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)
1.1 – Social Court Duisburg S 41 (31) AS 69/09 of 18.02.2010 legally binding, judgment
No aid for the purchase of orthopedic street shoes based on the hardship clause derived from the Federal Constitutional Court (Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of 09.02.2010, 1 BvL 1/09), because ultimately the principles of the Federal Constitutional Court's judgment only apply if the need is permanent and not just a one-off occurrence.
While the need for orthopedic street shoes is likely to arise regularly and for the foreseeable future, the respective periods of need are typically years apart, meaning that, according to the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of February 9, 2010, this does not constitute a permanently increased need that would be directly covered by Article 1 of the Basic Law.
Note: LSG Saxony, decision of 28.05.2009, file no. L 7 B 743/08 AS-NZB
The service provider is not obliged to cover the co-payment of EUR 76.00 for medically necessary custom-made orthopedic shoes.
State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia L 12 SO 18/06, Judgment of 12.12.2007
Within the framework of basic income support for the elderly according to §§ 41ff SGB 12, an additional amount for shoes – necessary due to an orthopedic disability – is to be granted as an unavoidable need pursuant to § 28 para. 2 sentence 1 SGB 12 in conjunction with § 42 sentence 1 no. 1 SGB 12.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) did not follow the opinion of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (LSG NRW) in its judgment of 29 September 2009, B 8 SO 5/08 R.
Increased expenses for shoes due to disability do not justify benefits beyond the statutory additional needs allowance for elderly and fully incapacitated persons who have been granted the disability marker G.
1.2 – Bremen Social Court S 23 AS 409/10 ER of 06.05.2010, Decision
A recipient of unemployment benefit II is not entitled to reimbursement of costs for private school tutoring in the case of (normal) learning and arithmetic difficulties, because this is not an unusual atypical need, as a not insignificant proportion of pupils require tutoring.
Tutoring is only covered by basic income support in exceptional cases. The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that special needs arising from atypical circumstances must be taken into account even before any amendment to the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (paragraph 220 of the judgment).
1.3 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court L 19 AS 10/09 of 26.04.2010, Judgment
The expenses for household energy costs, which are part of everyday needs and are already included in the standard benefit, do not constitute a case of hardship under which, pursuant to Article 1 Sentence 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, benefits must be granted to cover an ongoing, not merely one-off, special need that is essential for guaranteeing the minimum subsistence level (Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 09.02.2010 – 1 BvL 1/09- ).
Recipients of unemployment benefit II (ALG II) are not entitled to reimbursement of outstanding electricity bills, as there is no entitlement to benefits beyond the allowance for household energy costs included in the standard benefit rate under Section 20 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
According to the established case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG), which is also upheld by the Senate (BSG, judgments of March 19, 2008 – B 11 b AS 23/06 R; of February 27, 2008 – B 14/11 b AS 15/07 R; of February 19, 2009 – B 4 AS 48/08 R; decision of July 16, 2009 – B 14 AS 121/08 B), electricity costs, insofar as the electricity is not used for heating purposes, must be covered by the standard benefit rate under Section 20 SGB II and cannot be provided as housing costs benefits under Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II.
A claim for reimbursement of the electricity cost arrears does not arise from Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
According to Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), benefits can also be provided in other life situations if they justify the use of public funds. Cash benefits can be provided as a grant or as a loan. A special need is required, which must be closely related to the specific needs regulated in Sections 47 and 74 of the SGB XII. However, the benefit requested must not be a benefit from the subsistence allowance (Federal Social Court [BSG], Judgment of February 18, 2010 – B 4 AS 29/09 R). Therefore, needs covered by the standard benefit cannot constitute atypical needs under Section 73 of the SGB XII (Judgment of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia [LSG NRW] of August 27, 2009 – L 7 AS 72/08 –, Spellbrink in Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, Second Edition, Section 20, marginal note 38). As already explained, household energy costs are covered by the standard benefit.
2. Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of 18 February 2010, Case No. B 14 AS 76/08 R
Transitional benefits under the Occupational Diseases Ordinance are to be counted as income of the recipient of assistance.
3. State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen L 13 AS 100/10 B ER of 21.04.2010, Decision
When reducing the standard benefit to zero for a person under 25 years of age receiving assistance, the authority is obligated to combine this sanction decision with a discretionary decision regarding the possible provision of supplementary benefits in kind or cash benefits. This is because this severe sanction, which is generally considered permissible, significantly infringes upon the recipient's fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living (Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with the social welfare principle of Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law; see Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of February 9, 2010 – 1 BvL 1/09, 3/09, 4/09 –, NJW 2010, 505 = DVBl. 2010, 314 = FamRZ 2010, 429 –, para. 132) and substantially violates the principle of proportionality. affected.
1. Because the young person in need of assistance, who will generally have no or only a small amount of protected assets, will have no means (anymore) available to cover their necessary living expenses, in particular their basic needs for food and drink, once the sanction decision takes effect for the period covered by the sanction.
In principle, there is no objection to the legislator's provision in Section 31 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), that for young people receiving assistance—that is, young employable individuals who have not yet reached the age of 25—a severe sanction is imposed for a first-time breach of obligations. This sanction consists of a 100% reduction in standard benefits and the mandatory direct payment of housing and heating costs to the landlord in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the SGB II. This special regulation is intended to increase the pressure on young unemployed people to seek employment or training, thereby preventing them from becoming permanently trapped in long-term unemployment without realistic job placement prospects (see Bundestag Printed Matter 15/1516, p. 60).
However, if the reduction of the standard benefit to zero over a longer period means that the physical subsistence minimum of the young person in need is no longer guaranteed during the sanction period, thus seriously infringing upon their fundamental rights, then the constitutional order, specifically the protection of fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality, requires that the basic income support provider, along with the sanction decision, simultaneously make a discretionary decision pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 5 Sentence 6 in conjunction with Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as to whether and, if so, to what extent the young person in need should be granted supplementary benefits in kind or benefits of monetary value during the sanction period to mitigate the (serious) infringement of their fundamental rights (similarly: Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, Decision of December 16, 2008 – L 10 B 2154/08 AS ER –, ZFSH/SGB 2009, 233 –, para. 13). If the serious infringement of fundamental rights triggered by the sanction decision pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), necessitates a discretionary decision by the basic income support provider directly linked to the sanction decision pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 5 Sentence 6 in conjunction with Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 of the SGB II, then the protection of fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality are not sufficiently safeguarded by allowing the young person in need of assistance to submit a supplementary application for additional benefits in kind or benefits of monetary value to the basic income support provider even after the sanction notice has been issued. Rather, in order for the sanction decision to be constitutionally permissible at all, the decision pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 5 Sentence 6 in conjunction with Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 of the SGB II must be made simultaneously with the sanction decision, and ex officio by the basic income support provider, in order to compensate for the far-reaching infringement of fundamental rights. The requirement to link the decision pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 5 Sentence 6 in conjunction with Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) with the sanction decision (pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 SGB II) cannot be countered by arguing that the sanction decision risks being ineffective if the sanctioned young person in need can rely on always receiving supplementary benefits in kind or benefits of monetary value during the sanction period and thus will not be motivated to change their unlawful behavior in the future. Even the fact that the young person in need will only be able to satisfy their basic needs with vouchers during the sanction period places a considerable burden on them and can therefore bring about the desired change in their behavior. Furthermore, within the framework of the discretionary decision to be made by the basic income support provider pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which by no means necessarily requires the full replacement of the monthly standard benefit with vouchers during the sanction period, the basic income support provider may, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, also only provide partial benefits (when granting supplementary benefits in kind or benefits of monetary value) in order to take account of the fact that, based on the behavior shown so far, the person in need of assistance must be particularly encouraged to change their behavior.
2. A significant reason for terminating an internship as a truck driver is the requirement to significantly violate driving and rest time regulations. However, the person receiving assistance who wishes to successfully invoke a significant reason within the meaning of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), must provide proof of the existence of this significant reason.
