BSG judgment of August 19, 2010, – B 14 AS 47/09 R –
No reimbursement of costs for school books of a benefit recipient according to SGB II
The SGB II contains a complete and flat-rate benefit regime, which, unlike the costs of multi-day school trips in Section 23 Paragraph 3 No. 3 SGB II, does not provide a legal basis for the reimbursement of the costs of school books.
School books are a one-off need and not an ongoing need, so Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II does not apply.
A claim against the social welfare provider under Section 73 SGB XII fails because it is not an atypical need for children.
The social welfare agency was responsible in accordance with Section 73 of the SGB
For the period up to June 2nd, 2010, the social welfare provider was responsible for the hygiene needs of a recipient of basic security for jobseekers (SGB II) suffering from AIDS. From June 3rd, 2010, the basic security provider is responsible for cases such as the present one due to the new standard of Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II responsible.
2. Decisions on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - State Social Court of Rhineland-Palatinate judgment of April 27, 2010, - L 3 AS 79/08 -, Federal Social Court B 14 AS 104/10 B
A one-off income received after the application has been submitted (sickness benefit cf. BSG, judgment of December 16, 2008, Ref.: B 4 AS 70/07 R) is legally valid even beyond the month of inflow and the approval period, regardless of the fact that the person in need of help has the income for their needs The income to be taken into account is used to pay off debts.
Securing one's livelihood through one's own resources must generally take precedence over paying off debts, so that income must be used to secure the livelihood of the members of the community of need. Section 3 Alg II-V in the version dated August 22, 2005 valid until December 31, 2007 in conjunction with Section 11 Para. 2 SGB II conclusively regulates which items are to be deducted from income. This does not include debts. This applies even if the recipient of assistance is thereby unable to fulfill existing contractual obligations (see also LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of June 21, 2006, L 29 B 314/06). It follows from the subsidiarity of state welfare that it should only intervene when those in need of help have used up the resources available to them - to secure their livelihood (cf. BSG, judgment of April 15, 2008 - B 14 AS 27/07 R ). The consequence of this is that a one-off income received after the application has been submitted remains legally income to be taken into account even beyond the month of the inflow and the approval period, regardless of the fact that the person in need of help has used the income to repay their debts.
2.2 – State Social Court of Rhineland-Palatinate judgment of March 30, 2010,- L 3 AS 138/08-
The standard benefits granted according to § 20 SGB II, the benefits for accommodation and heating according to § 22 SGB II or the surcharge according to § 24 SGB II. However, these are different types of services, so it must also be fundamentally clear which of these services are approved. Both an approval notice and a cancellation or withdrawal notice, which is the mirror image of an approval notice, must show with sufficient clarity what type of benefits are approved and in what amount or to what extent the granting of which benefit is revoked or withdrawn.
The yardstick for the interpretation of the administrative act is the perspective of an intelligent recipient who, as a participant, takes into account the context that the authority really wanted to include in its decision, whereby any ambiguities are to the detriment of the authority (cf. BSG, judgment of December 17, 2009 , Ref.: B 4 AS 30/09 R).
2.3 – LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen resolution of July 27, 2010, – L 9 AS 1049/09 B ER-
Determining the reasonableness of accommodation costs
The LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen looked at the Celle district's 2009 rental value report for the first time and found that, after a summary examination, this report can be viewed as a coherent concept for determining the upper rent limit for the affected family.
Offsetting with reimbursement claims in accordance with Section 43 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II is only permitted if the person in need of assistance has caused this by intentionally or grossly negligently providing incorrect and incomplete information.
If the person in need of help has properly reported that they have started working and has not been able to prove that they have received any income before unemployment benefit II is paid out, the requirements of Section 43 SGB II are not met.
2.5 - Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court decision of August 4, 2010, - L 11 AS 105/10 B PKH -
If it is generally planned to return the child from the inpatient facility to the family, but the timing is unclear, there is no entitlement to increased living space requirements due to the mother's access rights to her son.
The circumstances of the individual case must be taken into account. Criteria for determining an appropriate apartment size can include, in particular, the length of time in which access rights are exercised, the age of the children, individually increased space requirements, possibly also the distance to the parent's household, etc. (State Social Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 17 June 2008 – L 20 B 225/07 AS ER).
For single parents, the apartment may be designed in such a way that a child present on weekends or during holiday periods cannot be adequately accommodated. The contact and parental rights of the person in need of help can play a role if they live in an apartment that is obviously not suitable for visits by one or more children. Then e.g. B. in individual cases within the scope of § 22 SGB II, a necessary move to a larger apartment can be affirmed. However, it remains fundamentally the case that state benefits to secure one's existence in the context of family law relationships are not intended to replace the lack of ability of the person obliged to pay maintenance in all areas (cf. Federal Social Court, judgment of November 7, 2006 - B 7b AS 14/06 R) . The services to ensure the minimum subsistence level must enable, but not optimize, the exercise of access rights in cases of need. Visitation and parental rights are made possible if no unreasonable conditions arise when a child or another child is temporarily admitted (cf. Berlin Social Court, judgment of April 22, 2010 - S 128 AS 11433/08- Rn. 23).
