Only a few years ago the new Section 288 Paragraph 5 of the German Civil Code (BGB) was introduced. The regulation stipulates that the debtor of a payment claim - unless he is a consumer - should be obliged to reimburse a lump sum of \u20ac 40.00 if he defaults on payment. The obligation exists even if the creditor has not suffered any (quantifiable) damage as a result of the delay. Rather, the creditor is intended to be compensated for his \u201cgeneral administrative effort\u201d.
\n
\nUntil then, such a flat-rate compensation was not known to the German legal system. Therefore, since this regulation came into force in July 2014, there has been a discussion in the labor law literature and case law as to whether the regulation can also be applied in labor law and whether the employer who falls behind in paying wages by even one day should receive a flat-rate compensation of \u20ac 40.00 has to be paid.
\nThe respective opinions were justified as follows:
\nIn some cases it was argued (in an employee-friendly manner) that Section 288 Paragraph 5 of the German Civil Code (BGB) applies to all obligations due to its meaning and purpose. Therefore, its applicability in labor law should also be affirmed. This argument was essentially countered by the fact that such an obligation on the part of the employer would not be legal in view of the requirements in Section 12a of the ArbGG. The Federal Labor Court has consistently ruled that the provision excludes all flat-rate compensation claims. If this long-standing case law is consistently applied, the flat rate payment for late payment in accordance with Section 288 Paragraph 5 of the German Civil Code (BGB) may also not be required in labor law.
\nThe dispute was not only conducted in labor law literature. The labor courts have also assessed this legal question differently, with the prevailing opinion and in particular the majority of the state labor courts affirming the applicability of Section 288 Paragraph 5 BGB in the employment relationship (instead of many: LAG Munich from April 18, 2018 - 11 Sa 42\/18, LAG Lower Saxony from February 27, 2018 \u2013 10 Sat 25\/17, LAG Cologne from March 8, 2018 \u2013 8 Sat 796\/17). The opposing view, however, was only represented sporadically (LAG Cologne from October 4th, 2017 - 5 Sa 229\/17, ArbG D\u00fcsseldorf from May 12th, 2016 - 2 Ca 5416\/15, ArbG Nuremberg from November 11th, 2016 - 12 Ca 6016\/15).
\nIn its more recent decision (judgment of September 25, 2018 - 8 AZR 26\/18), the Federal Labor Court clearly contradicted the (until then) prevailing legal opinion. According to the published press release, the court referred to the special nature of labor law regulated in Section 12a ArbGG and rejected the applicability of Section 288 Paragraph 5 BGB.
\nThe decision has now created legal clarity. Employers can now face the \u201c40 euro lawsuit\u201d that employers feared after the introduction of Section 288 Paragraph 5 of the German Civil Code (BGB) with relative calm. The labor courts will most likely adhere to the \u201cErfurt guidelines\u201d and reject the employees\u2019 corresponding demands in the future.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Erst vor wenigen Jahren wurde der neue \u00a7 288 Abs. 5 BGB eingef\u00fchrt. Die Vorschrift sieht vor, dass der Schuldner einer Entgeltforderung \u2013 sofern dieser kein Verbraucher ist \u2013 verpflichtet sein soll, einen Pauschalbetrag in H\u00f6he von \u20ac 40,00 zu erstatten, wenn er mit der Zahlung in Verzug ger\u00e4t. Die Verpflichtung besteht auch dann, wenn […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":238,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wsk-arbeitsrecht.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2099","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wsk-arbeitsrecht.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wsk-arbeitsrecht.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wsk-arbeitsrecht.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wsk-arbeitsrecht.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2099"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.wsk-arbeitsrecht.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2099\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wsk-arbeitsrecht.com\/en\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wsk-arbeitsrecht.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wsk-arbeitsrecht.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wsk-arbeitsrecht.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}