1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 26.05.2011, – B 14 AS 54/10 R –
For years, the Federal Employment Agency unlawfully charged late payment fees to recipients of Hartz IV benefits.
This was because there was no legal basis for the Federal Employment Agency to collect the funds for the job centers. The sole responsibility would have been the joint agency tasked at the time with enforcing basic income support for job seekers. The legislature created a corresponding legal basis in April 2011. Whether late payment fees may also be charged since then remains unclear following the Kassel ruling.
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 26.05.2011, – B 14 AS 146/10 R-
The costs of non-prescription medications are not covered.
This is because the claimed additional need is largely covered by the benefits provided by statutory health insurance. This also applies to non-prescription medications that are considered standard therapy for the treatment of serious illnesses and can therefore be prescribed by a contracted physician in exceptional cases.
The mere fact that the illnesses may be chronic does not give rise to an entitlement to additional support.
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Saxon State Social Court Judgment of 20 January 2011, – L 3 AS 770/09 –, Appeal allowed
Exclusion according to § 7 para. 5 SGB II also applies to semesters on leave.
In connection with the question of whether, in principle, an education is eligible for funding within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), it is crucial that, even during a leave of absence semester, attendance at an educational institution in the sense of organizational affiliation with that educational institution (cf. Federal Social Court, judgment of August 19, 2010 – B 14 AS 24/09 R – para. 17, with further references) is not interrupted and that the studies can be pursued in accordance with the university regulations.
2.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 18 May 2011, – L 19 AS 1369/10 B –
The necessity of hiring a lawyer must be assessed according to whether an objector could reasonably consider it necessary to be supported by a lawyer in the preliminary proceedings.
This is not assessed from the subjective perspective of the appellant, but from the perspective of a reasonable party who strives to keep costs as low as possible. The decisive factor is whether, from the standpoint of a reasonable person without specialized legal knowledge, the involvement of legal counsel would have been advisable in the given circumstances. The relevant point in time is when the action incurring expenses was undertaken (see Federal Social Court judgments of October 20, 2010 – B 13 R 15/10 R, para. 25, and of November 20, 2001 – B 1 KR 21/00 R, para. 16).
++ Note: North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court decisions of 06.04.2011, – L 12 AS 74/11 B ER – and – L 12 AS 75/11 B-, published in the case law ticker of Tacheles KW 15/2011.
The job center does not have to bear extrajudicial costs if it would have been reasonable for the applicant, before hiring a lawyer and initiating legal proceedings for preliminary legal protection, to assert the non-payment of ALG II by telephone or – if this was unsuccessful, as the applicant claims – in person.
It is generally considered equitable that the losing party bears the costs (Leitherer, in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer, SGG, 9th ed. 2008, § 193 para. 12a with further references). However, all circumstances of the individual case must be taken into account, so that the outcome of the legal dispute alone is not sufficient. Thus, a decision on costs can also be made taking into account the so-called causation principle (cf. Leitherer, in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer, ibid., § 193 para. 12b with further references)
A certificate of incapacity for work does not automatically prove that the applicant was also unable to appear in person before the respondent for health reasons. Incapacity for work is not in every case synonymous with an illness-related inability to attend a scheduled appointment (Federal Social Court, 09.11.2010 – B 4 AS 27/10 R – para. 32).
2.3 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court decisions of 25 May 2011, – L 12 AS 381/11 B ER – and – L 12 AS 422/11 B –
In the absence of a valid reason for an order, rent arrears will not be covered under Section 22 Paragraph 8 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
If only a termination without notice of the tenancy has been issued, but an eviction lawsuit has not yet been filed, the necessary grounds for an order are lacking in the form of an urgent need for regulation to grant housing costs or assume rent arrears by issuing a preliminary injunction, because then there is currently no threat of either housing insecurity or even homelessness (cf. Senate, decision of 04.09.2009 – L 12 B 69/09 AS ER – para. 4; LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 06.08.2009 – L 18 AS 1308/09 B ER, L 18 AS 1309/09 B PKH – para. 2).
Furthermore, grounds for an injunction are to be denied because, after the filing and service of the eviction lawsuit, there are still two months to avert the loss of the apartment.
According to Section 569 Paragraph 3 No. 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB), a termination based on rent arrears becomes ineffective if the landlord is satisfied with regard to the outstanding rent and the compensation due under Section 546a Paragraph 1 BGB no later than two months after the commencement of legal proceedings for eviction, or if a public authority undertakes to make such payment (see LSG NRW, decision of 14.07.2010 – L 19 AS 912/10 B ER – para. 19).
Furthermore, in the case of an eviction action, the provision of Section 22 Paragraph 9 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (= Section 22 Paragraph 6 SGB II aF) contains regulations for securing accommodation (Senate, Decision of 04.09.2009 – L 12 B 69/09 AS ER – Paragraph 4; Higher Social Court Berlin-Brandenburg, Decision of 06.08.2009 – L 18 AS 1308/09 B ER, L 18 AS 1309/09 B PKH – Paragraph 2).
2.4 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 7 April 2011, – L 7 AS 267/11 NZB –
Costs for cable television and connection usage fees are only to be covered if they are contractually owed under the tenancy agreement (see BSG, judgment of 19.02.2009 – B 4 AS 48/08 R para. 15 ff.)
2.5 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 18 May 2011, – L 19 AS 576/11 B ER –
According to Section 10 Paragraph 1 No. 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), any work is acceptable to an employable person in need of assistance, unless the performance of the work would be incompatible with the care of a relative and the care cannot be ensured in any other way.
Although the employable person in need of assistance may object that they do not have to comply with the job placement efforts of the benefit provider in individual cases, this does not entitle the relative who needs care to claim the exemption of the benefit recipient in their own name.
2.6 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 09.05.2011, – L 7 AS 165/11 B –
Granting of legal aid, because on October 19, 2010, the Federal Social Court made fundamental decisions regarding the requirements for a conclusive concept for appropriate rent (basic rent plus operating costs excluding heating costs) based on the basic income support provider's own data (B 14 AS 15/09 R) and on the basis of a (qualified) rent index (among others B 14 AS 50/10 R).
Qualified rent indices as well as simple rent indices can serve as the basis for determining the reference rent pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (Federal Social Court, judgments of October 19, 2010, B 14 AS 2/10 R, para. 22 and B 14 AS 65/09 R, para. 29). However, certain steps in the calculation must be observed. Reference should only be made to the values in the housing benefit table if a reasonable rent limit cannot be determined from the available data.
2.7 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 09.05.2011, – L 7 AS 425/11 B –
The proceeds from the sale of a house constitute an asset.
The assets exceed the protected assets, so the approval of ALG II (unemployment benefit II) had to be revoked.
2.8 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 4 May 2011, – L 19 AS 702/11 B ER –
The complaint must be dismissed as inadmissible because it was not filed in the legally prescribed form.
An email is an electronic file that could only fulfill the written form requirement if the content of the declarations and the person who made them could be reliably ascertained from them, and if it were also ensured that it is not a mere draft, but a declaration that was forwarded to the court with the knowledge and consent of the party involved (Celle Higher Regional Court for Lawyers, Decision of September 15, 2008 – AGH 22/08; North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Regional Court, Decision of August 15, 2008 – L 10 SB 53/06; Decision of the Senate of December 12, 2007 – L 19 B 126/07). The email by which the appeal was filed, which was neither accompanied by a scanned signature nor by a qualified electronic signature, does not meet this requirement.
2.9 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 5 May 2011, – L 19 AS 443/11 B –
Entitlement to legal aid exists because the calculation method used by the Jobcenter – the creation of a combined value from the local rent index and housing benefit statistics – requires review in the main proceedings, particularly in light of recent case law from the Federal Social Court on the relevant issue (e.g., judgments of October 19, 2010 – B 14 AS 15/09 R –, – B 14 AS 65/09 R –), and is already the subject of several pending proceedings before the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (e.g., L 19 AS 43/10 – concerning the period from December 2007 to May 2008; – L 19 AS 502/10 – concerning the period from September 1, 2007 to January 31, 2008 –).
