1.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 24 November 2010, – L 10 AS 2064/10 B PKH –
If, due to the harsh winter of 2009, the person in need of assistance used an oil radiator in addition to the fuel allowance already granted, the subsequent electricity cost claim is to be covered as a further heating cost requirement within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), when it becomes due.
The assumption of electricity costs for an oil radiator as (further) expenses for accommodation and heating within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 or Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is possible, provided that they are to be used for heating the apartment (see Federal Social Court (BSG), decision of May 26, 2010 – B 4 AS 7/10 B, paragraph 8 with further references).
Not only ongoing costs, such as monthly electricity prepayments, are covered, but also one-off costs for accommodation and heating. Therefore, if an electricity bill – as in this case – is due in a single lump sum, it constitutes an actual, current need within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), at the time it becomes due, if and insofar as it is attributable to the operation of a heating system. A separate application for coverage of this need is not required (see Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of March 22, 2010 – B 4 AS 62/09 R, paragraphs 13 et seq. with further references).
In such a case, where even obtaining an expert opinion might not promise a clear clarification and, moreover, obtaining such an opinion – also in view of the amount of the claim – could entail a disproportionate effort (legal principle of § 287 para. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; cf. Federal Social Court, judgment of December 15, 2009 – B 1 AS 1/08 KL, para. 41 et seq.), the court may not invoke the rules of objective burden of proof.
Rather, if it wishes to refrain from obtaining an expert opinion, it is at least obligated to make an estimate pursuant to Section 287 Paragraph 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) in conjunction with Section 202 of the German Social Court Act (SGG) (cf. regarding the general applicability of Section 287 ZPO in social court proceedings, e.g., Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of May 28, 2003 – B 3 P 6/02 R, para. 14 = SozR 4-3300 § 15 No. 1 para. 12, each with further references). This should apply at least as long as the estimate does not determine whether the benefit is granted, but only its amount.
++ Note: See also the decision of the Saxon State Social Court of 15 February 2010, – L 3 AS 598/09 B PKH –, published in the case law ticker of Tacheles KW 11/2010.
Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) refers to benefits for accommodation and heating and, by its very wording, does not suggest any restriction to specific heating systems. Electricity costs for the electric use of a radiant heater are heating costs.
The electricity consumption will have to be determined or, if necessary, estimated based on a plausibility check of the plaintiff's statements, the electricity bills, and the technical consumption data of the radiant heater (§ 287 of the German Code of Civil Procedure). Since these investigations must be carried out ex officio (cf. § 103 para. 1 sentence 1 of the German Social Court Act), the prospects of success of the intended legal action within the meaning of § 73a para. 1 sentence 1 of the German Social Court Act in conjunction with § 114 of the German Code of Civil Procedure must be affirmed in the present case – as is generally the case (cf. Saxon State Social Court, decision of February 23, 2009 – L 3 B 740/08 AS-PKH – para. 10, with further references).
++ Note on BSG, decision of 26 May 2010 – B 4 AS 7/10 -, lower court North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court judgment of 12 November 2009, – L 7 AS 92/07- , published in the case law ticker of Tacheles 06/2010.
State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, Judgment of 12 November 2009, – L 7 AS 92/07-
Electricity costs, insofar as they exceed the share included in the standard benefit pursuant to Section 20 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), must be borne by the person in need of assistance.
BSG, decision of 26 May 2010 – B 4 AS 7/10 –
Quote: Regarding the question raised by the plaintiff concerning the possibility of considering electricity costs for the operation of a heating system as (further) expenses for accommodation and heating within the meaning of Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated a need for clarification.
Since August 1, 2006, Section 20 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) stipulates that the standard benefit for securing subsistence also includes household energy, excluding the portions attributable to heating. Even before the legal situation was clarified in Section 20 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) by the Act to Further Develop Basic Income Support for Job Seekers of July 20, 2006 (Federal Law Gazette I 1706), the Federal Social Court (BSG) assumed that the assumption of electricity costs under Section 22 of the SGB II presupposed that these costs (at least partially) were to be used for heating the apartment (see BSG judgment of February 19, 2009 – B 4 AS 48/08 R – BSGE 102, 274 ff = SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 18; BSG decision of July 16, 2009 – B 14 AS 121/08 B – referring to BSG judgment of February 27, 2008 – B 14/11b AS 15/07 R – BSGE 100, 94 = SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 5 RdNr 21 ff).