++ Note: See Berlin Social Court judgment of April 22, 2010, S 128 AS 11433/08- ; Duisburg Social Court judgment of April 14, 2010, -S 31 AS 490/08- and SG Bremen decision of May 31, 2010, – S 23 AS 987/10 ER- in the case law ticker of Tacheles 24/2010 ).
2.6 – Detmold Social Court judgment of April 9, 2009, – S 10 (7) AS 142/06 –
A cost reduction request is - not - illegal if it does not show every detail of the appropriateness standard, nor that the appropriate rent was stated too low.
Because of the understanding of a reasonableness regulation, it is usually sufficient that the person in need of help knows the rent that the authority considers to be appropriate and the consequences of a lack of cost reduction (cf. BSG, judgments of March 19, 2008, Ref.: B 11b AS 41/ 06 R and B 11b AS 43/06 R, judgment of February 27, 2008, Ref.: B 14/7b AS 70/06 R). In addition, the obligation to reduce costs remains even in the event of subjective unreasonableness (cf. BSG, judgment of February 19, 2009, Ref.: B 4 AS 30/08 R).
++ Note: Different opinion from SG Koblenz court decision dated May 20, 2010, - S 16 AS 444/08-(case law ticker from Tacheles 24/2010 )
A request to reduce costs is ineffective if the person in need of help is incorrectly informed about the appropriate accommodation costs; this applies at least if the values specified by the basic social security provider are to the detriment of the person in need of help, i.e. too low.
Cost-cutting measures are only possible for a person in need of help if they are aware that a corresponding obligation applies to them (cf. BSG judgment of February 19, 2009 - B 4 AS 30/08 R; BSG, judgment of December 17, 2009 - B 4 AS 19/09 R).
It is necessary that at least the appropriate rental price is stated, since according to the product theory this is the decisive benchmark for assessing appropriateness (see also BSG judgment of November 7, 2006 - B 7b AS 18/06 R - BSGE 97, 254 = SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 3). This minimum requirement for the cost reduction request follows from the protective function inherent in the provision of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II (cf. BSG judgment of September 19, 2008 - B 14 AS 54/07 R).
A request to reduce costs is also ineffective if a deadline for the change of residence has been set that is too short, because according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II, if the expenses for accommodation exceed the appropriate amount, they must be taken into account for as long as it is It is not possible or unreasonable for the person in need of assistance to reduce costs by changing residence, but for a maximum of six months. This period is a standard maximum period and not a strict search and consideration period that the aid recipient could use as much as he wants. In atypical cases, a shorter deadline can be set or, under certain circumstances, the deadline can be extended (see Riepenstock in jurisPK-SGB II, § 22 note 84, a deviation from the six-month period requires justification by the consortium).
2.7 - Detmold Social Court judgment of August 5, 2009, - S 10 (12) AS 54/06 -, pending at the LSG NRW - L 19 (20) AS 44/09 -
For a five-person household, a house plot with a living space of 227 square meters is inadequate
Up to 150 square meters would be appropriate for a five-person household. Selling the house is not uneconomical or represents undue hardship.
2.8 - Social Court Detmold judgment of March 30, 2010, - S 18 AS 168/09 -
The environmental bonus in accordance with the guidelines for promoting the sale of passenger cars is income in the form of a designated income that cannot be taken into account as part of the benefits under SGB II.
The environmental bonus represents earmarked income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1 a SGB II (also LSG Hessen, decision of January 15, 2010, L 6 AS 515/09 B ER). On the one hand, Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1 a SGB II is intended to ensure that the special purpose of a service is not missed by its consideration within the framework of SGB II. On the other hand, the regulation is intended to prevent the provision of services for an identical purpose, i.e. a duplication of services. It therefore depends on whether the benefit in question, like the benefits under SGB II, serves to secure the existence of the beneficiary (BSG, judgment of September 30, 2008, B 4 AS 19/07 R; BSG, judgment of December 6, 2007, B 14/7b AS 62/06 R). The regulation of Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1 a SGB II covers income that serves a purpose other than maintenance or integration and whose purpose would be frustrated if it were taken into account.
++ Note: See also the North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court decisions of June 16, 2010, - L 12 AS 807/10 B ER - and - L 12 AS 808/10 B - (case law ticker from Tacheles 31/2010 ).
