is made between the start credit for age groups close to and distant from retirement.

Those with compulsory insurance who were compulsorily insured on December 31, 2001 and January 1, 2002 and who had already reached the age of 55 on January 1, 2002 - that is, were born on January 1, 1947 at the latest, receive a starting credit for "cohorts close to retirement". Insured persons who have already agreed to part-time or early retirement before November 14, 2001 belong to the group of people who are close to retirement age. The starting credit is calculated by extrapolating the pension entitlement under the old overall pension system up to the age of 63. Because the insured person builds up supply points in the new supply point model from January 1, 2002 and the extrapolated pension also includes entitlements beyond January 1, 2002, the supply points that the insured person received from January 1, 2002 in the new Will reach the supply point model up to the age of 63.

Insured persons who were compulsorily insured on December 31, 2001 and January 1, 2002, but who had not yet reached the age of 55 - that is, those born after January 1, 1947, receive a starting credit for cohorts who are not retired. A so-called "full power" is determined here. This is the pension amount that the insured would receive if he / she had been insured in the supplementary public service pension for 45 years, thus reaching the maximum pension rate. For each year of compulsory insurance up to December 31, 2001, a share of 2.25% of the full benefit is taken into account for the insured person.

Thousands of those affected have appealed against these transitional provisions (ie the “start credits” as pension entitlements as of December 31, 2001). Several hundred people sued the civil courts, until finally the challenged transitional regulations from the highest civil court of the Federal Republic, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe, on November 14, 2007 in a pilot case BGH judgment of November 14, 2007 (Az. IV ZR 74 / 06) due to a violation of the principle of equality according to Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, at least for those cohorts who are not retired, and thus declared non-binding. Constitutional complaints were filed against comparable BGH judgments (Az. 1 BvR 1373/08 and 1 BvR 1433/08). However, constitutional complaints about these two procedures were not accepted with a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of March 29, 2010 (published on April 15, 2010), including a reference to collective bargaining autonomy. A constitutional complaint directed against the general system change was rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court as inadmissible with its decision of April 26, 2015 1BvR 1420/13. The Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the change in system did not result in either the fundamental right to property under Article 14 (1) of the Basic Law or the non-retroactivity anchored in Article 2 (1) in conjunction with Article 20 (3) of the Basic Law, nor the general principle of equality under Art 3 para. 1 GG were violated.

On May 30, 2011, the parties to the collective bargaining agreement (the federal government, the collective bargaining community of the federal states, the association of local employers and the ver.di union - which also act for other unions -) agreed to amendment agreement No. 5 to the ATV (old-age provision collective agreement) or ATV-K (Pensions-TV-Kommunal) agreed. An important point here is the change in the rules for calculating initial credits for those insured who are not retired. Those insured who started their public service relatively late can benefit from this new regulation. For this purpose, the previously determined starting credit is compared with a comparison calculation (in accordance with Section 2 of the Company Pension Act BetrAVG). If the comparison calculation results in a difference of at least 7.5 percentage points higher than the previous starting credit, there is a surcharge on the previous starting credit.

In the meantime, several higher regional courts in the second instance have also declared the comparative calculations (new regulations for insured persons who are not retired) to be non-binding, since, due to the deduction of 7.5 percentage points from the non-forfeitability factor, whole groups of insured persons who are not retired are excluded from a surcharge on their original starting credit and the The unequal treatment of insured persons who were not retired and with longer training, identified by the BGH in 2007, has not been eliminated. Because of the possibility of revision, lawsuits from the supplementary pension funds were pending before the BGH.

