аЯрЁБс>ўџ ;=ўџџџ:џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС9 №Пbjbj§Я§Я"BŸЅŸЅџџџџџџlВВВВВВВЦ œЦ]ЖММММММММ 3:ВМММММ*ВВММ***МЪВМВМ*М*ж*ВВМА \ЗЊ&ѓЩЦЪ†š-0]m  m*ЦЦВВВВйAddress Problems of the Ghetto Pension Law      Ladies and Gentlemen,   My name is Frank-Ludwig Thiel. First of all, I would like to thank the organizers of this conference for having invited me to speak. I am the designated counsel of the German Federal Association on Information and Advice for persons persecuted by the NS regime. In this capacity, I have represented by far more than 1,000 claimants for a so-called ghetto pension.   Many of you certainly know this: the so-called “Ghetto Pension law” (Ghetto-Rentengesetz) had been passed by the German Bundestag, our Parliament, in the year 2002. This was a unanimous decision by all the parties elected into our parliament. The purpose of the law was to speed up, in an unbureaucratic manner, the processing of the claims of the persecuted who had worked under specific circumstances in a ghetto; they were supposed to receive a pension benefit from the German Social Security (Deutsche Sozialversicherung). By way of this law, the gap which existed in the “Reparation” legislation (Wiedergutmachungsrecht) was to be closed.   However, reality proved to be otherwise for quite some time. The reason was unspecific legal terms in the law, such as “voluntariness” or “monetary considerations.” (Entgelt). The result of this unclear terminology was that a high percentage of the claims were rejected, in fact the percentage was 90%. The Social security agencies, as well as the courts, applied the law with hardly any exceptions at all. When I prepared myself for this conference a month ago and drafted my address, I had focused on the problematic areas of the law, such as: -          the high percentage of rejected claims through the Social Security agencies and the courts, - the varying manner of processing the claims by the regional social security agencies, - the varying dispensation of justice through the regional courts, -          and, thus, the resulting substantial inequality in dealing with the claimants.   Today, however, I can give you good news: The draft of my original speech is no longer up to date. Because, on June 2nd and June3rd, 2009, a trail-blazing ruling of the „Bundessozialgericht“ which is the Federal Social Court in Germany, came out. This ruling of the Federal Social court is competent, because it is the final court of appeal. This Federal Social Court has abandoned its previous rulings and has now determined:   -       That one has to assume voluntary work even in those cases where the ghetto inhabitants were obligated to work. The decisive issue here is that the person concerned was not forced to do a specific work in the ghetto. Rather, it has to be asked whether there was a “choice” for the person concerned, for example through the intervention of the Jewish Council (Judenrat) in the ghetto, who might influence the decision as to why this person should or could do the work and under which circumstance. A person could also opt to not work in a ghetto. -       That remuneration (Entgelt) means any kind of reward, whether it was in money or in kind, food for example. Matters of insignificant rewards are not to be reviewed by the courts. -       That it is not imperative whether the remuneration was directly handed out to the workers or whether it was handed over to a third party (for example to the Jewish Council for providing for the ghetto.)   The result of this change in jurisdiction will be that many of the claimants can expect a positive decision of their case. This will also apply to claims that have already been rejected by the courts.   Of course, we must wait to see how the German Social Security agency will translate this changed jurisdiction into reality. One can only hope, in the interest of the persons concerned, that all the claims will be reviewed in a very speedy and unbureaucratic matter.   Since this conference is taking place here in Prague, allow me to say a few words to the claimants from the Czech Republic about the problems they have encountered regarding the ghetto pension.   