Mother in Munich has to pay room in luxury day care center

Federal Administrative Court: City has to bear only additional costs
If a municipality does not fulfill the legal requirement for a day-care center, this does not automatically lead to a claim for damages of the parents. As the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig ruled in a judgment of the previous day announced on Friday, October 27, 2017, the municipality only has to pay for additional costs, but not for costs that the parents should have borne anyway (Ref .: 5 C 19.16).

As a result, possible claims of the parents depend on the state law and the Kita fee statute of the respective municipality. Specifically, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed a mother who moved to Munich in the spring of 2014. Several months earlier, she had informed the city of Munich that she needed a childcare place from April 2014 for her two-year-old son.

No liability for kindergarten children. Image: Andrey Kuzmin - fotolia

The city provided care in various private day care facilities. The mother refused. The facilities would either close too early or would not open on Fridays.

In her distress, the mother opted for a private daycare - for the proud price of 1,380 euros per month. With her complaint, she demanded from the city of Munich to pay these costs. Finally, contrary to the legal requirements, the municipality could not offer a reasonable place of care. Nevertheless, the city did not want to pay the kindergarten. This is too expensive and offers "exaggerated luxury".

The Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof in Munich had still upheld the mother (judgment of 22 July 2016, ref .: 12 BV 15.719, JurAgentur report dated 18 August 2016). However, the Federal Administrative Court reversed this judgment and dismissed the action.

The question of alleged luxury ultimately played no role. Either way, the city would have to bear any costs that would have incurred the parents anyway, judged the Leipzig judges.

In Munich there is no cap on the Kita contribution. Basically, parents would have to pay there in theoretically unlimited amount. That would also have been true for the supposed luxury place if the city had suggested it. The fact that she did not do so did not lead to additional costs for the parents.

Under the Social Security Code, low-income parents may claim a partial reduction in social costs; However, the mother did not demand this with her complaint, the Federal Administrative Court said.

As early as 2013, the Federal Administrative Court had ruled that municipalities must reimburse parents for the "additional costs" if they can not offer care places (judgment and JurAgentur report dated 12 September 2013, file no .: 5 C 35/12).

In the case at that time, the city of Mainz was then obliged to assume the full cost of the self-procured care as "additional costs", because according to state law Kitas were free. As the Federal Administrative Court now emphasizes in the new case, the nationwide claim to a childcare place does not give rise to such a right to free supervision.

Possible "additional costs" in Munich are much more modest under this ruling. For example, the cost of a newspaper ad that may have been switched off by the city's unused parents to find a childminder is conceivable. mwo