++ Note: See also the decision of the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court of 6 May 2010, - L 7 AS 5876/09 B –
Costs for household electricity not used for generating heating energy are to be covered by the standard benefit, so there is no entitlement to an increase in benefits for accommodation and heating to cover the costs of electricity (see BSGE 102, 274 (para. 27); also BSGE 100, 94 = SozR 4-4200 § 5 (paras. 21 ff. in each case); BSG, decisions of July 16, 2009 – B 14 AS 121/08 B – and of August 28, 2009 – B 8 SO 9/09 B – ).
Pending proceedings at the Federal Social Court in this regard:
LSG NSB decision of 27.04.2009 , – L 7 AS 354/06 – , appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number: – B 14 AS 51/10 R-
Regarding the exclusion of electricity costs for the heating pump, outdoor lighting and garden maintenance as accommodation costs for a house property used by the owner as protected assets.
Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of June 10, 2010, - L 7 AS 612/09 - , Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number: -B 14 AS 121/10 R -
Hot water costs are not considered accommodation and heating expenses if they are billed based on a detailed measurement of total and individual hot water consumption in accordance with the Heating Costs Ordinance (HeizKV). This also applies to basic costs and ancillary heating costs such as operating electricity, calibration exchange, and consumption billing.
1.2 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 24 November 2010, – L 10 AS 2195/10 B PKH –
According to § 172 para. 3 no. 2 SGG, the appeal against the rejection of legal aid is excluded if the court denies exclusively the personal and economic prerequisites for legal aid.
Section 114, sentence 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) requires the fulfillment of two prerequisites for the granting of legal aid: the applicant's neediness based on their personal and financial circumstances, and the sufficient prospect of success of the legal action. In this two-part system, the regulations concerning formal requirements belong to the part relating to personal and financial circumstances. According to the explanatory memorandum to Section 172, paragraph 3, number 2 of the German Social Court Act (SGG), however, the rejection of legal aid can only be challenged by way of appeal if the court has denied the prospects of success in the main proceedings (see Bundestag printed matter 16/7716, p. 22, point 29). Accordingly, the exclusion of appeal also applies to cases where, due to an incorrect declaration, it is not possible to examine personal and economic circumstances, especially since otherwise an applicant could gain access to the appeals authority by not submitting or submitting incomplete documents (similarly, the Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court (LSG), decision of February 25, 2010 – L 25 B 2170/08 AS PKH).
1.3 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of October 8, 2010, – L 29 AS 1420/10 B ER
A sanction notice is not unlawful if the benefit provider under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) has not simultaneously included a provision in the notice regarding the granting of supplementary benefits in kind or benefits in kind pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 of the SGB II (contrary to the decision of the Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court of December 16, 2008, file number L 10 B 2154/08 AS ER).
The discretionary provision of Section 31 Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) requires consideration of the individual case. However, such consideration is only possible for the respondent if the sanction has already been imposed and the specific circumstances of the case are apparent. Consequently, the recipient's reaction to prior notification of supplementary benefits in kind or monetary benefits must be taken into account when making a discretionary decision by the benefit provider.
A lack of response from the person in need of assistance to information about supplementary benefits in kind justifies doubts about the need for such benefits or monetary compensation. In this respect, it is entirely possible that a person in need of assistance may be able to cover their living expenses during the sanction period in other ways, be it through support from friends or relatives or by using any available liquid assets. Since the issuance of an administrative act is not required in such cases, rapid assistance, e.g., by issuing a voucher, is also possible (see judgment of the Higher Social Court of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania of August 3, 2009, case no. L 8 B 216/09).
By referring to the possibility of providing supplementary benefits in kind in the (sanction) notice, the Arge has sufficiently taken into account the purpose of the law pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 SGB II (same opinion LSG North Rhine-Westphalia decision of 10.12.2009 – L 9 B 51/09 AS ER -).
++ Note: See decisions of the North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court of 01.12.2010, – L 19 AS 1862/10 B ER – and – L 19 AS 1863/10 B -, published in the case law ticker of Tacheles KW 51/2010.
Whether a sanction notice is unlawful because the job center has not simultaneously made a sufficient decision on the granting of supplementary benefits in kind (§ 31 para. 3 sentence 6 SGB II) is a matter of legal debate.