2.10 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 11 May 2011, – L 19 AS 213/11 B –
According to Section 16c Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), benefits for the integration of employable persons in need of assistance who take up or pursue self-employed full-time employment can only be granted if it is expected that the self-employed activity is economically viable and that the need for assistance will be permanently overcome or reduced by the self-employed activity within a reasonable period of time.
To assess the viability of self-employment, the employment agency is required to obtain an expert opinion (§ 16c para. 1 sentence 2 SGB II). The granting of start-up funding for commencing full-time self-employment is therefore a discretionary decision (e.g., Senate decision of October 11, 2010 – L 19 AS 1626/10 B –; Hannes in Gagel, SGB II, § 16b Rn 67; Winkler in Gagel, SGB II, § 16c Rn. 16), the factual prerequisites of which, however, are not met in this case.
2.11 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court decisions of 05.05.2011, – L 19 AS 166/11 B ER – and – L 19 AS 167/11 B –
The applicant fails to provide credible evidence of grounds for an injunction if she has not credibly demonstrated, either in the first instance or in the appeal proceedings, that she faces termination of her lease or loss of her apartment without immediate payment of the deposit.
2.12 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision of 5 May 2011, – L 3 AS 1261/11 ER-B –
If the basic income support provider decides (formally) by way of an administrative act to pay the costs for accommodation and heating directly to the landlord in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), then preliminary legal protection must be granted in accordance with Section 86b Paragraph 1 of the German Social Courts Act (SGG).
Objections and appeals have suspensive effect pursuant to Section 86a Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG). Section 39 No. 1 of the Social Code, Book II (SGB II), in the version applicable from April 1, 2011, does not apply, as the direct payment leaves the entitlement of the employable benefit recipient unaffected in principle.
2.13 – Bavarian State Social Court Judgment of 26 January 2011, – L 16 AS 390/10 –
A loan that must be repaid to the lender does not constitute income as it is only a temporary benefit, even if it could initially be used to cover living expenses (see BSG of 17.6.2010, file no.: B 14 AS 46/09 R, SozSich, 2010, 276).
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Social Court Berlin Judgment of 18 April 2011, – S 201 AS 45186/09 – , Direct appeal is permitted
The exclusion of benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 1 of the German Social Code, Book 2 (SGB 2) for the first three months of residence does not apply in the case of family reunification with a foreigner living in Germany.
++ Note: Stuttgart Social Court held a different view in its decision of March 24, 2011, – S 24 AS 1359/11 ER –, published in the Tacheles case law ticker, week 21/2011
The exclusion of benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for the first three months of residence also includes all foreigners who enter the federal territory as family members of a German citizen.
Living together with a German in a community of need does not change that.
The exclusion of benefits does not violate the state's duty to protect under Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, nor the prohibition of discrimination expressed in this provision. The legislature is not constitutionally obligated to grant a foreign spouse moving into Germany an entitlement to social benefits from the first day of their entry. The objective of limiting immigration and the temporary protection against immigrants claiming state social benefits are, within the scope of legislative discretion, valid and constitutionally weighty reasons.
Insofar as it is sometimes argued – without justification – that the exclusion of benefits does not include foreigners who enter the federal territory as family members of a German citizen,
See, for example, Hackethal, in: jurisPK-SGB II, 2nd ed. 2007, § 7 para. 30; presumably also LSG NRW, decision of 07.12.2009 – L 19 B 363/09 AS, juris, referring to Brühl/Schoch, in: LPK-SGB II, 3rd ed. 2009, § 7 para. 31, all, however, without reasoning; unclear Schumacher, in: Oestreicher, SGB II/SGB XII, § 7 SGB II para. 11 (as of September 2009)
This argument cannot be accepted because the law does not contain any such provision. Section 7, paragraph 1, sentence 2, number 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) exhaustively lists those cases in which the exclusion from benefits should not apply ("those who are neither one nor the other"). Conversely, the exception expressly mentioned in sentence 3 implies that no exception to the exclusion should apply in the case of a different reason for residence, as correctly stated by the Social Court of Duisburg in its decision of November 19, 2009 – S 31 AS 414/09 ER-.
