According to the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of 09.2.2010 (1 BvL 1/09; 1 BvL 3/09; 1 BvL 4/09), Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law – until the legislature creates a corresponding regulation – establishes a direct entitlement to benefits to ensure a minimum standard of living sufficient to cover unavoidable, ongoing, and not merely one-off, special needs.
The claim does not apply retrospectively, but only for the period from the pronouncement of the judgment on February 9, 2010, as the Federal Constitutional Court expressly clarified once again in a further decision (decision of March 24, 2010 – 1 BvR 395/09-).
First decisions based on the hardship clause of the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling of 09.02.2010 (1 BvL 1/09; 1 BvL 3/09; 1 BvL 4/09)
Social Court Chemnitz, decision of 09.03.2010, - S 3 AS 462/10 ER -
According to the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of 09.02.2010 (Case No.: 1 BvL 1/09), amounts for private health and long-term care insurance for privately insured persons that are not covered by the SGB II provider must be fully covered.
SG Berlin -S 174 AS 7801/10 ER- Decision of 15.03.2010
A recipient of unemployment benefit II is not entitled to a subsidy for the purchase of a new refrigerator based on the hardship clause derived from the Federal Constitutional Court (Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of February 9, 2010, 1 BvL 1/09), because a defective refrigerator is not a recurring need, but rather a one-time expense. The applicant should have saved up for the replacement from her standard benefit payment.
SG Berlin – S 147 AS 6183/10 ER – Decision of 04.03.2010
There is no hardship claim for the assumption of mortgage payments for a self-occupied apartment purchased on credit. The minimum subsistence level, which guarantees human dignity, is not affected. The constitution does not grant a right to accumulate wealth at the expense of the general public. The assumption of mortgage payments for one's own residential property can only be considered part of the costs of accommodation and heating, so that no claim can arise directly from Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. According to this, the hardship provision only applies to ongoing, unavoidable needs that are intended solely to supplement the benefits for securing subsistence as defined in Sections 20 and 28 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
SG Berlin – S 39 AS 9775/10 ER – from – Decision of 14.04.2010
A recipient of Hartz IV benefits must pay for the kindergarten trip themselves. Unlike multi-day school trips covered by school regulations in Section 23 Paragraph 3 Number 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), there is no legal basis for a subsidy from the job center. Kindergarten trips are not covered by law. There is also no entitlement based on the hardship rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court, as this is not a case of ongoing special need, but rather a one-time expense. A loan is not an option, as the amount can be raised by reallocating funds from already received benefits. The trip could also have been saved up for, especially since it had been planned for a year.
SG Berlin – S 110 AS 7262/10 ER –
Due to the hardship clause derived from the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG, judgment of 09.02.2010, 1 BvL 1/09), Hartz IV recipients are entitled to reimbursement of costs for exercising their right of access to children living separately.
The job center recognized the applicant's hardship claim for reimbursement of costs related to exercising his visitation rights with his separated daughter during the course of the court proceedings. This constitutes an ongoing, special need that is protected under the German Basic Law (Article 6 – Family). The applicant, residing in Berlin, requested reimbursement of €94 per train ticket to be able to pick up and return his 13-year-old daughter, who lives with her mother in Schleswig-Holstein, during the Easter holidays.
2. L 13 AS 224 / 09 NZB, Decision of 12.04.2010
The appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal is admitted, because the question of whether the costs for school materials for the 2007/2008 school year were to be covered as an atypical need under Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) has not yet been decided by the highest court.
The appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal is granted because, regarding the question of whether the need for the procurement of school supplies for children arises to the usual extent, qualifies as an atypical need within the meaning of Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) – or whether this is not the case – as, for example, the Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony (LSG NSB) – L 13 AS 26/07 NZB and Fahlbusch, Juris PR – SozR 8/2009, Note 2, have not yet been clarified by the highest court (the pending appeal – B 14 AS 47/09 R – against the judgment of the Higher Social Court of Rhineland-Palatinate of 25 November 2008, file no. – L 3 AS 76/07 – is still undecided, so this question is of fundamental importance).
