87/08/0125•Insurance obligation decision partially annulled
87/08/0125Supremo Tribunal Administrativo12 de fev. de 1988Annulled
Extraído pela Omnilex
The Verwaltungsgerichtshof reviewed an administrative decision concerning H B’s compulsory health and unemployment insurance for the period 1 December 1983 to 30 April 1984. It annulled the decision insofar as it dealt with that insurance obligation for the specified period, and annulled the remaining part for procedural defects. The Bund, represented by the Federal Minister for Labour and Social Affairs, was ordered to reimburse the complainant ATS 8,060 in costs within two weeks. The request for further expenses and stamp-duty reimbursement was denied.
Administrative decision on compulsory health and unemployment insurance; annulment for illegality of content and for procedural defects. Where the contested decision determines insurance liability for a specific period, substantive unlawfulness leads to partial annulment of the dispositive part; independent procedural defects justify annulment of the remainder. Cost reimbursement follows the usual rule in favour of the successful complainant, while claims exceeding the awarded amount are rejected.
Der angefochtene Bescheid wird wegen Rechtswidrigkeit seines Inhaltes aufgehoben, soweit er über die Voll und Arbeitslosenversicherungspflicht des H B in der Zeit vom 1. Dezember 1983 bis 30. April 1984 abspricht; im übrigen wird er wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Verletzung von Verfahrensvorschriften aufgehoben.
Der Bund (Bundesminister für Arbeit und Soziales) hat dem Beschwerdeführer Aufwendungen in der Höhe von S 8.060, binnen zwei Wochen bei sonstiger Exekution zu ersetzen.
Das Mehrbegehren an Barauslagen und Stempelgebührenersatz wird abgewiesen.
Extraído pela Omnilex
Whether the contested administrative decision was unlawful insofar as it ruled on H B’s compulsory health and unemployment insurance for 1 December 1983 to 30 April 1984.
The decision was unlawful in that respect and had to be annulled for illegality of content.
The Court found substantive illegality regarding the ruling on insurance obligation for that period.
Whether the decision was otherwise unlawful due to procedural defects.
The remaining part of the decision was annulled for procedural unlawfulness.
The Court held that procedural rules had been infringed, which required annulment of the remainder.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.