1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 09.06.2011, – B 8 SO 3/10 R-
The jurisprudence of the 14th Senate of the Federal Social Court (regarding the SGB II) must be followed, according to which a television set is neither a piece of furniture nor a household appliance that justifies a grant for the initial furnishing of an apartment (here § 31 para. 1 no. 1 SGB XII).
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 09.06.2011, – B 8 SO 1/10 R –
An adult recipient of social assistance is entitled to have her benefits calculated taking into account the standard rate for a head of household at 100%, because she does not form a household community or a community of need with her mother and brother within the meaning of Section 19 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
If, as in this case, there is no community of activity within the meaning of Section 19 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), and the constellation of persons does not meet the requirements for the assumption of a community of need under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), this does not justify the typical assumption of a household saving.
++ Note: 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.
1.3 – BSG, Judgment of 09.06.2011, – B 8 SO 20/09 R-
Unemployment benefit II of the wife is not to be taken into account as reducing benefits for a recipient of basic income support in old age and in case of reduced earning capacity, because unemployment benefit II is not income within the meaning of the regulations of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) on the crediting of income.
The wife is also entitled to the higher income allowance under Section 30 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), via the hardship provision of Section 82 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), within the framework of the calculation of benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
The principle applies that the calculation of social assistance benefits in accordance with the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), must neither lead to the deprivation of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for the needs of persons subject to the SGB XII, nor to the requirement that income which is to be protected according to the objective of the SGB II must nevertheless be used for the benefit of persons subject to the SGB XII.
2. Decision of the Federal Social Court of 14 April 2011 on social assistance (SGB XII)
2.1 – BSG, Judgment of 14 April 2011, – B 8 SO 23/09 R –
The transitional provisions of Section 147 of the Federal Social Assistance Act (BSHG) and Section 115 of Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) do not only cover reimbursement claims relating to costs incurred before 1994. Rather, these provisions also apply to costs that arose after 1993 but relate to ongoing reimbursement cases from before 1994. Like Sections 108 of the BSHG and 108 of Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII), they focus not on the individual reimbursement claim, but on the entire reimbursement case.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, Judgment of 15 March 2011, – L 3 AS 133/10 –
If a household receiving benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is entitled to benefits for the first time for a partial month after the end of the receipt of unemployment benefits, the comparison of the amount of benefits granted must be made in accordance with Section 24 Paragraph 2 of the SGB II, based on the calendar day.
3.2 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 11 May 2011, – L 5 AS 92/07 –, Appeal allowed
The legal nature of § 36 SGB II has not been clarified by a higher court.
Section 36 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) comprehensively regulates the local jurisdiction of benefit providers. This regulation is binding for those receiving assistance and cannot be waived (see link in Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd edition 2008, § 36, marginal note 1). In the opinion of the Senate, this provision, beyond its formal regulation of local jurisdiction, also serves a function of regulating eligibility requirements. It contains a supplementary provision compared to the basic provision of Section 7, paragraph 1 of the SGB II, which refers only to the place of residence within the Federal Republic of Germany.
It is disputed in literature and jurisprudence whether § 36 SGB II contains, beyond the formal regulation of local jurisdiction, also a requirement for benefits and entitles a benefit provider, for example, to refuse benefits due to lack of local jurisdiction. While the prevailing opinion in the commentaries tends towards the assumption of a mere rule of jurisdiction (see Groth in Hohm: GK-SGB II, loose-leaf edition, as of March 2011, § 36 para. 14; Link in Eicher/Spellbrink: SGB II, 2nd edition 2008, § 36 paras. 3, 31 et seq.; Schoch in LPK-SGB II, 3rd edition 2009, § 36 para. 19), the view – which, however, is usually not further substantiated – seems to be gaining ground, particularly in recent case law, that in cases of local lack of jurisdiction within the meaning of § 36 SGB II, the contacted basic income support provider has no (final) obligation to provide benefits (see Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (NW), judgment of December 1, 2009, case no. L 6 AS 21/09, juris para. 9; Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of June 22, 2010, Case No.: L 6 AS 872/10 B ER, para. 8; Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court, Decision of May 20, 2009, Case No.: L 28 AS 653/09 B, para. 2; Bavarian Higher Social Court, Decision of December 16, 2010, Case No.: L 7 AS 841/10 B ER, para. 16; Bavarian Higher Social Court, Judgment of February 17, 2011, Case No.: L 7 AS 49/08, juris para. 31; Contra: 2nd Senate of the Saxony-Anhalt Higher Social Court, Decision of July 9, 2009, Case No.: L 2 AS 194/09 B ER; Saxony Higher Social Court, Decision of November 1, 2007, Case No.: L 3 AS 60/07, para. 42).