Source: Lawyer A. Kroll from Oldenburg
3. Hessian State Social Court L 7 AS 90/10 B ER 06.04.2010, Decision
During the period of receiving benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), any equalization of accrued gains is considered income, because income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 of the SGB II is generally anything of value that someone receives after submitting an application, and assets are those they already possessed before submitting the application (Federal Social Court, Judgment of July 30, 2008 – B 14 AS 26/07 R – SozR 4-4200 § 11 No. 17).
www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note: Social Court Berlin S 128 AS 25352/07 28.01.2010, Judgment
Payments of €500 per month as part of the equalization of accrued gains are not considered income within the meaning of Section 11 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), but rather assets (cf. already for unemployment assistance, Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of June 8, 1989 – 7 RAr 34/88 – SozR 4100 § 138 No. 25), even if they were received after an application for unemployment benefit II (contra: Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of September 30, 2008 (B 4 AS 29/07 R – SozR 4-4200 § 11 No. 15)).
Not only in the aforementioned judgment of June 8, 1989, but also in other cases, the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court has consistently recognized that if assets are realized through sale – i.e., reallocated – at (or after) the application, this is not considered an "inflow of income" and therefore the proceeds are not to be taken into account as income (see Federal Social Court, judgment of June 20, 1978 – 7 RAr 47/77 – SozR 4100 § 138 No. 3; see also the Chamber's decision of December 14, 2009 – S 128 AS 38212/09 ER -).
If installment payments made on multiple due dates do not increase assets but merely redistribute them (cf. Hengelhaupt in Hauck/Noftz, K § 12, Rn. 96; Brühl in LPK-SGB II, § 11, Rn. 15 ff.), it is not considered income within the meaning of § 11 SGB II.
Even the maintenance payment of 900 EUR in three installments does not constitute income, but rather redistributes assets, as the claim is converted into money (contra SG Speyer, decision of June 1, 2006 – S 1 ER 161/06 AS -).
SG Karlsruhe decision of 25.2.2010, S 16 AS 2693/09
www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
4. State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia L 7 AS 519/10 B 15.04.2010 legally binding; decision
Legal aid is to be granted for the question of whether, as of January 1, 2010, a single person is entitled to 50 square meters of living space instead of 45 square meters according to Sections 18, 44 Paragraph 1, 45 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Housing Promotion Act (WFNG NW), Item 8.2 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Housing Utilization Regulations (WNB NW), or whether the provisions of the housing promotion regulations issued on January 28, 2010, are applicable, which stipulate a maximum living space of 47 square meters for one person (see the guidance document: Costs of Accommodation, published by the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, 4th edition 2010, p. 16 et seq.)
4.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court L 7 AS 340/10 B ER, L 7 AS 341/10 B, decisions of 15 April 2010, legally binding
Storage costs can be considered housing costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (BSG, judgment of December 16, 2008, case no. B 4 AS 1/08 R).
www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note: According to the case law of the Federal Social Court (judgment of April 16, 2008 – B 4 AS 1/08 R –), a claim for accommodation-related benefits under Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for renting additional storage space can, in principle, exist if the living space is so small that it is necessary for the reasonable storage of the person in need of assistance. However, the granting of basic income support benefits for renting storage space requires that the accommodation costs, including the costs for renting this storage space, are reasonable.
Regarding the non-reimbursement of storage costs in cases of unreasonable accommodation costs (cf. North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court L 19 B 275/09 AS ER, decision of 08.10.2009, legally binding).
For the storage of work-related items and furniture, Section 16 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) applies. According to this provision, additional benefits beyond those listed in Section 16 Paragraph 1 SGB II may be provided if they are necessary for the integration of the employable person in need of assistance into working life. These benefits include not only those listed in Section 16 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II. Rather, Section 16 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II contains a general clause for supplementary integration services of all kinds (Federal Social Court judgment of November 23, 2006 – B 11 b AS 3/05 R – with further references).
The provision of benefits under this provision is generally at the discretion of the administration, which can be inferred from the wording of the provision and, moreover, corresponds to a uniform opinion as far as can be seen (see Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd edition, Section 16, marginal note 61).
5. Saxon State Social Court – L 2 AS 248/09 – Judgment of 08.04.2010, appeal to the Federal Social Court allowed
Cash gifts for Christmas and birthdays are considered income under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Cash gifts to recipients of unemployment benefit II are only exempt from being counted towards their benefits up to a maximum of €50 per year, because Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the ALG II-V (Regulation on Unemployment Benefit II) does not contain any exemption provision (see Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg (Judgment of October 26, 2007 – L 8 AS 1219/07 – Paragraph 33; subsequently Federal Social Court, Judgment of September 30, 2008 – B 4 AS 57/07 R –; see also Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, Decision of February 21, 2007 – L 7 AS 690/07 ER-B and Higher Social Court of Rhineland-Palatinate, Judgment of April 25, 2008 – L 3 AS 6/07 –).