Before the new jurisdiction of the Federal Social Court, most claims were rejected on the grounds that the element of voluntariness or remuneration for work was missing.   The Czech, and also the Slovak claimants, however, must deal with one more problem. The ghetto pension law has another requirement for those claimants to fulfill: the claimant has to confirm that he/she has not received any benefit from another social security agency. However, for most of the Czech claimants, the periods of incarceration in a ghetto had already been taken into account by the Czech agencies, as the so-called resistance periods. That prompted the German Social security agencies to reject claims on the grounds that the period in the ghetto had already been taken into consideration by another social security agency.   As to this problem, here too, the German Federal Social Court has provided clarity in jurisdiction, by its ruling of February 13, 2009. The Social Security agencies in Germany have been entrusted with the task of reviewing each  case whether the persons concerned had, in fact, received a higher Czech pension payment because of their involvement in the resistance. Some Czech claimants have received, as it is called in the Czech Republic, the “maximum pension possible” (Hіchstrente) out of the Czech Social Security, meaning that there is a capping (Kappungsgrenze). Beyond that limit it does not matter anymore whether a person has more time periods to be recognized. So most of these claimants have not benefitted at all; their monthly pension amount is not higher because of their involvement in the resistance.   As a consequence, which is not acceptable, people who only get a low pension from the Czech Republic, and who have benefitted from the resistance pension supplement,  have their claims rejected by the German Federal Social Security on the grounds that this would be a double-pension benefit.   Only those who receive the highest pension get benefit from the ghetto pension paid out by the German Social Security. This means that the claimants who have much less financial resources at their disposal will be even more at a disadvantage. This surely cannot be the intended result of the legislature. Here, the constitutional principle of equality and equal treatment for all must be observed.   The legislature in Germany must be asked to improve the law accordingly and to change it in such a way that all of the Czech claimants will be able to receive a ghetto pension, notwithstanding whether they receive the highest pension or not.   Ladies and Gentlemen,   Thank you for your kind attention. ,1b l m w  Ц  x y € ),ЂЃЊ]^eшеЦЙЦЙЦЎЦžЦ~ЦžЦ~Ц~ЦupmH sH mH nHsH tHCJPJaJmH nHsH tH OJPJQJ^JmH nHsH tH>*OJQJ^JmH nHsH tHOJQJ^JmH sH CJaJmH nHsH tHOJQJ^JmH nHsH tH$CJOJQJ^JaJmH nHsH tH-5>*CJOJQJ\^JaJmH nHsH tH,.1HJЖИ=?a Ъ $ k Ч Щ v x Ђ]02§џїющщщщссссссссссссбббссс$„я„˜ўdh^„я`„˜ўa$$dha$dh $dh@&a$$dha$ўџ  Юа{}ћ§SЇіGp57\^эясуљћїїїїїїїэщщщщщэїїїїїїїїїпн $dhЄda$Єx $dhЄxa$$dha$ 1hА‚. АЦA!А‰"А‰#‰$‰%А i<@ёџ< NormсlnэCJ_HaJmHsHtHBA@ђџЁB Standardnэ pэsmo odstavceBџџџџ^эясуљћ!œ€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€џ bgйчГХ)ЗФхьt‡ч я Н Ф ђFSлц+9ЦаЊД!юєфloЮб*-wzШЯS_оші§GIлт!333333333333!џџjahabC:\Documents and Settings\jaha\Plocha\HEA\PYednсaky - def\HEAC_SpS_P3_S6_Frank-Ludwig Thiel_EN.docџ@P@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџGю‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3&ю ‡z €џArial"qˆ№ФЉ-Гж&.Гж&ЧŠ -!№‰‰ДД20s№џџjahajahaўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0TˆœЈИФи шє   (4<DLтssjahafaha Normal.dotjahal.d3haMicrosoft Word 9.0@FУ#@žГ}&ѓЩ@фvЁ&ѓЩЧŠўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0ь hp€ˆ˜  ЈАИ Р Этcronсze- sќ  Nсzev  !ўџџџ#$%&'()ўџџџ+,-./01ўџџџ3456789ўџџџ§џџџ<ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFCУЊ&ѓЩ>€1Tableџџџџџџџџџџџџ"WordDocumentџџџџџџџџ"BSummaryInformation(џџџџ*DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ2CompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџCУЊ&ѓЩCУЊ&ѓЩџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFDokument Microsoft Word MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq