No cash contributions on services provided by the press

BSG negates the obligation to contribute to private pensions
No health insurance contributions are payable for benefits under a voluntary private occupational disability and pension insurance brokered by the pension fund. Insofar as the insured person has previously taken over his contributions to private insurance, there is no obligation to pay, the Federal Social Court (BSG) in Kassel ruled on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 (Ref .: B 12 KR 2/16 R).

(Image: Stock Photos-MG / fotolia.com)

In this case, a former local editor of a newspaper house and current pensioner got it right. The journalist had completed a private voluntary disability supplementary insurance and pension insurance during his employment through the pension fund and paid the insurance premiums himself. The insurances were brokered by the pension fund, which had negotiated favorable group tariffs for the communications and media industry with insurance companies.

When the plaintiff became unfit for work, he received pension payments as agreed in the case of insurance.

The public health insurance of the man, the Barmer, raised health insurance contributions on the pension payments granted due to occupational disability. The journalist receives contributory pensions with the occupational disability pension. These are part of the company pension scheme. The law also includes pensions that provide an insurance and pension scheme for members of certain occupations. This is also the case with the pension scheme of the press.

The BSG did not follow that. The supply organization of the press, in which the newspaper and magazine publishers as well as the German journalists association and the trade union Verdi are shareholders, do not organize company pension schemes. Rather, the pension fund cooperates only with private insurance companies and provides voluntary insurance at favorable group rates.

Likewise, the pension scheme does not contain any pension scheme within the meaning of the law for members of a certain professional group. After all, not only journalists and media professionals could benefit from the services provided by the press, but also their parents and families. The insurable group of persons is thus not limited to the profession as required. The plaintiff thus did not receive "contributory pensions".

The judgment does not cover claims in which the employer, as the policyholder, has wholly or partly taken over the insurance premiums. fle