Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 05.08.2026 – L 15 VG 9/26 B ER –
The law on social compensation has broadened the definition of violent crime: Since the enactment of the German Social Code, Book XIV (SGB XIV), not only physical attacks but also, under certain conditions, psychological acts of violence can give rise to a claim for compensation. This raises the question of when psychological pressure, threats, or intimidation cross the line into legally relevant psychological violence.
The decision of the Bavarian State Social Court of August 5, 2026, provides an initial insight into this matter. The central question is what requirements must be met for "serious conduct" and whether the focus should be solely on the objective severity of the conduct or also on the specific situation of the person concerned.
The 52-year-old complainant, an authorized signatory of a company involved in the restructuring of a failed Iran project, stated that in June 2025, an escalating dispute with a former project partner occurred. He claimed that a campaign of criminal charges, negative reports to the German credit agency Schufa, and a 24-hour ultimatum demanding payment of €700,000 was directed against him. He considered this a targeted attempt at personal intimidation. According to his testimony, this immediately triggered a severe mental breakdown with acute suicidal ideation. He was subsequently diagnosed with a relapsed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with depression and significant psychological distress. A previously existing PTSD had been in stable remission for an extended period.
The appellant applied for provisional benefits pursuant to Section 119 of the German Social Code, Book XIV (SGB XIV). The State Social Court had to decide on this matter in preliminary legal proceedings.
The present decision is interesting because it is one of the first concerning psychological violence, which is newly enshrined in the German Social Code, Book XIV (SGB XIV).
The "classic" definition of violence focuses on physical assault. However, several categories of cases have emerged where violence has been affirmed even without direct physical violence. For example, according to the Federal Social Court's (BSG) jurisprudence, threatening someone with a weapon fulfills the definition of violence. Threatening someone in an email is not comparable. However, the Higher Social Court (LSG) should also consider the BSG's decision of September 10, 1997 – 9 RVg 1/96 – in its review. In that case, three intoxicated men banged on the apartment door of the eventual victim. Terrified, the victim jumped out of the back window and was seriously injured. Here, the BSG affirmed a physical assault. The threats were accompanied by the direct use of force against a locked door. The behavior was therefore not limited to threats alone.
The Higher Social Court (LSG) focused on the absence of direct physical contact. At the same time, according to the defendant's testimony, several actions had been taken – criminal charges, reports to Schufa (Germany's largest credit bureau), and a payment ultimatum. However, the significance of these actions and whether they themselves constitute an unlawful attack were not yet definitively clarified in the preliminary proceedings.
The denial of psychological abuse is rather brief. The court understands the numerous examples in Section 13 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book XIV (SGB XIV), as merely guidelines for determining whether behavior is serious, without necessarily constituting a criminal offense. However, the court appears to be applying a general, objective definition of what constitutes "serious." This raises the question of what significance the particular vulnerability of an individual can have. The appellant argued that the incident had triggered a previously remitted episode of PTSD. This alone certainly cannot determine the objective severity of the behavior. The question remains, however, whether such individual circumstances can be completely disregarded when assessing the severity, and especially when distinguishing between psychological abuse and merely distressing behavior. (SP)
Here is the link to the decision text: