Also for autistics no trial by online chat

Federal Constitutional Court: Court does not have to fulfill every wish

Courts do not have to completely negotiate according to the wishes of one of the parties. Thus, an Autist can not require to be able to participate in a hearing by means of an online chat extended over several weeks, as the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe ruled in a resolution published on Thursday, January 3, 2019 (Ref .: 1 BvR 957/18 ).

It rejected thus a today 42-year-old man from Chemnitz. He has autism in the form of the asperger syndrome and is therefore severely limited in his social communication.

At his request the Chemnitzer Sozialbehörde recognized a degree of disability (GdB) of 50 for him. The Saxon State Social Court (LSG) increased this to 70, but declined an even higher GdB and further disadvantage compensation.

The Chemnitz was not satisfied with that. With a complaint to the Federal Social Court (BSG) in Kassel he also criticized the procedure of the LSG. At the hearing there he could not attend because of his illness. Inadmissible, the court had refused to ensure its involvement through an extended over several weeks online chat from home.

However, the BSG dismissed the appeal - rightly, as the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed. Nor does the Basic Law imply any obligation for the courts to shape their negotiations completely according to the wishes of one of the parties.

It is true that the courts should endeavor to take into account the health concerns of the parties involved. "However, this obligation is not unrestricted," said the Karlsruhe judges.

In the specific case, the Federal Constitutional Court referred to the "immediacy principle" of the oral proceedings. This creates transparency and is "constitutionally essential".

Here, the LSG offered the autistic person in advance the summary written report of the procedure so that the handicapped person can prepare for the hearing. The LSG also wanted to enable him to communicate via a computer during the trial itself.

In general, disabled people could also be represented by a lawyer and, if necessary, get help for themselves, which also accompanies them in the negotiation. This would sufficiently safeguard their interests, the Federal Constitutional Court found in its decision of 27 November 2018, now published in writing.

In general, however, courts must endeavor to accommodate the impairments of disabled people. The BSG had already decided in 2013 that an Autist does not have to answer questions from a medical expert in direct contact (decision of 14 November 2013, ref .: B 9 SB 5/13, JurAgentur report dated 30 December 2013).

According to a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, blind people can request the transfer of court records in Braille in difficult cases (decision of 10 October 2014, ref. 1 BvR 856/13, JurAgentur report dated 31 October 2014). mwo / fle