The question of whether and to what extent this decision must be linked to the sanction decision has not yet been sufficiently clarified in case law (affirmative: Social Court Berlin, Decision of July 30, 2010 – S 185 AS 19695/10 ER –; Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, Decision of September 9, 2009 – L 7 B 211/09 AS ER –; Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, Decision of December 16, 2008 – L 10 B 2154/08 AS ER –; negative: Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, Decision of August 13, 2010 – L 6 AS 999/10 B ER – and Decision of December 10, 2009 – L 9 B 51/09 AS ER –; Higher Social Court of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Decision of August 3, 2009 – L 8 B 260/09 -; see also LSG NRW judgment of 09.12.2009 – L 12 AS 18/09).
That the resulting reduction of 100% is incompatible with constitutional law (Article 20 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law – GG) due to a violation of the principle of proportionality is particularly not obvious in view of the possibilities of limiting the reduction to 60%, which, according to the legislator's intent, is meant to take the principle of proportionality into account (Bundestag printed matter 16/1696, p. 25; Valgolio in Hauck/Noftz, SGB II, Section 31, marginal note 108), as well as the assumption of rent arrears by the benefit provider pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (see Berlit in LPK-SGB II, 3rd edition, Section 31, marginal note 95).
1.4 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 13 December 2010, – L 5 AS 149/10 –
Life insurance is generally to be used to finance legal costs; an exception applies only if the use of the assets would constitute a hardship for the person seeking help within the meaning of Section 90 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII.
Taking out a loan against the insurance policy is a possibility. This would not dissolve the assets intended for retirement provision, as stated by the applicant, but merely reduce them (see Federal Court of Justice, decision of June 9, 2010, file no. XII ZB 55/08, para. 19).
The mere assertion that old-age security is intended for the purpose of providing benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is insufficient to establish a general hardship within the meaning of Section 90 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB XII (see Hessian State Social Court, Judgment of May 21, 2010, Case No. L 7 SO 78/06, RN 28).
LSG Hessen judgment of 21.05.2010, – L 7 SO 78/06 – , appeal pending before the BSG under file number – B 8 SO 19/10 R –, published in the case law ticker of Tacheles 25/2010.
A life insurance policy must be considered as an asset for the purposes of social assistance. A life insurance policy is not to be disregarded as protected assets for supplementary retirement provision under Section 90 Paragraph 2 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), unless it constitutes capital within the meaning of Section 10a of the German Income Tax Act (EStG) or Section 11 of the EStG (so-called Riester pension)
1.5 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 24 November 2010, – L 2 AS 121/10 B –
Granting of legal aid for the controversial legal question in the literature as to whether the provisional suspension of benefits or the notification thereof constitutes an administrative act (for this, among others, Winkler in LPK-SGB III, 1st ed., § 331 para. 15; against this, Eicher in the Kassel Handbook of Employment Promotion Law, § 2 para. 3 to Figure 34).
1.6 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 06.05.2010, – L 12 AS 600/10 B ER –
Sanctions for violations of an administrative act replacing the integration agreement are – not – unlawful
The integration agreement, to which the wording of the aforementioned provision refers, is regulated in Section 15 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). According to Section 15, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the SGB II, the Federal Employment Agency, in agreement with the local authority, is to conclude an agreement with each employable person in need of assistance regarding the services necessary for their integration (integration agreement). Section 15, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the SGB II broadly outlines the essential content of the integration agreement. According to Section 15, Paragraph 1, Sentence 6 of the SGB II, the regulations concerning the measures necessary for integration are to be issued by administrative act if an integration agreement is not reached. In this regard, the Federal Social Court (BSG) ruled in its judgment of September 22, 2009 – B 4 AS 13/09 R – that Section 15, Paragraph 1 of the SGB II is a purely procedural provision intended to guide the conduct and procedures of the basic income support providers – the Federal Employment Agency and the local authority. The basic income support provider makes a non-justiciable discretionary decision regarding which procedural path to choose to achieve the goal of integrating the employable person in need of assistance, without the latter suffering any loss of rights. The main purpose of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is to reintegrate employable unemployed persons into working life. To achieve this goal, the SGB II provides a wide range of instruments and support services, especially those that have proven effective in the area of employment promotion under the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) (Federal Social Court, loc. cit., para. 14 with further references).