3.2 Social Court Lüneburg Judgment of 31.03.2011, – S 36 AS 850/09 -, Appeal allowed
The legal opinion of the Hamburg Higher Social Court, judgment of January 28, 2010 (L 5 AS 9/07), that a more favorable position for benefit recipients with inclusive rents must be accepted, cannot be followed in light of Article 3 of the Basic Law.
The electricity costs agreed upon in the rental agreement do not constitute accommodation costs, but are included in the standard allowance. (cf. Hamburg Higher Social Court, judgment of January 28, 2010 (L 5 AS 9/07)).
++ Note: Hamburg State Social Court judgment of 28 January 2010, – L 5 AS 9/07 – , appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number B 14 AS 151/10 R – , published in the case law ticker of Tacheles 11/2010.
The expenses for household energy, which are included as a lump sum in the sublease rent without separate itemization, are considered part of the accommodation costs and are covered according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), up to the amount of the actual expenses, provided they are reasonable. These expenses are not to be covered by the standard benefit according to Section 20 Paragraph 1 of the SGB II.
B 14 AS 151/10 R
Lower court: LSG Hamburg, L 5 AS 9/07
In the case of a flat-rate or inclusive rent, which, according to the rental agreement, also includes electricity costs in an unquantified amount due to the inability to determine actual consumption, is a deduction made from the accommodation and heating costs pursuant to Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), in the amount of the household energy share included in the standard benefit pursuant to Section 20 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)?
3.3 – Social Court Berlin Judgment of 20 April 2011, – S 174 AS 18450/10 WA –
The term "belonging to the household" used in paragraph 3, number 4 (§ 7 SGB 2) contains a different substantive aspect than that of paragraph 3, number 3, letter c (§ 7 SGB 2), which refers to "living in a shared household". In particular, "belonging to" indicates a less pronounced intensity of cohabitation. The point of reference is merely the construct of "household", not cohabitation in particular.
In cases where parents (or one parent) live together with children under 25 in the same accommodation, it is generally assumed that a household unit exists. It is irrefutably presumed that the parents or parent cover the general household expenses, thus justifying the granting of a standard benefit of (only) 80% of the standard benefit under Section 20 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Therefore, the benefit provider should not need to verify again whether there is actually a shared household income.
The mere conclusion of a sublease agreement does not constitute a change in circumstances in the sense that one household becomes two [cf. Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court (LSG), decision of 28.02.2007, L 10 B 195/07 AS ER].
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 18 April 2011, – L 20 SO 133/11 B ER –
The applicant cannot claim the standard rate for a head of household because he lives in a shared household with his mother and two brothers.
His mother receives child benefit for him because he is unable to support himself due to his disability.
According to the version of Section 8 Paragraph 1 Number 3 of the Act on the Determination of Standard Needs pursuant to Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book XII (now: dated March 24, 2011 – Federal Law Gazette I, pp. 453 et seq.) as adopted by the German Bundestag, the standard need in standard need group 3 for an adult entitled to benefits who neither maintains a household nor shares a household with a spouse, registered partner, or in a cohabiting relationship amounts to EUR 291.00. The legislator has made it clear that it is not following the previous case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG) (BSG, judgment of May 19, 2009 – B 8 SO 8/08 R and judgment of March 23, 2010 – B 8 SO 17/09 R).
