Spain: Convicted Official Continues to Receive Pension Benefits
In a recent development, the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig has rejected a request to enable the withdrawal of the pension of a convicted murderer. The question at hand is whether the man's actions violated the free and democratic basic order of the German constitution.
The convicted murderer, who was tried in a Spanish court for the murder of his wife, has paid around 300,000 euros in damages to the surviving son and the heirs of the woman. However, the Senate has clarified that the man's crimes, committed for private reasons, do not fall under the category of actions that could lead to the withdrawal of his pension.
The Federal Employment Agency argued that the man's actions violated human rights and the free and democratic basic order, specifically citing the murder of the wife as a gender-specific crime (femicide). However, the Senate emphasized that the term "femicide" is not defined in German law and that the Spanish court did not classify the crime as such.
If the case had been tried in a German court, the pension would have been withdrawn, even for a deliberate crime with a prison sentence of two years or more, according to the 2nd Senate. Nevertheless, the Leipzig court has now rejected the disciplinary complaint for the withdrawal of the pension.
The request to enable the withdrawal of the pension was made by the Federal Employment Agency (Bundesagentur fΓΌr Arbeit). The agency's decision to pursue this matter highlights the seriousness with which the German government views crimes that violate human rights and the democratic order.
This ruling has sparked a debate about the applicability of German laws to crimes committed abroad, particularly in cases where the actions violate the fundamental principles of the free and democratic basic order. As the debate continues, it remains to be seen whether changes will be made to allow for the withdrawal of pensions in such cases.
In the meantime, the convicted murderer will continue to receive his pension, a decision that has raised questions about the appropriateness of such a situation in light of the gravity of his crimes.
