{"id":18495,"date":"2007-06-26T15:48:31","date_gmt":"2007-06-26T13:48:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fiala.de\/objections-of-the-insurance-industry-ruling-of-the-lag-munich-gezillmerte-tarife-bei-entgeltumwandlung\/"},"modified":"2007-06-26T15:48:31","modified_gmt":"2007-06-26T13:48:31","slug":"objections-of-the-insurance-industry-ruling-of-the-lag-munich-gezillmerte-tarife-bei-entgeltumwandlung","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/objections-of-the-insurance-industry-ruling-of-the-lag-munich-gezillmerte-tarife-bei-entgeltumwandlung\/","title":{"rendered":"Objections of the insurance industry – ruling of the LAG Munich (Gezillmerte Tarife bei Entgeltumwandlung)"},"content":{"rendered":"

In its ruling of 15.03.2007, the Regional Labor Court (LAG) decided that
\nMunich, that zillmerized tariffs within the scope of employee-financed
\ncompany pension scheme is inadmissible and the corresponding
\ndeferred compensation agreements are invalid. The LAG reasoned
\nits decision, on the one hand, with the company pension law (BetrAVG)
\nof equal value (section 1(2) no. 3 of the BetrAVG). The
\nZillmerung in the case of deferred compensation also constitutes a breach of the
\nprohibition of unreasonable disadvantage (\u00a7 307 BGB<\/a>) as well as the
\nThe basic idea of portability (Section 4 of the German Occupational Pensions Act (BetrAVG)). Zillmerized tariffs at the
\nMoreover, the employee-financed occupational pension schemes do not comply with the
\nPrinciples of the more recent case law of the BGH and the BVerfG, according to which
\nthe acquisition costs are proportionate and the objective of a
\nshould not be allowed to frustrate the accumulation of assets.
\nThe insurance industry objects that with zillmerised tariffs
\nhigher maturity benefits are achieved and, with sufficient clarification of the
\nthe employee is a private, autonomous, voluntary (individual) agreement, according to which
\nthat also \u00a7\u00a7 307 ff. BGB<\/a> would not apply. Moreover, the BGH should have ruled in
\nthe decision relied on by the LAG, it was held that the
\nZillmer procedure in principle no unreasonable disadvantage in the
\nwithin the meaning of Section 307 of the German Civil Code. It should also be borne in mind that the
\nlegislator in the context of the pending amendment of the VVG itself of
\nthe admissibility of offsetting acquisition costs.
\nThis appeal against the decision of the Landesarbeitsgericht M\u00fcnchen
\nHowever, the arguments put forward are not convincing. The legal requirement of
\nEquality of value cannot be justified on the grounds of an allegedly higher
\nThe payment on maturity of zillmerised contracts can be circumvented, especially as this would result in
\nthe portability and thus flexibility required by the German Company Pensions Act (Betriebsrentengesetz)
\nfor the employees, who on average only work for just under five years for a
\nemployers would not be achieved.
\nFurthermore, even an explicit reference to zillmerisation does not lead to this,
\nthat a general business condition becomes an individual agreement.
\nLegal regulations cannot be waived by private autonomy –
\nif, in view of the lack of transparency of the products, there is any
\nbasis for voluntary private autonomous decision is given. The
\nThe principle of equality of value is one of the special features of labour law.
\nwhich, pursuant to \u00a7 310 para. 4 sentence 2 BGB in determining the effectiveness
\nof a general terms and conditions clause must be observed. This is what the GDV is allowing to happen in its
\nOpinion on the decision disregarded.
\nThe cases decided by the BGH concerned
\nLife insurance contracts without reference to (employee-financed) occupational pension schemes.
\nThe BGH ruled that policyholders with premature
\na certain minimum repurchase value (just under half of the
\nof the contributions paid in) must be due if the
\nThe company was of the opinion that the clause on the settlement of acquisition costs was non-transparent and therefore ineffective.
\nIndeed, the BGH recognized that an insured person in the collective could be given less
\nmust pay if one awards more to another, because altogether not
\nmore money is available – so a compromise had to be found.
\nYou don’t need that kind of compromise in employment law.
\nAccording to the BGH, the acquisition costs must be proportionate and the objective
\nof capital accumulation must not be thwarted. This case law
\nwas confirmed by the BVerfG. A fortiori, these
\nThe considerations on which decisions are based shall apply when the
\nemployer’s remuneration due to the employee into a vested right to
\nbAV. Within the framework of the agreement concluded by the employer with the
\nThe product provider therefore has the choice of a contract for the benefit of a third party.
\nof a zillmerized contract should be omitted, as the goal of a
\nAccumulation of assets for retirement provision in the event of premature termination of employment
\nemployment relationship (as a reminder, the average duration is
\nnot even five years!) is rendered impossible by the fact that, as the LAG
\ncase decided (6,230 euros in contributions paid in, after three years
\nthe surrender value of the reinsurance policy was only EUR 639)
\nshowed. In view of such case constellations due to zillmerised tariffs of
\nvalue equality, as the GDV has done in its statement
\nis therefore not very convincing and demonstrates a lack of
\nDiscussion of the reasons put forward by the LAG Munich
\nfor the ineffectiveness of zillmerization in the case of deferred compensation.
\nAlso from the fundamental admissibility of zillmer-like (a zillmerization
\nIn the narrower sense, insurance contract law permits, according to the current
\npending VVG reform just no more)
\nAcquisition cost allocation methods – e.g. over five years – according to the
\nVVG cannot be applied to the effectiveness of corresponding regulations in the context of
\nof the employee-financed occupational pension scheme. Also here overlooks
\nthe insurance industry the precept of equal value as in labour law
\nto that extent overriding lex specialis.
\nContrary to GDV’s view, it is therefore by no means possible to assume that the
\nit is to be assumed that the BAG, should it come to an appeal by the defendant
\nemployer, the judgment of the LAG Munich is amended. reasons hereof
\ndoubts already result from the fact that the decision in
\nThe Court of Justice of the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG),
\nDr. Gerhard Reinecke, supported.<\/p>\n

(experts.com)<\/p>\n

Courtesy of www.experten.de<\/a><\/LINK>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In its ruling of 15.03.2007, the Regional Labor Court (LAG) decided that Munich, that zillmerized tariffs within the scope of employee-financed company pension scheme is inadmissible and the corresponding deferred compensation agreements are invalid. The LAG reasoned its decision, on the one hand, with the company pension law (BetrAVG) of equal value (section 1(2) no. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","rank_math_focus_keyword":"","rank_math_description":"","rank_math_title":""},"categories":[492],"tags":[506,568,497,723],"class_list":["post-18495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-veroeffentlichungen-en","tag-bav-en","tag-entgeltumwandlung-en","tag-altersversorgung-en","tag-zillmerization"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18495","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18495"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18495\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}