The implementation of these concepts is the responsibility of the basic income support providers, for which the law provides two procedural options. According to the wording, explanatory memorandum, systematic context, and purpose of Section 15 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), concluding an integration agreement and issuing an administrative act replacing an integration agreement are two fundamentally equivalent approaches. If one relies solely on the wording of Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, it suggests that concluding an integration agreement should be the norm, and issuing an administrative act replacing it the exception. Section 15 Paragraph 1 SGB II addresses the employment agency and grants it the right to initiate the process. The administration can refrain from concluding an integration agreement and instead conclude one by means of an administrative act. To the extent that the literature expresses the view that deviations from this basic rule are only permissible in atypical cases requiring individual justification (Müller in Hauck-Nofz, SGB II, as of June 2007, § 15 para. 10; Berlit in LPK SGB III, 3rd edition 2009, § 15 no. 16), the Senate does not follow this view. Rather, the legislative history, systematic context, and purpose of § 15 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB II indicate that the basic income support provider is entitled to issue an administrative act as soon as this appears to be the more appropriate course of action. The caseworker then decides, based on the specific circumstances of the case, whether negotiations will be conducted with the aim of concluding an integration agreement, whether the integration agreement will be replaced by an administrative act, or whether an administrative act regarding integration services will be issued from the outset. They are best positioned to assess, based on their knowledge of the facts and the individuals involved, which approach is most likely to lead to rapid integration success without the person in need suffering any loss of rights. The decision of the basic income support provider regarding which course of action to pursue does not affect the employable person's entitlement to the integration services they are eligible for, as their implementation does not depend on whether these services are stipulated in an integration agreement or in a substitute administrative act. The possibility of equivalent action through the issuance of an integration agreement by administrative act is also supported by the legislative history of Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). While the legislative process called for a partnership-based approach between the service provider and the person receiving assistance when concluding the integration agreement – the originally intended term "stipulation" was ultimately replaced by the word "agreement" – the further requirement to ensure, through appropriate measures, that the interests of the person receiving assistance were protected in the event of differences regarding the conclusion and adherence to the integration agreement was not implemented. The law thus did not restrict the unilateral enforcement powers of the basic income support provider (BSG, loc. cit., para. 18 with further references).
From a systematic perspective, there is no precedence of an integration agreement over an administrative act. Negotiations regarding or the conclusion of an integration agreement are not in the legal interest of the employable person in need of assistance simply because the person could also obtain the integration service that would overcome their need for assistance through a legally binding promise of benefits from the basic income support provider. An integration agreement is not necessary to establish an entitlement to benefits for the person in need of assistance. Rather, any of the integration services provided for in the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for the group of eligible recipients can be applied for by the employable person in need of assistance. The basic income support provider must then decide on such an application by means of a reviewable administrative act. The same applies if an integration agreement is not reached without the involvement of the employable person in need of assistance; the sanction provision of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 Letter a of the SGB II does not apply in this case. The integration agreement should also be concluded by administrative act of the basic income support provider in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). If the employable person in need of assistance does not agree with the provisions therein, they can challenge this administrative act for review (Federal Social Court, loc. cit., paragraphs 19 et seq. with further references).
Source: Tacheles readers
++ Note: See also the decision of the Social Court of Düsseldorf dated June 18, 2010, - S 20 AS 2234/10 ER –
No sanction for violations of an administrative act replacing the integration agreement
According to its wording, Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 1b of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) only sanctions violations of the obligations arising from an integration agreement as defined in Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the SGB II. Due to its unambiguous wording, the provision cannot be interpreted broadly to also sanction violations of obligations arising from an administrative act replacing the integration agreement. Section 31 of the SGB II, as a sanction provision with serious consequences for those seeking assistance, must be interpreted strictly according to its wording. No unintended regulatory gap on the part of the legislator is apparent, because the non-compliance with obligations arising from an administrative act pursuant to Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) can, depending on the content of the obligations, fulfill the sanction criteria of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1c of the SGB II (see, e.g., Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of July 8, 2009, file no. L 19 B 140/09 ER with further references).
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Gießen Social Court, Judgment of 28 October 2010, – S 25 AS 775/10 –
The Gießen district's concept regarding accommodation costs is not conclusive.
2.2 – Social Court Düsseldorf Judgment of 06.12.2010, – S 10 AS 2905/10 –
If a person in need of assistance moves into a sublet room with a woman long before applying for ALG II (unemployment benefit II), this does not necessarily mean that a cohabiting relationship exists.