3. A notification of legal consequences must be issued in close temporal proximity to the specific measure (LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, Decision of 1 September 2006 – L 8 AS 315/06 ER -; LSG Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Decision of 18 September 2007 – L 10 B 114/06 -; Berlit, in: Münder, SGB II, 3rd ed. 2009, para. 69 on § 31).
Note: Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Decision of 1 September 2006 – L 8 AS 315/06 ER –
4. In making its sanction decision, the benefit provider may be required, pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 6 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), to also make a discretionary decision on shortening the three-month period stipulated in Section 31 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 of the SGB II (see, presumably, the Higher Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of May 15, 2009 – L 5 AS 124/09 B ER –, paragraphs 54 et seq., and Vagolio, in: Hauck/Noftz, SGB II, as of March 2010, paragraph 157 on Section 31), which could also be seen as a failure to exercise discretion (Berlit, in: Münder, SGB II, 3rd edition 2009, paragraph 158 on Section 31).
Note: Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court L 10 B 2154/08 AS ER 16.12.2008 legally binding, decision
By reducing the standard benefit to zero for a person under 25 years of age who is in need of assistance, the Hartz IV authority creates a constitutionally precarious situation, which it can prevent by granting supplementary benefits in kind or cash benefits; if it fails to do so, the physical minimum subsistence level of the person in need is no longer guaranteed.
By reducing the standard benefit to zero for those under 25 years of age receiving assistance, the Hartz IV authority creates a constitutionally precarious situation, which it can prevent by granting supplementary benefits in kind or cash benefits. If it fails to do so, the physical minimum subsistence level of those receiving assistance is no longer guaranteed, as coverage is then limited to the costs of accommodation and heating and health insurance, while all other needs, especially the procurement of food, are not met.
The legal context includes the position clearly formulated by the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) that a violation of constitutional guarantees through the withholding of the subsistence minimum is unacceptable even if it only appears possible or only lasts temporarily (BVerfG, decision of 12 May 2005 – 1 BvR 569/05, para. 26 = NVwZ 2005, 927, 928).
The court's considerations regarding the necessity of not leaving the benefit recipient entirely without regular benefits or a benefit to compensate for their complete absence are consistent with the view already expressed under the Federal Social Assistance Act that, even in view of extensive sanctions, the benefit case must be kept "under control" (for details, see Rothkegel, Social Assistance Law, Chapter 11, Paragraph 55 et seq. with further references), i.e., a complete withdrawal of monetary benefits cannot occur in isolation, but must always be accompanied by initiatives for the appropriate further management of the benefit case.
3.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court L 15 AS 26/10 B ER of 26.02.2010, Decision
The coverage gap in private health and long-term care insurance is unconstitutional because Section 12 Paragraph 1c Sentence 6 Half-Sentence 2 of the Insurance Supervision Act (VAG) and Section 110 Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 Half-Sentence 2 of the Social Code Book XI (SGB XI) violate the state's constitutional obligation to guarantee a minimum standard of living, which derives from the principle of protecting human dignity in conjunction with the social welfare principle (see Federal Constitutional Court, decision of May 29, 1990 – 1 BvL 20/84 et al., BVerfGE 82, 60, 80 and in particular judgment of February 9, 2010 – 1 BvL 1/09, 1 BvL 3/09 and 1 BvL 4/09 on the unconstitutionality of standard benefits). According to the constitutional norms of Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG), Pursuant to Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, the state is obligated to guarantee indigent citizens the minimum requirements for a life of human dignity through social benefits. This includes ensuring adequate medical care (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of October 31, 1984 – 1 BvR 35/82 et al., BVerfGE 68, 193, 209; Federal Social Court, judgment of April 22, 2008 – B 1 KR 10/07 R, SozR 4-2500 § 62 No. 6 para. 31).