In light of the amendment to the law, which was enacted with knowledge of the Federal Social Court's (BSG) jurisprudence (loc. cit.) and demonstrably with knowledge of the problems associated with reducing standard benefit rates for those falling under standard benefit level 3, the Senate considers itself prevented in preliminary legal proceedings from addressing the (constitutional) concerns relating, in particular, to the derivation (or estimation – cf. BT-Drs 17/4095, pp. 28 et seq.) of the recognized need in this respect by granting higher benefits. Specifically, it is prohibited from directly granting a higher benefit entitlement based on the Constitution, in particular on the fundamental right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living that ensures human dignity, derived from Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with the social state principle of Article 20 Paragraph 1 GG (cf. Federal Constitutional Court, decision of October 30, 2010 – 1 BvR 2037/10).
In the main proceedings, however, the question to be examined is whether, with regard to standard benefit group 3, the requirements established by the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of February 9, 2010 (loc. cit.) are met, particularly concerning the procedure for determining standard benefit rates. This examination will have to take into account, among other things, that the legislative process states, on the one hand, that the calculation of this standard benefit group at 80% of the standard benefit rate for a single person in need of assistance is not statistically supported, and on the other hand, invoking a typification permitted to the legislature for reasons of administrative practicality, it is assumed that "given largely constant household-related consumption expenditures, it can be assumed that the individual needs of several adults decrease." The Federal Constitutional Court has expressly recognized this for couples and accepted typified savings of 20 percent as constitutionally permissible (BT-Drs 17/4095, loc. cit.).
++ Note: Lower court: Düsseldorf Social Court, decision of February 25, 2011, – S 42 SO 41/11 ER –, published in the Tacheles case law ticker, week 10/2011
A recipient of social assistance is entitled to have benefits calculated taking into account the standard rate for a head of household, currently amounting to €359.00, because he does not form a household community or a community of need with his mother and two brothers within the meaning of Section 19 of the German Social Code, Book XII (see also Augsburg Social Court judgment of September 16, 2010, - S 15 SO 40/10 - ).
In light of the rulings of the Federal Social Court (BSG) of May 19, 2009 (B 8 SO 8/08 R-) and March 23, 2010 (B 8 SO 17/09 R-), the distinction between the head of household and household members under Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) must, for reasons of equal treatment, be made in accordance with the regulations of Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II), since both social codes have an identical social welfare function – namely, ensuring the minimum subsistence level. However, the legislator of Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) no longer linked the assumption of savings and reduction of the standard benefit to an individual assessment of the actual circumstances of the persons living together, but rather, in Section 20 of Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II), assumes a standardized percentage reduction of the standard benefit due to savings only for members of a benefit unit. Therefore, according to the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court, in accordance with the principle of equality (Art. 3 para. 1 GG) and to avoid inconsistencies in the evaluation between the SGB II and the SGB XII, it must be assumed that when defining the term "household member", savings in the case of joint household management can only be assumed if the persons living together form a community of need within the meaning of § 7 para. 3 SGB II or a community of activity within the meaning of §19 SGB XII.
However, this is not the case here. Therefore, the standard rate for a head of household should be used as the basis.
4.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 23 March 2011, – L 12 SO 408/10 –
A flat-rate reduction of the additional needs allowance pursuant to Section 30 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) by one third due to the simultaneous granting of benefits for the costs of a household help (Section 27 Paragraph 3 SGB XII) is unlawful.
4.3 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 23 March 2011, – L 12 SO 49/09 –
No assumption of electricity and gas debts, because the principle of the subsidiary nature of social assistance (§ 2 para. 1 SGB XII), which defines the indeterminate legal concept of justification within the meaning of § 34 para. 1 SGB XII, means that the person in need of assistance is obliged to use the income he or she has obtained to pay off debts and not to spend it for other purposes (see also the decision of the adjudicating Senate of 24.03.2010 – L 12 B 120/09 SO ER – ).