The state environmental bonus is a designated income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1a SGB II, which is not to be taken into account as income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 SGB II as part of the receipt of benefits according to SGB II is.
2.9 – Duisburg Social Court judgment of July 20, 2010, – S 31 AS 306/09 –
The characteristic of the relationship to the legal circle of SGB III does not arise directly from the law. Its application even in the event that a cross-border commuter is not entitled to SGB III benefits would create a gap in the SGB II sanctions system. In the Chamber's opinion, such a gap does not correspond to the will of the legislature. According to the interpretation of the BSG, terminations by employers are covered by Section 31 Paragraph 4 No. 3b SGB II (see BSG, judgment of March 22, 2010, B 4 AS 68/09 R, para. 12 f.). The aim here is not to protect the community of insured persons within the meaning of SGB III, but rather the community of solidarity, which is unnecessarily burdened by the resulting need for help within the meaning of SGB II in the event of a reproachable - i.e. controllable - termination by the employer (see also BSG, judgment of December 10, 2009 , B 4 AS 30/09 R, paragraph 24; judgment of March 22, 2010, B 4 AS 68/09 R, paragraph 16). This corresponds to the basic idea of the other offenses in Section 31 Paragraph 4 SGB II, which is particularly clearly expressed in Nos. 1 and 2. Even against the background of the principle of demand codified in Section 2 SGB II, it makes no difference whether someone's need for help under SGB II is caused by a reproachable act of initiating termination by the employer abroad or at home. Accordingly, Section 31 Paragraph 4 No. 3b SGB II in conjunction with Section 144 SGB III must be applied literally in the event of an employer's termination of an employment relationship abroad, or the requirement of a relationship with the legal circle of SGB III set out by the BSG must be interpreted restrictively
2.10 - Marburg Social Court Decision of August 5th, 2010, - S 5 AS 309/10 ER -
For Hartz IV recipients, the costs of a student annual ticket can be covered by the service provider as a subsidy in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II.
This is an atypical need, as school transport costs do not affect every SGB II recipient equally, but only those who have the opportunity to attend secondary school because of their abilities.
2.11 – Gießen Social Court, decision of August 19, 2010, – S 29 AS 981/10 ER –
Arge has to pay for a monthly student ticket from the 11th grade onwards
Student transport costs that a Hartz IV recipient incurs for attending the 11th grade of a high school can represent an unavoidable additional need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II.
With effect from June 3, 2010, the regulation of Section 21 Para. 6 SGB II was introduced, according to which an employable person in need of assistance receives benefits for additional needs if, in an individual case, there is an unavoidable, ongoing, not just one-off, special need. This can be assumed for student transport costs, because education plays a key role in our society. Especially for young people and adolescents, it is an important factor in integrating into the labor market and thereby avoids a continued need for help. It violates human dignity according to Article 1 of the Basic Law if the person in need of help were forced to stop school for financial reasons.
++ Note: See Marburg Social Court decision of August 5, 2010, S 5 AS 309/10 ER –
For Hartz IV recipients, the costs of a student annual ticket must be borne by the service provider as a subsidy in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II.
2.12 – Wiesbaden Social Court judgment of July 7th, 2010, – S 23 AS 799/08 –
Authorities are not allowed to offset excessive payments to a Hartz IV recipient due to an overpaid additional expense allowance against later benefits, but must reclaim these through normal administrative channels, because seizure limits also apply between the authorities and the Hartz IV recipient.
2.13 – Düsseldorf Social Court judgment of July 19, 2010, – S 25 AS 84/07-
The rent upper limit specified by the service provider is unlawful if it is not based on a coherent concept for determining the expenses for a simple apartment of an abstractly appropriate size in the lower segment of the relevant housing market.
If the service provider is not able to present a coherent concept, according to the new case law of the BSG, the actual costs of the accommodation must be granted, which, however, are limited "upwards" by the appropriateness limit.
If the service provider only uses apartments in the so-called simple housing segment as part of the evaluation of the housing market, it must define what it means by the simple segment.
2.14 – Düsseldorf Social Court judgment of July 19, 2010, – S 25 AS 209/07 –
If the person in need of help cites health limitations such as hearing impairment and sleep disorders, they must provide the Arge with evidence that there is a noise level in the specific apartments they have found that is detrimental to their health.
2.15 - Stade Social Court judgment of July 29, 2010, - S 17 AS 169/10 -
Training allowance in accordance with Section 105 Paragraph 1 No. 2 SGB III is to be taken into account as income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 SGB II (Saxon State Social Court judgment of November 1, 2007 - L 3 AS 158/06 -).
It is not inhumane for a social welfare recipient to wear or use used underwear, used socks and used towels that have been cleaned and checked for further usability by the clothing depots of the independent welfare agencies.
