Ist die Anrechnung von Altersrenten gemäß § 29 AbgG auf die Entschädigung von Abgeordneten verfassungskonform?

Stefanie Schmahl

doi:10.5771/0340-1758-2017-1-186

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- I–IV Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis I–IV
- 1–2 EDITORIAL Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer 1–2
- 3–162 DOKUMENTATION UND ANALYSEN 3–162
  - 3–24 „Parlamentsfähig“? – Die Abgeordneten der AfD in den Landtagen und Bürgerschaften Peter Rütters Peter Rütters 3–24
  - 25–39 Die mecklenburg-vorpommersche Landtagswahl vom 4. September 2016: Zäsur des regionalen Parteienwettbewerbs und Fortsetzung der Großen Koalition Martin Koschkar, Christian Nestler Martin Koschkar, Christian Nestler 25–39
  - 40–56 Die Berliner Abgeordnetenhauswahl vom 18. September 2016: Zersplitterung des Parteiensystems und halber Machtwechsel Oskar Niedermayer Oskar Niedermayer 40–56
  - 57–75 Die AfD: Eine Partei der sich ausgeliefert fühlenden Durchschnitts- verdiener? Knut Bergmann, Matthias Diermeier, Judith Niehues Knut Bergmann, Matthias Diermeier, Judith Niehues 57–75
  - 76–101 Vom euroskeptischen Herausforderer zur rechtsextremen Gefahr? Eine Untersuchung der regionalen Berichterstattung über die AfD in neun deutschen Landtagswahlkämpfen Julian Schärdel Julian Schärdel 76–101
  - 102–123 Politische Positionen der AfD auf Landesebene: Eine Analyse auf Basis von Wahl-O-Mat-Daten Eric Linhart Eric Linhart 102–123
  - 123–140 Die Programmatik der AfD: Inwiefern hat sie sich von einer primär euroskeptischen zu einer rechtspopulistischen Partei entwickelt? Joel Rosenfelder Joel Rosenfelder 123–140
  - 141–156 Das Einstimmen-Mischwahlsystem bei baden-württembergischen Landtagswahlen: Wie fehlende Listen zur ungleichen deskriptiven Repräsentation von Stadt und Land in den Fraktionen beitragen Thomas Däubler Thomas Däubler 141–156
  - 157–162 Zum Recht einer Fraktion auf eine Anhörung im Ausschuss. Urteil des Verfassungsgerichtshofs Sachsen vom 27. Oktober 2016 Florian Edinger Florian Edinger 157–162
- 163–210 AUFSÄTZE 163–210
  - 163–185 Die Rückforderung zweckwidrig verwendeter Fraktionsmittel im System des Parlamentsrechts Christian Neumeier, Christian Waldhoff Christian Neumeier, Christian Waldhoff 163–185
  - 186–210 Ist die Anrechnung von Altersrenten gemäß § 29 AbgG auf die Entschädigung von Abgeordneten verfassungskonform? Stefanie Schmahl Stefanie Schmahl 186–210
- 211–215 DISKUSSION 211–215
  - Der diskrete Charme einer Minderheitsregierung Karlheinz Niclauß Karlheinz Niclauß
- 216–235 REZENSIONEN 216–235
- 236–240 MITTEILUNGEN 236–240
- 241–246 ABSTRACTS 241–246
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
No access

ZParl Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen , page 186 - 210

Ist die Anrechnung von Altersrenten gemäß § 29 AbgG auf die Entschädigung von Abgeordneten verfassungskonform?

Autoren

Stefanie Schmahl

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/0340-1758-2017-1-186
- ISSN: 0340-1758
- ISSN online: 0340-1758
Zusammenfassung

Article 29 of the Deputy Act contains various provisions for the accounting of several remunerations from public funds, both with regard to the compensation of active members of the Bundestag and with regard to the pension entitlements of former members of the Bundestag. Of these two categories of deduction, retirement pensions by statutory pension insurance are also covered. Pursuant to Article 29(2), sentence 2 of the Deputy Act, 50 percent of the retirement pensions from the statutory pension insurance are credited against the deputies’ compensation of an active member of the Bundestag, i.e. this percentage of the retirement pensions is reduced. Similarly, Article 29 (4), sentences 1 and 3 of the Deputy Act provides that retirement pensions from the statutory pension insurance scheme are credited against the pension entitlements of former members of the Bundestag by 50 percent of the amount by which they and the pensions pursuant to Article 19 of the Deputy Act exceed the deputy’s compensation according to Article 11(1) of the Deputy Act. The abovementioned reductions are made, although the contributions to the statutory pension insurance come from the member’s own employment relationship. The present contribution shows that the crediting provided for by Article 29(2), sentence 2 of the Deputy Act is constitutionally questionable in so far as it disproportionately limits the property rights of the insured person under Article 14(1) of the Basic Law. There is also a breach of the general principle of equal treatment under Article 3(1) of the Basic Law. The provision of Article 29(4), sentences 1 and 3 of the Deputy Act does not infringe basic rights, but violates the formalized equality principle for deputies enshrined in Article 38(1), sentence 2, in conjunction with Article 48(3), sentence 1 of the Basic Law. Against this background, the contribution pleads for a reform of Article 29 of the Deputy Act.

Abstract

Article 29 of the Deputy Act contains various provisions for the accounting of several remunerations from public funds, both with regard to the compensation of active members of the Bundestag and with regard to the pension entitlements of former members of the Bundestag. Of these two categories of deduction, retirement pensions by statutory pension insurance are also covered. Pursuant to Article 29(2), sentence 2 of the Deputy Act, 50 percent of the retirement pensions from the statutory pension insurance are credited against the deputies’ compensation of an active member of the Bundestag, i.e. this percentage of the retirement pensions is reduced. Similarly, Article 29 (4), sentences 1 and 3 of the Deputy Act provides that retirement pensions from the statutory pension insurance scheme are credited against the pension entitlements of former members of the Bundestag by 50 percent of the amount by which they and the pensions pursuant to Article 19 of the Deputy Act exceed the deputy’s compensation according to Article 11(1) of the Deputy Act. The abovementioned reductions are made, although the contributions to the statutory pension insurance come from the member’s own employment relationship. The present contribution shows that the crediting provided for by Article 29(2), sentence 2 of the Deputy Act is constitutionally questionable in so far as it disproportionately limits the property rights of the insured person under Article 14(1) of the Basic Law. There is also a breach of the general principle of equal treatment under Article 3(1) of the Basic Law. The provision of Article 29(4), sentences 1 and 3 of the Deputy Act does not infringe basic rights, but violates the formalized equality principle for deputies enshrined in Article 38(1), sentence 2, in conjunction with Article 48(3), sentence 1 of the Basic Law. Against this background, the contribution pleads for a reform of Article 29 of the Deputy Act.
Share