Note: Decision of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court of December 3, 2009 – Case No. L 15 AS 1048/09 B ER –
1. According to Section 26 Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in conjunction with Section 12 Paragraph 1 c Sentence 6 Half-Sentence 2 of the German Insurance Supervision Act (VAG), in cases where the need for assistance under the SGB II exists regardless of the amount of the contribution to be paid, the subsidy of the basic income support provider towards the expenses for private health insurance is limited in amount to the contribution to be borne by a recipient of unemployment benefit II in the statutory health insurance.
2. An analogous application of other regulations that provide for the full assumption of health insurance contributions (§ 12 para. 1 c sentence 5 VAG, § 26 para. 2 no. 2 half-sentence 1 SGB II) is not possible, as there is no unintended regulatory gap.
3. From Section 110 Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 Half-Sentence 2 of the German Social Code Book XI (SGB XI) in conjunction with Section 12 Paragraph 1 c Sentence 6 of the German Insurance Supervision Act (VAG), it follows that the subsidy of the basic income support provider is also limited to the amount that would be borne by a recipient of unemployment benefit II in the social long-term care insurance scheme with regard to contributions to private long-term care insurance.
4. The limitation of the contribution subsidy for private health and long-term care insurance for recipients of benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II), who are in need of assistance regardless of the amount of the contribution payable, to a total of €142.11 (from July 1, 2009), resulting from Section 12 Paragraph 1 c Sentence 6 Half-Sentence 2 of the German Insurance Supervision Act (VAG) and Section 110 Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 Half-Sentence 2 of Book XI of the German Social Code (SGB XI), violates the state's constitutional obligation to guarantee a minimum standard of living. This is because the difference of €178.53 between the contribution subsidies granted and the actual contribution payable cannot be covered by the standard benefit under Section 20 of Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II).
5. The person in need of assistance cannot be referred to avert a threat to their subsistence level by only paying contributions to private health and long-term care insurance in the amount of the subsidy from the basic income support provider and thereby accumulating monthly contribution debts with their health insurance company in the amount of €178.53.
6. The right of the person in need of assistance to effective legal protection (Article 19, Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law) requires, in the present case, that an interim order for the granting of provisional benefits be issued in the preliminary proceedings to avert significant disadvantages for the person in need of assistance, pursuant to Section 86b, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 of the Social Court Act. The lower courts are not prevented by the Federal Constitutional Court's monopoly on declaratory judgments under Article 100, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law from granting provisional legal protection based on their legal opinion even before the Federal Constitutional Court's decision in the main proceedings, if this appears necessary in the interest of effective legal protection under the circumstances of the case and does not prejudge the decision in the main proceedings (Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of June 24, 1992 – 1 BvR 1028/91, BVerfGE 86, 382, para. 29).
3.2 – Decision of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court of 26 February 2010 – Case No. L 15 AS 30/10 B ER – (legally binding)
Exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is in conformity with European law.
Regarding the question of the exclusion of EU citizens seeking employment from basic income support for jobseekers under Section 7(1) sentence 2 no. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
The subsistence-level benefits of basic income support for jobseekers under the SGB II are social assistance benefits within the meaning of Article 24(2) of the EU Directive. Article 24(2) of the EU Directive is compatible with higher-ranking EU law (Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 4 June 2009, Cases C-22/08 and C-23/08).
3.3 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court L 13 AS 34/10 B ER of 08.03.2010, Decision
Objections and legal actions against refusal notices have no suspensive effect (§ 39 No. 1 SGB II as amended from 01.01.2009).
For the refusal or withdrawal of benefits due to failure to cooperate pursuant to Section 66 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I), also constitutes a decision on basic income support for job seekers, for which no suspensive effect should apply under this provision (cf. Eicher in: Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd edition, Munich 2008, Section 39, marginal note 12; Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of June 29, 2006 – L 9 AS 239/06 ER -).
