Federal Administrative Court: City only has to bear additional costs
If a municipality does not meet the legal entitlement to a daycare place, this does not automatically lead to a claim for damages by the parents. As the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig ruled in a judgment published on Friday, October 27, 2017, the day before, the municipality only has to pay for any additional costs incurred, but not for costs that the parents should have borne anyway (Az .: 5 C 19.16) .
As a result, possible claims of the parents depend on the state law and the day care fee regulations of the respective municipality. Specifically, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed a mother who moved to Munich in spring 2014. Several months earlier, she had informed the city of Munich that from April 2014 she would need a childcare place for her two-year-old son.
The city offered care in various private day care facilities. The mother refused. The facilities would either close too early or not open on Fridays.
When she was in need, the mother opted for a private day care center - at a proud price of 1,380 euros per month. With her lawsuit, she asked the city of Munich to pay these costs. After all, contrary to the legal requirements, the municipality could not offer a reasonable childcare place. However, the city did not want to pay the daycare. This is too expensive and offers "exaggerated luxury".
The Bavarian Administrative Court in Munich still agreed with the mother (judgment of July 22, 2016, ref .: 12 BV 15.719; JurAgentur notification of August 18, 2016). The Federal Administrative Court now overturned this judgment and dismissed the lawsuit.
In the end, the question of supposed luxury didn't matter. Either way, the Leipzig judges ruled that the city did not have to bear any costs that would have been incurred by the parents anyway.
In Munich there is no capping of the daycare fee. Basically, parents would therefore have to pay in theoretically unlimited amounts there. That would have been true of the supposed luxury place if the city had suggested it. The fact that she did not do this did not lead to additional costs for the parents.
According to the Social Security Code, low-income parents may be entitled to a partial waiver of social costs; the Federal Administrative Court went on to say that the mother had not asked for this with her complaint.
The Federal Administrative Court had already ruled in 2013 that municipalities would have to reimburse parents for the “additional costs” if they were unable to offer childcare (judgment and JurAgentur announcement dated September 12, 2013, ref .: 5 C 35/12).
In that case, the city of Mainz was then obliged to assume the full costs of self-care as "additional costs" because day care centers were free under state law. However, as the Federal Administrative Court now emphasizes in the new case, such a right to free childcare does not result from the nationwide right to a childcare place.
Possible "additional costs" in Munich look much more modest according to this case law. For example, the cost of a newspaper advertisement that parents who are not served by the city to find a childminder are conceivable. mwo