4.4 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 23 March 2011, – L 12 SO 582/10 –
A claim for reimbursement of the costs for move-in renovations does not arise from Section 29 Paragraph 1 Sentence 7 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
Subsequently, housing procurement costs, rental deposits, and moving expenses can be covered with prior approval. Although these terms are generally to be interpreted broadly, their limitations are already defined by their wording. For example, the term "housing procurement costs" only includes expenses related to finding and renting an apartment (Federal Social Court [BSG] 16.12.2008 – B 4 AS 49/07 R – SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 16, referring to the parallel provision of § 22 para. 3 sentence 1 SGB II). Move-in renovations are not included (BSG 16.12.2008 – ibid. – paras. 13 ff. with detailed reasoning).
4.5 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 22 March 2011, – L 12 SO 592/10 –
Social welfare providers may rightly refuse to grant the additional needs allowance for costly nutrition due to the lack of the necessary cooperation from the recipient, in accordance with Section 66 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I).
With regard to the medical investigation at issue here, which is a necessary prerequisite for the possible determination of an entitlement to an additional needs allowance due to a costly diet under Section 30 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), this means that an applicant may be required to release their treating physicians from their duty of confidentiality, insofar as this is necessary for the investigation of the facts requiring clarification, and to consent to the use of medical records in the proceedings. Furthermore, the applicant must provide information about their illness, if necessary upon request from the authority. For practical reasons, it is acceptable for the authority to request a medical report from the applicant's treating physician (Social Court Berlin, March 8, 2006 – S 88 SO 32/06 – paragraphs 16, 18).
5. Free telephone legal advice from qualified staff of social law expert Attorney Ludwig Zimmerman
Recipients of Hartz IV and social assistance in Berlin can receive telephone advice every Wednesday from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
Hotline: 030-77904177
Dates: June 1st, June 8th, June 15th, June 22nd, June 29th, 2011.
++ Note: Please also note our free consultation days at our office at Garnstraße 29, 14482 Potsdam. You can receive free advice from us there on the first and last Tuesday of each month between 2 pm and 6 pm.
The next consultation days are on June 7th and June 21st, 2011.
Please register in advance by telephone at 0331 – 270 9271 or by email at turley-potsdam@t-online.de .
6. As a member of a household receiving social assistance, a person who is unable to work receives social benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). They have an income from a marginal employment (less than 3 hours per day).
Is the allowance for employed persons according to § 11b para. 3 SGB II to be deducted from the income of non-employable persons in need of assistance?
The earned income allowance according to Section 11b Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) can only be deducted from the income of employable individuals receiving assistance. Its purpose is to create an incentive to take up employment on the general labor market and thereby reduce the need for assistance.
A single person who is not permanently employable can claim benefits under Chapter Three of the German Social Code, Book XII (social assistance). These benefits are denied to individuals who are members of a household receiving social assistance, as benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) take precedence.
This results in a disadvantage compared to those entitled to benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). According to Section 82, Paragraph 3, Sentence 1 of the SGB XII, these individuals are granted an allowance of 30 percent of their income – but no more than 50 percent of the standard rate (currently €182).
To avoid unequal treatment, recipients of social assistance who are unable to work under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), are to be granted an allowance in accordance with Section 82 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), analogous to the provisions of social assistance law.
With a monthly income of 400 euros, a tax-free allowance of 120 euros would therefore have to be taken into account (30 percent of 400 euros).
A notice:
In addition to this earned income allowance, the other expenses to be taken into account pursuant to Section 11b Paragraph 1 Nos. 1 to 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are also to be deducted from income; this applies in particular to the flat rate for appropriate private insurance (€30).
The regulation also applies analogously in the case of the transitional provision for the earned income allowance (§ 30 SGB II).
Knowledge Database (WDB) of the Federal Employment Agency. The WDB provides an interpretation of individual legal issues in the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
7. New directives regarding the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
The Federal Employment Agency (BA) has issued new instructions regarding the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). New are the technical guidelines for Sections 19, 15, 19, 33, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42a, 43, and 43a of the SGB II. These can be downloaded here:
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