This is already evident from the wording of the regulation, which exempts amounts if they do not exceed €50.00 annually. Had the legislator intended to establish an exemption limit, the term "as far as" would have been expected instead of "if," as the legislator formulated it in the version of Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 12 of the ALG II-V (Regulation on Unemployment Benefit II) in force since January 1, 2009.
The provision in Section 1 Paragraph 1 Number 12 of the ALG II-V (Regulation on Unemployment Benefit II), which was incorporated into the ALG II-V by the Regulation of December 18, 2008 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2780) with effect from January 1, 2009, also provides guidance in this regard. According to this provision, monetary gifts to minors on the occasion of Confirmation, First Communion, or comparable religious celebrations, as well as on the occasion of the secular coming-of-age ceremony, are not to be considered income, provided they do not exceed the amount specified in Section 12 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 Number 1a of the SGB II (Social Code, Book II). This exception is limited to gifts given on the occasion of Confirmation, First Communion, or comparable religious celebrations, i.e., celebrations on the occasion of which someone is received into the community of believers or of adults. Birthdays and Christmas are not considered such celebrations.
The appeal was granted because, although the Federal Social Court had already indirectly ruled in its judgment of September 30, 2008 – B 4 AS 57/07 R – that Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the ALG II-V (Regulation on Unemployment Benefit II) does not contain an allowance provision, there is – as far as can be seen – no decision by either the Federal Social Court or a State Social Court on the further, decisive question of whether monetary gifts for birthdays or Christmas constitute earmarked income. This question goes considerably beyond the individual case and concerns a frequently recurring situation. It is therefore of a fundamental nature. The Social Court of Reutlingen – unlike the Social Court of Leipzig in the contested judgment – considered Christmas gifts as income to be taken into account within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (judgment of April 24, 2007 – S 2 AS 4151/06 – paragraph 22).
5.1 – Saxon State Social Court L 2 AS 711/09 B ER 22.12.2009, Decision
With the imminent birth of another child, a combination of unsuitable living conditions such as an apartment heated only by stoves, an unheated bathroom, dampness resulting in mold infestation, and high noise levels make a move necessary.
6. State Social Court Berlin-Brandenburg L 28 AS 2089/09 B ER 12.02.2010 legally binding, decision
The sanction mechanism of Section 31 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) requires that the employable person in need of assistance be offered a sufficiently specific job opportunity.
Adverse consequences can only be drawn from the recipient's conduct if the benefit provider has precisely defined the respective offer. This requires that, at a minimum, the type of work, its scope and distribution over time, as well as the amount of appropriate compensation for additional expenses, must be specified in detail (Federal Social Court, Judgment of December 16, 2008 – B 4 AS 60/07 R – para. 31/32).
For benefit recipients under the age of 25, individual instruction regarding the complete cessation of standard benefits is required. It is therefore established that a concrete implementation of the legal consequences instruction is necessary for each individual case, and it is not sufficient to simply provide the employable person in need of assistance with an information sheet from which they must independently determine the relevant conditions and legal consequences for their specific situation (BSG, loc. cit., para. 36).
A sanction notice is entirely unlawful if, during the sanction period, the benefit recipient did not receive any benefits in kind or benefits of monetary value from the benefit provider (Berlin Higher Social Court, decision of December 16, 2008 – L 10 B 2154/08 AS ER).
www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note: In any case, in cases where one or more sanctions result in the elimination of a very large portion of the standard benefit for the benefit period, the discretion granted to the benefit provider under Section 31 Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is reduced to the extent that it must decide on supplementary benefits at the same time as the sanction decision (Social Court Kassel - S 6 AS 373/09 ER - of January 21, 2010, decision; contrary opinion: Social Court Duisburg - S 31 AS 317/09 ER - of September 22, 2009, according to which the absence of a decision on the granting of supplementary benefits in the case of sanctions for breaches of duty up to and including the termination of benefits does not render the sanction notice unlawful).
6.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court L 19 AS 129/10 B ER 23.02.2010 legally binding, decision
The benefit provider can only grant an assurance regarding the expenses for new accommodation if a move is necessary and the expenses for the new accommodation are reasonable.