The amendment to the law, effective from January 1, 2009 (through Article 2 No. 14, Article 8 Paragraph 1 of the Law on the Reorientation of Labor Market Policy Instruments of December 21, 2008, Federal Law Gazette I, page 2917), did not result in any substantive change, despite slightly different wording, regarding the refusal or withdrawal of benefits due to lack of cooperation on the basis of Section 66 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I), because, according to the explanatory memorandum to the law, no change in this respect was intended. Rather, the amendment was intended to expand and clarify the former No. 1 of the provision, which, according to the prevailing opinion, also considered decisions based on Section 66 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) to be immediately enforceable (see Conradis in: LPK – SGB II, 3rd edition 2009, Section 39, marginal note 1; Hengelhaupt in: Hauck/Notfz, SGB II, as of November 2009, Section 39, marginal note 76; contra: Coseriu/Holzhey in: Linhart/Adolph, SGB II, as of December 2009, Section 39, marginal note 10).
www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note: Baden-Württemberg State Social Court L 7 AS 304/10 ER-B of 08.04.2010, decision
Objections and legal actions against refusal notices have suspensive effect (§ 39 No. 1 SGB II as amended from 01.01.2009).
A withdrawal of benefits due to lack of cooperation pursuant to Section 66 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not covered by the exclusion of the suspensive effect (Social Court Lüneburg S 45 AS 4/10 ER 14.01.2010, Decision).
4. State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia L 7 B 379/09 AS ER of 05.05.2010 legally binding, decision
If a person receiving benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) has private health insurance at the basic rate, an interim injunction seeking to compel the benefit provider to pay more than the amount covered by statutory health insurance is generally not possible, as the extensive protective provisions for the insured preclude such an injunction (see Baden-Württemberg Higher Social Court, decision of March 22, 2010, L 13 AS 919/10 ER-B).
www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note: Hamburg Higher Social Court decision of 22 February 2010, L 5 AS 34/10 B ER
1. Section 26 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in conjunction with Section 12 Paragraph 1c Sentence 6 of the German Insurance Supervision Act (VAG) limits the assumption of contributions for private health insurance in the basic tariff to the amount that a recipient of unemployment benefit II would have to pay in statutory health insurance according to the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V), and which is still less than half the amount in the basic tariff, if the need for assistance exists regardless of the contribution amount.
2. Despite the resulting contribution arrears, the insurance relationship is not suspended pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 6 Sentence 5 of the German Insurance Contract Act (VVG), and therefore there is no ground for an order for preliminary legal protection. The solution to the problem of the accruing contribution debts cannot be anticipated by an expedited court decision.
4.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court L 12 AS 223/10 B ER of 05.05.2010 legally binding, decision
If the rent arrears of the person in need of assistance have been paid by his mother, there is no ground for an order and therefore no urgency in the expedited proceedings.
In proceedings for an interim injunction aimed at granting ongoing benefits for accommodation and heating, grounds for an injunction regularly exist if the applicant credibly demonstrates that, without such an injunction, a termination of the tenancy or an eviction lawsuit is seriously to be expected after the next due date for payment of the rent (Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of December 12, 1994, – 8 B 2650/94 –, NWVBl. 1995, p. 140 et seq.; Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of August 13, 2007, – L 9 B 102/07 AS ER –, with further references; decision of February 15, 2007, – L 1 B 4/07 AS ER –; decision of March 27, 2007, – L 9 B 46/07 AS ER –; decision of 16.04.2007, – L 9 B 48/07 AS ER -; decision of 06.10.2006, – L 12 B 120/06 AS ER – and decision of 15.01.2007, – L 12 B 199/06 AS -, each with further references), but not if it is not apparent from which means the uncovered accommodation needs can be met (LSG NRW, decision of 13.08.2007, – L 9 B 102/07 AS ER -, with further references; contra: Hessian State Social Court, loc. cit.).
5. Saxon State Social Court L 7 AS 43/10 B ER, decision of 30.04.2009
Environmental bonuses must not be counted as income.
www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
6. State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt L 5 AS 265/09 B ER of 06.10.2009 legally binding, decision
The environmental bonus is a designated revenue according to § 11 para. 3 no. 1a SGB II (as also ruled by the 2nd Senate of the State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of September 22, 2009, L 2 AS 315/09 B ER).
