Bundestag diet and full pension?
Left MP Ernst has to accept a pension cut
October 18, 2023, 8:20 p.m
Listen to article
This audio version was artificially generated. More info | Send feedback
Klaus Ernst has been a member of the Bundestag for almost two decades. Because of his ongoing salary as a member of parliament, he has to forego part of his pension. The 68-year-old saw this as an injustice and complained. Germany’s highest social judges have now made their verdict.
The left-wing Bundestag member Klaus Ernst has failed as a member of parliament with a lawsuit for full pension benefits in addition to the diet. The Federal Social Court declared the halving of the retirement pension for sitting members of the Bundestag due to ongoing members’ compensation to be constitutional (B 5 R 49/21 R). The long-time union official and former Left Party boss took action against a corresponding decision from the German pension insurance.
According to the Bundestag, MPs’ compensation is currently 10,591.70 euros per month, on which income tax must be paid. In addition, there is a tax-free allowance of currently 4,725.48 euros per month, which covers all expenses incurred in carrying out the mandate. Klaus has been a member of the Bundestag since 2005. Ernst began training as an electrical mechanic in 1970 and then worked in this profession and later as a union secretary. The now 68-year-old is therefore entitled to a statutory pension.
After he had already lost in the first instance before the Würzburg Social Court, the 68-year-old turned directly to the Federal Social Court with a so-called jump appeal. Ernst sees the so-called rest regulation in the MPs Act as a violation of the property guarantee enshrined in the Basic Law as well as a violation of the principle of equal treatment and the protected freedom of MPs.
The 5th Senate of the BSG followed the view of the Würzburg Social Court. There is no evidence that the rest provision in the Members of Parliament Act is unconstitutional. The regulation represents a permissible content and limit determination. “According to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, the MP’s compensation is a benefit of a maintenance nature, which excludes all other benefits from public funds unless they represent compensation for the expenses associated with the mandate.” , she elaborated.
The Federal Constitutional Court sees not only alimony benefits from an employment relationship with a public institution as resources from public funds, but also pensions from the statutory pension fund. This is not contradicted by the fact that the pension is based to a large extent on one’s own contributions. The presiding judge explained that the rest provision is intended to prevent several benefits from public funds with a maintenance function being paid in full at the same time. Resting at 50 percent does not violate the prohibition of excess. The plaintiff still had a substantial portion of his pension remaining and the significantly higher MP compensation was not reduced.