The preliminary ruling regarding the assurance of expenses is also not to be granted as the result of a balancing of interests (see Federal Constitutional Court, decision of May 12, 2005, 1 BvR 569/05). In particular, the applicants' constitutionally protected rights are not violated. Although the applicant freely terminated her previous lease effective January 31, 2010, the applicants are currently neither threatened with homelessness nor facing eviction from their current residence (cf. on this criterion Higher Social Court Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of April 26, 2007, L 18 B 608/07 AS ER-, Higher Social Court North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of September 14, 2007, L 7 B 119/07 AS ER). Applicants are also free to rent the unsuitable apartment in Estraße and to cover the remaining portion of their housing costs from their standard allowance or any other income they may have (in this case, blind person's allowance) or (protected) assets.
6.2 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court L 19 AS 151/10 B ER 25.02.2010 legally binding, decision
The term "housing procurement and relocation costs" within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is to be interpreted broadly, and includes the fees of a real estate agent – insofar as they are reasonable (see Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of July 16, 2009, L 11 AS 144/08, referring to Lang/Link in Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd edition, Section 22, marginal note 83).
There is no legal interest in an abstract review of a commitment to cover expenses or housing procurement costs for any desired apartment in preliminary injunction proceedings, because the examination of whether there is an entitlement to a commitment under Section 22 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), can only ever be carried out for a specific apartment based on a current housing offer (see Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of August 26, 2009, L 5 AS 1273/09 B ER, with further references). The same applies to a commitment under Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the SGB II. For the examination of whether a commitment under Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the SGB II can be granted, the appropriateness of the incurred costs must also be established as an unwritten prerequisite (see Lang/Link in Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd edition, Section 22, marginal note 82). However, the appropriateness of the costs of accommodation and heating is not to be assessed abstractly, but on a case-by-case basis (cf. BSG, judgment of 7 November 2006, B 7b AS 18/06 R = SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 1).
Note: North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court L 19 B 100/08 AS 21.07.2008 legally binding, decision
A prerequisite for entitlement to reimbursement of housing procurement costs under Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is, among other things, that the benefit provider guarantees reimbursement of these costs before the housing procurement costs are legally established (Federal Social Court [BSG], Judgment of November 7, 2006, B 7b AS 10/06 R, para. 27; Lang/Link in Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd ed., Section 22 para. 85). For the guarantee under Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the SGB II to be effective, it must be in writing, according to Section 34 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) (see Lang/Link in Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd ed., Section 22 para. 85).
7. State Social Court of Rhineland-Palatinate – L 1 SO 84/09 B ER – of 12.02.2010, legally binding decision
On the legal eligibility of a foreign student to work
8. Social Court Würzburg – S 16 AS 450/09 – of 29.03.2010, Judgment
The compensation for the activity as a city councilor is not completely exempt from consideration within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1a SGB II, since it is not entirely earmarked income and, moreover, it has such a favorable effect on income that a complete disregard would not be justified.
In commentary on the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), compensation payments for members of municipal councils and committees are generally considered earmarked income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1a SGB II (see Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, marginal note 39/Section 11; Oesterreicher, SGB II, marginal note 125/Section 11; LPK-SGB II, 3rd ed., marginal note 66/Section 11). However, according to the commentary in Mergler/Zink (Handbook of Basic Income Support and Social Assistance, Part I: SGB II, marginal note 89/Section 11), this should only apply to non-taxable expense allowances. Furthermore, it is stipulated that these allowances should only be considered earmarked within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1a SGB II insofar as they are granted for actual expenses incurred in public offices.
9. Social Court Landshut S 7 AS 127/10 ER 17.03.2010, Decision
Benefits under ALG II may not be denied to a person in need due to a lack of cooperation if it is unreasonable to expect the benefit recipient to submit corresponding proof of income and assets from the landlord, and the request for these documents concerns a third person who is not involved in the social benefit relationship.
10. Social Court Potsdam – S 39 AS 3620/08 – dated 04.02.2010
The additional meal allowance granted by the employer to a long-distance truck driver in need of assistance does not increase his assessable income under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), because expenses fall under the regulation of Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1 a SGB II (LSG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern; decision of June 29, 2007, file number: L 8 B 229/06).
Note: Decision of the Social Court Chemnitz of 15 January 2010, file number: S 26 AS 7050/09 ER
Additional benefits such as allowances provided by employers in the construction industry are earmarked income.