The applicants' situation is not so favorably affected by the acquired financial benefit within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), that additional benefits under the SGB II would no longer be justified. This would be the case if the income or gifts altered the recipient's individual circumstances to such an extent that the need for assistance decreased (cf. Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd ed. 2008, Section 11, marginal note 40).
7. SG Chemnitz S 35 AS 1606/10 ER, decision of 12.04.2010
The scrappage bonus cannot be counted towards Hartz IV benefits, because the environmental bonus is not to be counted towards unemployment benefit II as an earmarked income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1a of the Social Code, Book Two – SGB II.
8. SG Koblenz S 2 AS 411/10 ER, decision of 26.04.2010
Replacing an integration agreement with an administrative act is possible if, among other things, reasonable requirements have been set.
An integration agreement may be replaced by an administrative act if, after a sufficient negotiation period, an integration agreement pursuant to Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not reached, the administrative act replacing the integration agreement has the same content as the integration agreement, the conclusion of the integration agreement was not prevented by unreasonable demands from the benefit provider, and the benefit provider made a serious and consensus-oriented effort to conclude the integration agreement.
cms.justiz.rlp.de
9. Social Court Hildesheim S 54 AS 963/09 of 25.03.2010
No assurance pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) by the benefit provider for a 55-year-old recipient of unemployment benefit II (ALG II) who lives rent-free in his father's single-family home, if a change of residence without justification, for example to a neighboring town of his previous residence, which is solely motivated by the desire to obtain his own apartment, is given as the reason for moving (cf. LSG NSB, decision of 11.02.2008 – L 9 AS 1/08 ER – ).
10. Literature for lawyers: The Hartz IV mandate
Ludwig Zimmermann, lawyer, specialist lawyer for social law and specialist lawyer for employment law, Potsdam:
The Hartz IV mandate – NomosHartz4-The right to subsistence
Legal bases, strategies, fees
From the foreword:
Quote:
Benefit recipients require qualified advice and representation in objection and appeal proceedings. However, the legislature has not adjusted legal fees to reflect these increased demands. Case law exacerbates the situation through its sometimes restrictive application of fee regulations. Therefore, fees under the Lawyers' Fees Act in social court proceedings and in legal aid cases deserve special attention. This work identifies potential "fee traps" and strategies for avoiding them.
Despite this slight drawback, "Hartz IV" is a very dynamic and interesting area of law for lawyers working in this field. Studying "Hartz IV" is worthwhile!
Quote:
This decision of the Federal Constitutional Court has practical implications in many respects. In particular, the Federal Constitutional Court has established a right to atypical needs. This is discussed in detail in Chapter § 3, paragraphs 83 et seq. Furthermore, it restricts the possibility of imposing sanctions against those in need of assistance (see Chapter § 5, paragraph 39), and it is likely incompatible with the established constitutional principles that the costs of private health and long-term care insurance are not fully covered (Chapter § 3, paragraph 29).
Quote:
The significance of the subsistence minimum extends far beyond the circle of welfare recipients, because the state-determined subsistence minimum must be protected from taxation (Federal Constitutional Court decision of February 13, 2008 – 2 BvL 1/06B on the tax exemption of necessary expenses for contributions to private long-term care and health insurance). An increase in benefits to cover the subsistence minimum therefore results in an increase in the basic tax allowance and ultimately leads to tax relief for all citizens.
Quote:
As has become clear here, everything is currently in flux, and it is not yet possible to predict with certainty how the legal situation will develop in the coming months. To keep users of this book up to date, the print edition is therefore supplemented by an online resource at NomosHartz4-Das Existenzsicherungsrecht (Nomos Hartz IV - The Law on Securing Livelihoods). On these pages, you will find, among other things, current information on the progress of the legislative process and answers to frequently asked questions related to the management of Hartz IV cases.
Source: Willy V. www.elo-forum.org