According to Section 7 Paragraph 3 Number 3c of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as amended on August 1, 2006, a person who lives with an employable person in need of assistance in a shared household is considered part of the household as a partner of that person. This means that, upon reasonable assessment, a mutual intention to assume responsibility for and support one another can be assumed. Only if the partners in a household feel so responsible for one another that they first secure their shared livelihood before using their personal income to satisfy their own needs is their situation comparable to that of "spouses not permanently separated" with regard to the stricter means test (Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of November 17, 1992 – 1 BvL 8/87; ibid., Decision of September 2, 2004 – 1 BvR 1962/04).
This intention is presumed under Section 7 Paragraph 3a No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), among other things, if partners have lived together for more than one year. This is intended to counteract benefit fraud through false statements about domestic circumstances (official explanatory memorandum, Bundestag printed matter 16/1410, p. 29). According to the highest court rulings, whether a cohabiting partnership exists in the aforementioned sense must be determined based on circumstantial evidence and an overall assessment (Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of July 14, 2006 – L 9 B 63/06 AS ER). However, not every form of cohabitation, but only a "qualified" cohabitation within a shared household, triggers the presumption under Section 7 Paragraph 3a No. 1 SGB II. The provision must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the constitution insofar as the presumption is only fulfilled if the persons live together as partners and manage their finances together, which must be proven by the SGB II provider (cf. LSG NRW, decision of 28.11.2007 – L 1 B 55/07 AS ER; LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, decision of 10.09.2007 – L 9 AS 439/07 ER).
3. Questions and answers about basic income support according to the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
Is the social security provider required to grant relocation costs under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if the relocation was not initiated by the benefit provider or was necessary for other reasons?
According to Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), moving expenses can be covered if prior approval is granted by the local authority responsible for the area up to the date of the move. According to Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the SGB II, this approval should be granted if the move is initiated by the local authority or is necessary for other reasons, and if suitable accommodation cannot be found within a reasonable timeframe without such approval. The prior approval required under Section 22 Paragraph 3 of the SGB II is a prerequisite for entitlement (Federal Social Court, Judgment of November 7, 2006 – B 7 b AS 10/06 R –). The approval from the responsible local authority must generally be given before the legally relevant point in time at which the costs reimbursable under Section 22 Paragraph 3 of the SGB II are incurred.
The person in need of assistance is not entitled to reimbursement of moving costs pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), because the specific move was not initiated by the authorities or necessary for other reasons. Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the SGB II stipulates that a commitment should be granted if the move is initiated by the local authority or is necessary for other reasons and if suitable accommodation cannot be found within a reasonable timeframe without such a commitment. This generally results in an obligation for the authority to issue a commitment. The claim of the employable person in need of assistance is limited to the reasonable costs of the move as defined in Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the SGB II (Federal Social Court, Judgment of May 6, 2010 – B 14 AS 7/09 R –).
If the move is not a move initiated by the benefit provider or necessary for other reasons within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the fallback provision of Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II applies in favor of the person in need of assistance. This provision generally applies in cases of moves that are neither necessary nor initiated by the benefit provider (see Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of May 6, 2010 – B 14 AS 7/09 R –). Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II grants the benefit provider discretion in the assumption of moving costs. This discretion applies both to whether moving costs are assumed and to the amount of those costs. This follows from the use of the word "may," which, according to the wording of the provision, refers to both whether and to the amount of moving costs are granted (Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of May 6, 2010 – B 14 AS 7/09 R –).
It must be taken into account that, according to Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), employable persons in need of assistance and the persons living with them in a household unit must exhaust all possibilities to end or reduce their need for assistance. The obligation to take initiative, expressed in Section 2 of the SGB II, can be used as an aid to interpreting all regulations that define the rights and obligations of benefit recipients. From this, it can be deduced that, within the framework of a welfare system financed by tax revenue, the person in need of assistance is generally required to organize and carry out a move themselves. Therefore, in the discretionary decision pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the SGB II, necessary moving costs may include, in particular, expenses for a required rental car, the rental of moving boxes, the costs for packing materials and bulky waste disposal, and the usual costs for providing for family members and acquaintances who assist with the move (Federal Social Court, Judgment of May 6, 2010 – B 14 AS 7/09 R –).
