Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
2 B 100/09, 2 B 100/09 (2 C 9/10) Generato dall'IA

Effectiveness of health benefit exclusion for non-prescription medicines notwithstanding constitutional concerns under transitional hardship rules

Numero d'incarto 2 B 100/09, 2 B 100/09 (2 C 9/10)
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Administrative Court granted leave to file a revision, finding that the lower court's judgment deviated from established Senate precedent, thereby allowing the appellant's challenge to proceed. The dispute concerned the validity of a statutory exclusion from German federal health benefits for non-prescription medicines, specifically whether § 6(1) No. 2 Sentence 2 Lit. b Sentence 2 of the Federal Health Benefits Ordinance (BhV) was effective or unconstitutional. The decisive legal analysis distinguished between the initial finding of constitutional doubts regarding the exclusion and the subsequent procedural doctrine that, during a transitional period, these doubts need no longer be addressed individually because the abstract and general hardship regulation in § 12(2) BhV now satisfies the constitutional duty of care, thus rendering the exclusion legally operative for the relevant period.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO; Effectiveness of health benefit exclusion for non-prescription medicines notwithstanding constitutional concerns under transitional hardship rules: The dispute concerned the validity of a statutory exclusion from German federal health benefits for non-prescription medicines, specifically whether § 6(1) No. 2 Sentence 2 Lit. b Sentence 2 of the Federal Health Benefits Ordinance (BhV) was effective or unconstitutional. The decisive legal analysis distinguished between the initial finding of constitutional doubts regarding the exclusion and the subsequent procedural doctrine that, during a transitional period, these doubts need no longer be addressed individually because the abstract and general hardship regulation in § 12(2) BhV now satisfies the constitutional duty of care, thus rendering the exclusion legally operative for the relevant period.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
prestazione statutaria caso di rigore vertenza non amministrativa periodo transitorio prescrizione protezione della salute

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO
Ground for granting leave to file a revision because the appealed judgment deviated from a decision of the same Senate.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
BVerwGE 131, 234
Juni 2008 - BVerwG 2 C 2.07 - (BVerwGE 131, 234 = Buchholz 270 § 6 BhV Nr.
Generato dall'IA
2 BvR 1434/10
Constitutional complaint against health benefit exclusions rejected for failure to exhaust administrative remedy and insufficient substantiation
5 C 6/16
Validity of the statutory exclusion of non-prescription medications from federal beihilfe benefits
2 C 12/10
Constitutional validity of excluding non-prescription drugs from public service benefits under the duty of care and a required hardship exception
1 BvR 69/09
Exclusion of non-prescription drugs from statutory health insurance and the constitutional limits of cost-shifting to chronically ill patients
2 C 9/10
Exclusion of non-prescription drugs from statutory health subsidy: constitutional duty of care and interim application of financial burden limits

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO

Ground for granting leave to file a revision because the appealed judgment deviated from a decision of the same Senate.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Ausschluss nicht verschreibungspflichtiger Medikamente von der Beihilfe

[GRUENDE]

Die Revision ist nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 VwGO zuzulassen. Wie die Beschwerde mit Recht geltend macht, weicht das angegriffene Urteil von dem Urteil des Senats vom 26. Juni 2008 - BVerwG 2 C 2.07 - (BVerwGE 131, 234 = Buchholz 270 § 6 BhV Nr. 17) ab und beruht auf dieser Abweichung.

Das Berufungsgericht hat angenommen, dass der Ausschluss nicht verschreibungspflichtiger Arzneimittel gemäß § 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 Satz 2 Buchst. b Satz 2 BhV nicht wirksam ist.

Demgegenüber hat der Senat entschieden, dass der Ausschluss verschreibungsfreier Medikamente in § 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 Satz 2 Buchst. b Satz 2 BhV verfassungsrechtlichen Bedenken begegne. Hieraus folge aber nicht die Unanwendbarkeit der Regeln über Leistungsausschlüsse. Vielmehr hat der Senat nicht nur in dem von der Beschwerde bezeichneten Urteil vom 26. Juni 2008, sondern seitdem mehrfach entschieden, dass den Bedenken für den Übergangszeitraum nicht mehr nachgegangen zu werden braucht (z.B. Urteile vom 28. Mai 2008 - BVerwG 2 C 24.07 - Buchholz 232 § 79 BBG Nr. 126 S. 4, vom 26. August 2009 - BVerwG 2 C 62.08 - juris Rn. 22 und vom 6. November 2009 - BVerwG 2 C 60.08 - Juris Rn. 24). Der verfassungsrechtlichen Fürsorgepflicht sei während des Übergangszeitraums bis zu der inzwischen in Kraft getretenen Neuregelung des Beihilferechts des Bundes Rechnung zu tragen über die abstrakt-generelle Härtefallregelung des § 12 Abs. 2 BhV (vgl. Urteile vom 26. Juni 2008 a.a.O. Rn. 21 und vom 26. August 2009 a.a.O. Rn. 20).