If no integration agreement has been made, the reduction of benefits under SGB II due to failure to take action is unlawful.
The home ownership allowance can reduce the actual housing requirement
In the case of house or apartment owners, the BSG has fundamentally decided that the debt interest and additional costs are only to be borne in the amount of the rent of a comparable, appropriate rental apartment (already BSGE 97, 203 = SozR 4-4200 § 12 No. 3; BSGE 100, 186 = SozR 4-4200 § 12 No. 10, each paragraph 34 ff; judgment of the Senate of June 18, 2008 - B 14/11b AS 67/06 R - SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 13; see also 4th Senate of the BSG, judgment from March 3, 2009 - B 4 AS 38/08 R - SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 17 RdNo. 14).
The BSG has already decided that the home ownership allowance is not to be taken into account as income at the expense of basic security recipients if it can be proven that it is used in accordance with its purpose (basic judgment of the 4th Senate of September 30, 2008 - BSGE 101, 281 = SozR 4-4200 § 11 No. 14; confirmed in the judgment of March 3, 2009 - B 4 AS 38/08 R - SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 17).
On the other hand, the 4th Senate of the BSG also made it clear (judgment of March 3, 2009 - B 4 AS 38/08 R - SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 17 RdNr 20) that the home ownership allowance, insofar as it is directly related to the Interest on the debt is charged, which can reduce the need for housing.
If the home ownership allowance actually leads to a monthly reduction in the actual debt interest, then according to the logic of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, only the actual debt interest can be claimed as KdU (for the purpose of assuming repayment payments, which is only possible in exceptional cases of hardship). as KdU see BSG SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 13 RdNr 27 ff).
www.socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – BSG B 4 AS 30/09 R, judgment of December 17, 2009
A blanket instruction on the legal consequences of not accepting a job opportunity does not justify a reduction in Hartz IV benefits.
Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB II presupposes in all alternatives regulated there that the person in need of help has failed to take the action requested of him "despite being informed about the legal consequences". The effectiveness of such information on the legal consequences requires that it is specific, correct and complete, that it occurs promptly in connection with the respective offer of a job opportunity, and that it explains to the employable person in need of help in an understandable form what direct and concrete consequences arise from the refusal to accept the offered job opportunity to appear for him if there is no important reason for the refusal (cf. BSG, judgment of December 16, 2008 - B 4 AS 60/07 R, BSGBE 102, 201, 211 = SozR 4-4200 § 16 No. 4, RdNo 36; Rixen in Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd edition 2008, § 31 RdNr 44; Berlit in LPK-SGB II, 2nd edn 2007, § 31 RdNr 64 ff; Schmidt-De Caluwe in Estelmann, SGB II, status December 2007, § 31 RdNr 84 ff; Sonnhoff in jurisPK-SGB II, 2nd edition 2007, § 31 RdNr 139 ff; Dauber in Mergler/Zink, SGB II, as of October 2008, § 31 RdNr 16; see also the employment promotion law BSG , judgment of September 16, 1999 - B 7 AL 32/98 R = BSGE 84, 270, 276 mwN; BSG, judgment of June 1, 2006 - B 7a AL 26/05 R = juris RdNr 14). These strict requirements arise from the function of the legal consequences instruction to adequately inform the employable person in need of help about the serious consequences of Section 31 Paragraph 1 SGB II (reduction of the relevant standard benefit by 30% and elimination of the surcharge according to Section 24 SGB II) and him to warn in general form (see BSG, judgment of December 10, 1981 - 7 RAr 24/81 = SozR 4100 § 119 No. 18 S 87; BSG, judgment of May 13, 1987 - 7 RAr 90/85, BSGE 61, 289, 293 = SozR 4100 § 119 No. 31). Only an understandable explanation of the legal consequences can achieve the purpose of the sanctions, which is to control the behavior of those in need of help.
