Because of earnings – lawyer: "There is money on the strain"
Today’s judgment of the Landesgericht Leipzig with the file number 7 O 1455/14, 7 O 1928/14, 7 O2439 / 14 could have led to hectic activities in some offices of the city administrations ("Prize the application list for Kita Place…."To). Three families had claimed a claim in Leipzig in court, which since the 1. August 2013 nationwide consists "Entitlement to early demand in a day facility or in day care".
Even before the § 24 of the Children’s and Youth Welfare Act came into force, was warned against a wave of legal proceedings, because it was evident that the city and municipalities could not be fulfilled the politically intentional claim.
The wave but remained, today there was a loud crusher who clapped to the supposedly calm shore zones. Anyone who has contacted parents for a long time that the right to swindle: the static appeal to mother, as soon as possible, should pursue their profession as soon as the men, too, the training capital invested in them and their "Skills" to realize. And on the other side of the saying: "There is childcare", which is often uplifted without knowledge of real matters – care pace are usually rare there rare where the city medium-sized company fails so probably that he wants to have offspring.
The regional court now has the city of Leipzig to pay a damages of 15.000 Euro plus interest on three families, which found no Kita Square for their toddlers, which is why the "Mother more long than intended to stay at home" and a loss of earnings.
Among the plaintiffs was an architect whose case was already known in the summer of last year. At that time, the city had not responded to her lawsuits. So why the family decided to go to court to deal with this step "Make other parents courage (too) to take the action of the city Leipzig not simply to accept". Two families in Leipzig were obviously connected to the lawsuit.
In the verdict of the court, it is called according to MDR:
We see our amption that the city of Leipzig is unlawfully conscious’ on Lucke ‘and planned’ and put on it that the Confederation will reorganize the binding requirement for the time before the deadline of the municipalities and their top associations.
In addition, the MDR cites the chairman judge from the merilic negotiation in November last year with the explanation that the city in no three trap the parents "Even only starting a caregiver in view". That was allowed to be attentive in the councils of other city.
The procedure could have the meaning of a sample process, one not only argues in the Mitteldeutsche Rundfunkanstalt. The fact that there was no comparable fall nationwide, the spokeswoman of the German city and municipal federal government, Ursula Krickel, opposite the legal magazine Legal Tribune, where it is again stressed that the municipalities also, according to the judgment, too "Precaution for unforeseen needs" Meeting had to meet. The Legal Tribune report also comes to speech the lawyer of one of the plaintiff parties. He expects further actions:
There is money on the strain.
The verdict is not yet legally binding; The city Leipzig can appeal.