The IV Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice confirmed and objected to this view in two revision decisions (IV ZR 9/15 and IV ZR 168/15) of March 9, 2016, which in its judgment of November 14, 2007 (BGH IV ZR 74/06 ) The unequal treatment found will not be eliminated by the new regulation of the statutes for a large number of insured persons who are not retired. The Senate, however, rejected the follow-up revision (BGH IV ZR 168/15) of an insured person who is not retired and who has sought an initial credit in accordance with the transitional provisions for insured persons close to retirement. There is a detailed assessment of the BGH's revision decisions. On June 8, 2017, the civil service contracting parties agreed on the key points for a new regulation for calculating the starting credits for those insured who are not retired. So far, every insured person who is not retired has received a fixed share of 2.25 percent of the highest possible full benefit determined for him per year of compulsory insurance in the supplementary pension. According to the new regulation, this previously fixed pension rate will vary depending on the age of the insured person at the start of compulsory insurance and will amount to a maximum of 2.5 percent and a minimum of 2.25 percent per year of compulsory insurance. Only a certain proportion of the compulsory insured persons who are not retired will be able to benefit from this second new regulation, namely only the portion of the insured whose retirement starting credit was determined by the formula amount according to § 18 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 and 2 Betriebsrentengesetz (BetrAVG) (see also the explanatory Study).

The transitional regulations (non-retirement credits) have as a legal basis the § 18 Company Pension Act (BetrAVG) new version with its provision to grant a fixed rate of 2.25% per year of compulsory insurance period. The highest possible supply rate can therefore only be achieved after 100 / 2.25 = 44.44… years. An article from January 2019 describes the consequences of this new section of the Company Pension Act for those who are compulsorily insured in the supplementary public service pension, even after two new regulations on non-retirement credits.

literature

  • F. Fischer / W. Siepe: Additional pension in the public service , dbb Verlag, 1st edition, Berlin, May 2011, 224 pages, ISBN 978-3-87863-171-2 .
  • F. Fischer / W. Siepe: Documentation 80 years of supplementary supply of the VBL - numbers, data, facts from 1970 to 2050 , Sierke Verlag, 1st edition, Göttingen, December 2014, 97 pages, ISBN 978-3-86844-581-7 (paperback) or ISBN 978-3-86844-672-2 (e-book).
  • W. Siepe / F. Fischer: Your way to more company and supplementary pensions , M & E Books Verlag, 1st edition, Cologne, September 2017, 194 pages, ISBN 978-3-947201-17-4 (paperback) or ISBN 978-3-947201-18-1 (hardcover), as well as Kindle edition.
  • B. Langenbrinck / B. Mühlstädt: Company pension for employees in the public sector . 2nd edition Munich 2003, ISBN 3-8073-2071-7 .
  • K. Stürmer, The transferability of pension entitlements in the public service , BetrAV 2004, p. 346ff.
  • Walter Dietsch / Torsten Reinker / Rolf Stirner: "The supplementary pension for the public and church service" - Handbook for HR clerks, 2nd revised edition, Heidelberg 2009, ISBN 978-3-8073-0097-9 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ [1] BVerfG judgment of July 15, 1998
  2. ^ [2] BGH judgment of September 30, 1998
  3. ↑ [3] BVerfG decision of March 22, 2000
  4. ↑ From the point of view of the complainant see: http://www.startgutschriften-arge.de/
  5. ↑ Pension Institution of the Federal and State: "VBLklassik. Recalculation of the starting credits for non-pensioners. ” August 9, 2018, accessed on August 9, 2018 .
  6. ↑ Info-Service public service / civil servants: Supplementary pension in the public service , accessed on August 14, 2010
  7. ↑ Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court of December 18, 2014 Az. 12 U 104/14 and Munich Higher Regional Court of May 22, 2015 Az. 25 U 3827/14
  8. ↑ Fischer / Siepe: Assessments of the pilot rulings of the 4th Civil Senate of the BGH from March 9, 2016 (PDF; 1.3 MB)
  9. ↑ Fischer: Study "Facts, data, evaluations on the reorganization of the ZÖD 2017" (PDF; 1.9 MB)
  10. ↑ FischerWagner: Start-up credits in the focus of the Company Pension Act (PDF; 0.18 MB)