SG Chemnitz - S 6 AS 2054/09 - dated 10 February 2010, Judgment
Expenses for long-distance truck drivers are not eligible for Hartz IV benefits.
11. Social Court Detmold – S 18 (24) AS 88/08 – Judgment of 16.12.2009, pending before the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia under file number L 1 AS 211/10
Loan installments for rental deposits or cooperative shares may not be deducted from Hartz IV benefits.
Loan installments for rental deposits or cooperative shares may not be deducted from Hartz IV benefits. The withholding of monthly loan repayments for cooperative shares cannot be based on Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), because the loan in question, according to Section 22 Paragraph 3 SGB II, does not cover a need included in the standard benefit as defined in Section 20 SGB II, but rather falls under the benefits for accommodation and heating regulated in Section 22 SGB II. Due to the explicit provision in Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), that a rental deposit can be covered upon prior approval and is to be provided as a loan in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the SGB II, there is absolutely no doubt that the need arising for a recipient of assistance due to a rental deposit is not covered by the standard benefit, but rather constitutes a need for housing costs (Hesse State Social Court, decision of January 29, 2008, L 9 AS 421/07 ER; Frank in: Hohm, GK-SGB II, Section 22, marginal note 67).
According to Section 46 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I), claims to social benefits can be waived by submitting a written declaration to the benefit provider; this waiver can be revoked at any time with future effect. A waiver is not only possible in its entirety but can also be partial, as a partial waiver is necessarily included in a complete waiver. The only requirement is that the partial waiver be clearly distinguishable (Gutzler in: BeckOK, SGB I, § 46 Rn. 8). A waiver is a unilateral declaration of intent by the benefit recipient; accordingly, the defendant has no power to regulate a waiver itself in a legally binding manner by means of an administrative act (Seewald in: Kassler Kommentar, SGB I, § 46 Rn. 12).
12. Note on: LSG Munich 16th Senate, decision of 29.01.2010 – L 16 AS 27/10 B ER
Subsidy for insurance contributions for private health insurance for recipients of unemployment benefit II
Quote:
Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court – L 9 SO 5/09 – Judgment of 09.12.2009, appeal against this judgment pending under B 8 SO 3/10 R.
14. Notable commentaries from the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), with references
1. Earmarked income
According to Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1 a) of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 2 of the German Unemployment Benefit II Ordinance (ALG II-Verordnung), earmarked income is not to be considered as income. Accordingly, third-party payments are not to be considered income if they serve a purpose other than benefits under the SGB II and do not improve the recipient's situation to such an extent that additional benefits under the SGB II would no longer be justified. An earmarked payment in this sense exists if a payment has a specific purpose, clearly approved by the legislator, that does not consist of covering living expenses. Such an earmarked payment would be defeated if the recipient were required to use the payment for this purpose through income offsetting and were thereby prevented from using it for its intended purpose (see Hengelhaupt, in: Hauck/Noftz, SGB II, 28th Supplement 2009, Section 11, marginal note 213 with further references).
The provision of Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 2 ALG II-V is identical to Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1 SGB II and is therefore superfluous (Brühl in LPK-SGB II, 3rd edition, Section 11, marginal note 77).
2. Sanction notices
Sanction notices do not have suspensive effect pursuant to Section 86a Paragraph 2 No. 4 of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 39 No. 1 of the Social Code, Book II (SGB II), because such administrative acts reduce basic income support benefits for job seekers (Conradis in: Münder (ed.), LPK-SGB II, 3rd ed. 2009, Section 39 para. 5)
3. Regarding the exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2, second half-sentence, of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
The exclusion from benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2, second half-sentence, of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) applies not only to employable persons in need of assistance, but also to (non-employable) dependents of employable persons in need of assistance (see also Brühl/Schoch in Münder, LPK-SGB II, 3rd edition 2009, Section 7, marginal note 38; A. Loose in Hohm, GK-SGB II, as of November 2009, Section 7, marginal note 32.18; Adolph in Linhart/Adolph, SGB II/SGB XII/AsylbLG, as of September 2009, Section 7 SGB II, marginal notes 45 et seq.; Notes of the German Association on dealing with specialist questions of the SGB II and the SGB XII, NDV 2005, 264, 269; see also S. Knickrehm in Kreikebohm/Spellbrink/Waltermann, Commentary on Social Law). 2009, § 7 SGB II RdNr 10).
