Maybe this Online-Translation helps:
BSG strengthens claim of autistic people on barrier-free communication
Submitted by Mr. Ad on 3 December 2013 - 18:39
Accessibility
Disability
Discrimination
Expert
Communication
Disadvantage compensation
Versorgungsamt
The Federal Social Court has clearly stated in a precedent that autistic people need to be assessed under barrier-free circumstances. Particularly focused on the accessibility of communication with the appraiser. So far, judges often followed their own abwiegelnden to the reviewers who this usually rejected.
In this case, the responsible security office as well as the first two socially judicial authorities refused to commit the verifier to the attention of barrier-free environment, or to search according to expert witness (an expert who knows anything about autism, is certainly not autistic unreasonable assessment may suspend) . For this reason, the autistic plaintiff refused all ordered appraiser, but at the same time always emphasized that he was ready for a review under barrier-free circumstances. Without the genuine willingness to barrier-free telex communication he would disadvantage because most other people communicate with appraisers, therefore, also explain that represent their own point of view, draw attention to matters which would otherwise not be considered and can correct misunderstandings interactively would. However, the Social Court saw its official investigative obligation already satisfied by the fact that the autistic allegedly refused to cooperate and let the appeal with the BSG despite otherwise requested not to.
Similarly, the lower courts have assumed that the summons to oral proceedings have given the autistic plaintiff ample opportunity to present submissions, even if they could not be considered as barrier-free in accordance with a present medical certificate.
The Federal Social Court recognized in its decision of 14/11/2013 Az B9SB5/13B this as a violation of the law of the lower courts and remanded the case back to the Social Court, which has now come to terms with how an accessible assessment of autistic individuals must be designed.
In its reasoning, the BSG reference recorded according to the present Act
- This ESH patterns certificate: Link
- ESH Information Sheet 10: Link
Some quotes from the decision:
Quote:
The leave to appeal the plaintiff is permitted. The plaintiff has the procedural defect alleged sufficiently indicated (§ 160a Abs 2 S 3 SGG).
The plaintiff No. 2 3 Halbs 2 SGG a process-oriented regulatory evidence in support of his application specified on a violation of § 103 SGG-based leave to appeal in accordance with § 160 Abs. By referring to the judicial warrant from ... 403 Code of Civil Procedure has been sufficiently established by § proof issue. Furthermore, the applicant has also stated that the LSG is his request to have an evaluation on the basis of the principles of accessibility not complied with, without sufficient justification, although it would have this need to feel crowded.
The complaint is well founded. The impugned judgment of the LSG from ... based sense of § 160 Abs 2 Br 3 SGG on the procedural defect identified by the plaintiff, and it is in violation of the official determination principle (§ 103 SGG) was given.
Quote:
..., The plaintiff has been letters from ... the LSG provided a copy of the "autistic Information Sheet 10," which deals with the "need for barrier-free communication," and describes the minimum requirements that the physical assessment was carried out separately from the communication and the latter must telex performed from in the area. Against this background, the LSG should have seen pushed in advance to clarify with the experts this possibly be taken into consideration circumstances particular to determine what kind of exploration for the plaintiff is reasonable. As Dr. has ... already by letter of ... expressly pointed out that the plaintiff because of its established disability as permanently unfit to stand trial in relation to hearings should be considered in court and not be able to represent adequately its own interests, since oral presentation cause a sensory overload to defects in the processing of stimuli including mental pain could. ...
This situation has not borne sufficient account of the LSG. Anyway, it is not clear that all reasonable options have been explored in order to further clarify the facts. In particular, it stands to reason that a ... coordinated personal examination of the plaintiff connected to a corresponding exploration and testing can be performed.
30 Dec 2013, 8:02 am
