Income-related graduation from kindergarten contributions is constitutional
The First Division of the Federal Constitutional Court has the constitutional complaint of a married couple from Hesse in connection with the income-related graduation from kindergarten papers rejected as unfounded. This scale uses especially not in an unconstitutional manner in the fundamental right of the general freedom of action (Article 2 paragraph 1 GG) and with the general principle of equality (Article 3 para 1 GG) in line.
I.
The town Idstein, in the living complainant, in her kindergarten fee schedule (KiGaGebS) before contributions are graduated according to income and number of children.
The same applies to the KiGaGebS underlying Hessian Kindergarten Act (KiGaG), which provides in § 10: ". They can be differentiated by income group and number of children for attending day care centers to be paid participation fees or charges"
§ 90 para 1 of Social Law VIII (SGB) to contain the following provision:
"(1) For the use of offers ...
third of the support of children in day care under § § 22, 24, from participation fees or charges be fixed. State law, a staggering of the participation fees and charges shall be payable for the use of day facilities for children, require by income group and number of children or the number of family members or fix it himself in accordance progressive contributions. "
The son of the complainant, the couple visited a kindergarten in Idstein. The Parents were assessed at the highest rate. They attacked the administrative court for judicial review (§ 47 Code of Administrative Procedure) to the KiGaGebS. The Hessen Administrative Court refused the request for verification, the statute was procedural and substantive legality. It against that complaint dismissed, the Federal Administrative Court.
with their constitutional complaint, the complainant appealed against the court decisions against the KiGaGebS and indirectly against the corresponding KiGaG and the SGB.
They alleged a violation of Article 2 paragraph 1 GG (personal freedoms), Article 3, paragraph 1 (general principle of equality), Article 6, paragraph 1 GG (protection of marriage and family life) and Article 14 GG ( to property).
support of others before they wore:
The required review fee was to their very nature actually neither fee nor post, but a local income tax, their survey did not the state of Hesse, but the Federal Government is responsible. Moreover, the statute violates
the equality principle of Article 3 paragraph 1 GG because there was no difference in treatment for objective reasons.
II
According to the First Senate of the constitutional complaint is unfounded. The KiGaGebS and the underlying statute this country (KiGaG) and federal regulatory standards (SGB) should be in accordance with the Basic Law.
In support means inter alia:
The general freedom of action (Article 2 paragraph 1 GG) is not violated. This fundamental right protects against incriminated by the state authority with a financial disadvantage to that is not grounded in the constitutional order. The challenged statute burdened municipal fees but the complainants and affected them so in their general freedom of action. The intervention is justified. The legal principles remain within the limits of the constitutional order and do not violate the general principle of equality and other fundamental rights of the complainant.
a) The competence of the Basic Law provisions are not violated by the challenged regulations.
The federal legislature had the authority to enact § 90 SGB VIII for the determination of legislative power is the focus of the essential facts to be controlled. This here is the caring support from kindergartens with the aim of promoting social behavior, and thus prevention of conflict prevention. The pre-primary educational mission behind this to the Public For now ordering ack. For public assistance within the meaning of Article 74 paragraph 1 No. 7, Basic Law, however, the federal legislature, the concurrent legislative competence.
b) The kindergarten is not a levy municipal income tax and therefore not violated the federal jurisdiction to adopt income-tax laws (Art. 105 para 2 GG). The tax is not unlike the tax owed without preconditions, but to the individual claims of public infrastructure facilities, here in the Kindergarten, knotted.
The challenged norms are also with the principle of equality (Article 3 para 1 GG) in line, since for the staggering of the kindergarten fees for number of children and family income are objective reasons that justify the discrimination of users with higher incomes.
a) Fees are cash payments that are charged to the debtor on the occasion individually attributable to public services and to determine are zdecken the costs of providing gz or in part. Your special purposes to generate revenue to cover the costs attributable to the individual public service in whole or in part, it differs from the tax. For this purpose, it follows that fees for public services may not be set completely independently of the actual cost of fee-state performance, the link between costs and fee levels must be appropriate.
based on a social point of differentiation is thus not excluded.
The cost recovery principle, and similar fees for legal principles are no principles with constitutional status. With a charging scheme in addition to cost recovery and other purposes may be pursued, and the value of state power for the receiver must be reflected in charging standards. Within its respective regulatory powers available to the fees lawmakers over a wide Entscstaltungsspielraum, ll attributable to public services he submit a license fee, establish what fees standards and rates it for this and what about the cost recovery beyond purposes, such as a limited behavioral control in certain economic sectors, he with a charging scheme wants to pursue.
b) The Senate argues that an income-based differentiation of kindergarten contributions also does not violate principles of justice charge. Such a differentiation is the extent at any rate harmless, as long as even the maximum fee, the actual cost of the facility does not cover and is reasonable in relation to the so-settled administrative performance. Under this assumption all users as a result a pecuniary advantage is turned. Also, users who pay the full fee will not be in addition to and without preconditions to fund general expenses and not used to relieve users sr. After the Festerwaltungsgerichtshofs meet the conditions laid down in the Charter of the town Idstein rates from the actual cost only about one-third. Even those kindergarten Users who pay the full fee will, in the enjoyment of any public infrastructure service whose value exceeds significantly the level of charges.
c) The unequal treatment of parents in the attraction to children's school fees is justified by sufficiently weighty objective reasons.
kindergartens are essential to establish the equality of children in relation to the life and educational opportunities. With its establishment, both important basic legal protection and funding obligations are met. The availability of a nursery place can encourage women not to abort an unwanted pregnancy. In addition, women's equality is promoted in the working life by caring for their children through the Te working life is possible. Even so far followed a basic legal protection bid, because according to Article 3 paragraph 2 sentence 2 Basic Law, he must ensure that family activities and work can be coordinated, and leads the perception of the family upbringing not object to professional disadvantages.
may therefore nursery places to children of lower income parents are not deprived. This requirement can be satisfied by socially differentiated tariffs. A full funding of the kindergarten, which comes to all parents equally, regardless of their income levels benefit is, however, to secure their universal accessibility is not required.
The Senate argues that even Article 6 § 1 Basic Law and Article 14 paragraph 1 GG are not violated. 1BvR 178/97
0 comments:
Post a Comment