Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
5 PB 17/15, 5 PB 17/15 (5 P 1/16) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:120116B5PB17.15.0 AI generated

Scope of works council co-determination rights when budget lacks funds for offsetting disadvantages

Case Number 5 PB 17/15, 5 PB 17/15 (5 P 1/16)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) granted the personnel council’s leave to appeal, finding that the case presents a legal question of fundamental importance requiring clarification. The dispute centers on whether the statutory co-determination and initiative rights of a works council under §§ 81(2)(9) and 83(1)(1) Saxon Personnel Representation Act (SächsPersVG) are excluded when the current service budget lacks specific funds in the social plan to offset disadvantages from intended measures, specifically in this context regarding severance payments. This decision allows the appeal to proceed to the Senate for a definitive ruling on the interaction between budgetary constraints and statutory employee representation rights.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG, § 88 Abs. 2 Satz 1 SächsPersVG, § 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 ArbGG; Scope of works council co-determination rights when budget lacks funds for offsetting disadvantages: The dispute centers on whether the statutory co-determination and initiative rights of a works council under §§ 81(2)(9) and 83(1)(1) Saxon Personnel Representation Act (SächsPersVG) are excluded when the current service budget lacks specific funds in the social plan to offset disadvantages from intended measures, specifically in this context regarding severance payments. This decision allows the appeal to proceed to the Senate for a definitive ruling on the interaction between budgetary constraints and statutory employee representation rights.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural rights right to work severance grant specific fundamental rights social work employment subject to social contributions

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG
Procedural provision cited in the dispositive regarding the requirements for admitting a legal appeal.
§ 88 Abs. 2 Satz 1 SächsPersVG
Procedural provision cited in the dispositive to grant leave to appeal for the personnel council.
§ 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 ArbGG
Substantive basis cited in the dispositive justifying the admission of the appeal due to a legal question of fundamental importance.
AI generated
6 P 9/13
Scope of staff council co-determination in draft staffing plans: applicability of co-determination rights to budget personnel requirements regardless of staff increases
6 P 11/12
Unavailability of social plan co-determination for travel expense compensation due to exhaustive statutory and collective agreement regulations
5 P 1/16
Staff council’s right to initiate social plan negotiations despite budgetary objections
5 P 1/23
Scope of co-determination regarding discretionary pay scale assignments for collectively employed staff under § 88 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 HmbPersVG
6 P 6/12
Analogous application of staff council co-determination rights to activity restrictions of employee-like freelancers under German personnel representation law

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 88 Abs. 2 Satz 1 SächsPersVG

Procedural provision cited in the dispositive to grant leave to appeal for the personnel council.

§ 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 ArbGG

Substantive basis cited in the dispositive justifying the admission of the appeal due to a legal question of fundamental importance.

§ 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG

Procedural provision cited in the dispositive regarding the requirements for admitting a legal appeal.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Zulassung der Rechtsbeschwerde; Ausschluss des Mitbestimmungs- und Initiativrechts bei fehlenden Mitteln zum Nachteilsausgleich im Haushaltsplan

[GRUENDE]

Die Rechtsbeschwerde des Antragstellers ist gemäß § 88 Abs. 2 Satz 1 SächsPersVG i.V.m. § 72 Abs. 2 Nr. 1, § 92 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ArbGG wegen einer entscheidungserheblichen Rechtsfrage von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung zuzulassen.

Die vorliegende Rechtssache kann dem Senat Gelegenheit geben, die Frage zu klären, ob das gesetzliche Mitbestimmungsrecht des Personalrates nach § 81 Abs. 2 Nr. 9 SächsPersVG und sein hierauf gerichtetes Initiativrecht nach § 83 Abs. 1 Satz 1 SächsPersVG ausgeschlossen sind, wenn der geltende Haushaltsplan der Dienststelle für die angestrebte Maßnahme (hier: Abfindungsleistungen) keine Mittel zum Nachteilsausgleich in einem Sozialplan vorsieht.