The warning and control function is lost if the basic security provider standardizes the legal consequences instructions in such a way that - as in the present case - it only lists different types of measures and the job opportunity within the meaning of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 Letter d SGB II is one of several possible Variants named. The addressee will only be adequately informed if only the specific measure, the non-participation of which will have adverse consequences, is expressly named and the addressee feels directly addressed. On the other hand, it is not sufficient if several variants are offered to choose from and the person in need of help is left to choose whether one of the alternatives mentioned is relevant for them.
The requirement for adequate specification of the legal consequences does not have to be lowered in individual cases, for example if the employable person in need of assistance had to be clear about the possible legal consequences of rejecting the specific job opportunity offered. In this respect, what matters is not the knowledge or need to know of the legal consequences by the employable person in need of help, but rather the actions of the person who presents the work opportunity. As a formal and mandatory condition for the legal consequences of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 Letter d SGB II to occur, the instructions must therefore be specified independently of the identity of the employable person in need of assistance (see BSG, judgment of December 10, 1981 - 7 RAr 24 /81, BSGE 53, 13, 16 = SozR 4100 § 119 No. 18 S 88 f).
The Saxon LSG has decided that cash gifts to recipients of unemployment benefit II ("Hartz-IV") only remain exempt up to an amount of €50 per year.
With reference to Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the Unemployment Benefit II Ordinance in the version valid until the end of 2007, benefit recipients are only allowed to receive a total of €50 per year (not for each reason, as the SG Leipzig has assumed) without any deduction. However, in the opinion of the State Social Court, amounts beyond this must be taken into account in full (i.e. without deducting a tax allowance of €50) as income.
3. State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia L 20 AS 324/10 B March 29, 2010 legally binding, decision
The legal protection system of the Social Courts Act (SGG), unlike in the event of inaction by the administration, against which an action for inaction can be brought under the conditions of Section 88 SGG, does not provide for any legal remedies against the inaction of a court - if such inaction can be established (cf. already the resolutions of the adjudicating Senate of June 30, 2006 - L 20 B 69/06 AS mwN and of September 12, 2008 - L 20 B 97/08 AS ER).
3.1 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia L 19 AS 235/10 B ER March 23, 2010 legally binding, decision
3.2 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia L 1 AS 36/09 February 23, 2010, judgment appeal permitted
In addition to the costs for accommodation and heating, the reimbursement obligation according to Section 36a SGB II is subject to the services that are necessary for the integration of the employable person in need of help into working life. The concept of necessary integration should be defined broadly. General support in the women's shelter is part of the professional integration measures. The aim of a stay in the women's shelter is not only to provide protection but also to prepare for the time after the stay in the women's shelter. The ability to lead a self-determined and independent life, which should be achieved through individual support for those affected in the women's shelter, is a prerequisite for reintegration into the labor market.
4. Resolution of March 11, 2010 – 1 BvR 3163/09 –
Full crediting of child benefit against Hartz IV benefits is constitutional.
www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de
5. Lüneburg Social Court S 45 AS 4/10 ER January 14, 2010, decision
According to Section 86a Paragraph 2 No. 4 SGG in conjunction with Section 39 No. 1 SGB II, an objection to an administrative act that, among other things, cancels, withdraws, revokes or reduces basic security benefits for job seekers does not have a suspensive effect. With the choice of the relevant terms, the regulation makes it clear that what is meant is the repeal provisions of Sections 45 to 49 SGB SGB II, 3rd edition, § 39 RdNo. 5).
A withdrawal of benefits due to a lack of cooperation in accordance with Section 66 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II is therefore not covered by the exclusion of the suspensive effect. The provision of Section 39 No. 1 SGB II cannot be interpreted in an expanded manner. On the one hand, according to the general rules, this follows from the fact that it is an exceptional provision, and on the other hand, from the fact that the provision represents a restriction on legal protection (LSG Hamburg, decision of May 29, 2006, Ref.: L 5 B 77/06 ER AS; G. Wagner in: jurisPK-SGB II, 2nd edition 2007, § 39 RdNo. 14; Conradis in LPK-SGB II, 3rd edition, § 39 RdNr. 4, 11).
5.1 – Lüneburg Social Court S 45 AS 34/10 ER February 16, 2010, decision