The legislature has chosen the principle of residence as the determining factor for the local jurisdiction of basic income support providers – in the period in dispute here, exclusively in the form of the place of residence (gA) according to Section 30 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) – and has established the sole jurisdiction of the providers at the place of residence for all benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which applies without exception. Only a change of the place of residence – and indeed any change – simultaneously results in a change of the responsible benefit provider. This ensures that decisions regarding benefits are made by providers who are familiar with the local conditions in the labor and housing markets. At the same time, the established local jurisdiction provides a certain degree of continuity, which is a prerequisite for rigorous case management in the sense of promoting and demanding (Sections 1 and 2 of the SGB II). Short-term changes in the actual place of residence do not lead to a change of provider; this requires a shift in the center of life, usually through a move. No other deviating provisions for jurisdiction or changes of jurisdiction are provided for.
With regard to local jurisdiction, the legislator has thus neither followed the regulation applicable to unemployment assistance in Section 327 SGB III aF, which in principle was based on the place of residence at the time the facts justifying the benefit occurred, but allowed several exceptions, nor followed the regulation applicable to social assistance in Section 97 BSHG, which in principle (for benefits outside of institutions) was based on the actual place of residence.
The effect of linking benefits to the local authority (gA) – namely, a local and thus citizen-oriented, yet consistent, benefits administration – is only achievable if the regulation in Section 36 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is not merely a formal procedural rule, but also a prerequisite for receiving benefits. If an application to the locally incompetent authority had no effect on the granting of benefits, the aforementioned advantage of the normative link to the local authority would be lost, because only the local authority can make an informed and appropriate decision regarding the claimed benefit entitlement without significant effort, taking into account local circumstances. Both the investigation of the facts (e.g., consultations, home visits) and the determination of appropriate housing and heating costs would be considerably more difficult if a lack of local jurisdiction had no consequences and, for example, a locally incompetent authority had to make a (final) decision regarding housing and heating costs from another jurisdiction.
The interests of the beneficiaries are not significantly affected by this, since in the event of a conflict the entitlement and obligation to provide provisional benefits pursuant to Section 43 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) and the continuing obligation to provide benefits pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) remain unaffected (cf. Seegmüller in Estelmann [ed.]: SGB II, loose-leaf edition as of 03/11, Section 36, marginal note 4).
If one categorizes the jurisdictional rules of Section 36 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) as either the burden of provision or the budgetary burden, the result is the same. Budgetary responsibility can only be upheld—particularly in the absence of independent reimbursement provisions in SGB II—if the locally responsible agency alone is obligated to finance the costs of providing benefits from its own budget (see Seegmüller, op. cit., Section 36, marginal note 5). This is immediately clear for the housing and utilities (KdU) benefits incumbent upon municipal agencies: A municipal agency bears the budgetary burden for housing and utilities only for those benefit recipients whose place of residence is within its jurisdiction. Special reimbursement provisions exist only in cases of provisional or subsequent benefit provision (Section 43, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) in conjunction with Section 102 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), Section 2, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X)) when the agency lacks local jurisdiction.
3.3 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt Judgment of 03.03.2011, – L 5 AS 160/09 –
If a Hartz IV recipient has received twice as much money for rent from the office as he stated in his application, the job center can demand the money back.
Because when reading the notice, the person in need could have recognized that the office was paying him twice as much money for rent as he had stated, so there is gross negligence; this is not changed by the fact that the person in need claimed to have a math learning disability and to be taking strong painkillers.
3.4 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 11 May 2011, – L 5 AS 129/08 –
Prior to the introduction of a statutory regulation in Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) on August 1, 2006, there was no special provision for the treatment of operating cost reimbursements. Therefore, such a repayment did not reduce the need for housing costs, but was to be considered as income in accordance with Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the SGB II (Federal Social Court, Judgment of April 15, 2008, B 14/7b AS 58/06 R (37)).
3.5 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 19 May 2011, – L 2 AS 175/11 B ER –
No assumption of rent arrears pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 8 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if the landlord has repeatedly and expressly stated that payment of the rent arrears cannot lead to the preservation of the apartment.
3.6 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 07.04.2011, – L 2 AS 10/11 B ER –
No assumption of rent arrears, because it is currently not credible that the applicants can actually expect the termination to be enforced in the form of a lawsuit for eviction from the living space in the near future.
It can remain open whether to follow the jurisprudence of various state social courts that the urgency of assuming rent arrears is only credibly demonstrated if an eviction lawsuit has already been filed and the two-month period for rendering the termination ineffective under Section 569 Paragraph 3 No. 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) has not yet expired (see North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, judgment of October 13, 2010 – L 7 AS 989/10 B ER –; North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, judgment of August 31, 2010 – L 19 AS 1106/10 B ER – para. 17), or if the landlord is still willing to withdraw the termination even after the deadline has expired (see Saxony-Anhalt State Social Court, judgment of September 16, 2010 – L 5 AS 288/10 B ER – para. 37), or even later, but only then, if the eviction is announced by way of enforcement proceedings (cf. LSG Berlin-Brandenburg v. 14.10.2010 – L 5 AS 1325/10 B ER – Rn. 6).
3.7 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of June 1, 2011, – L 19 AS 48/11 B –
Granting of legal aid is not yet clarified by the highest court as to whether the provision of Section 20 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) only applies if both adult partners are entitled to benefits under the SGB II (affirmed by the Lower Saxony-Bremen Higher Social Court judgment of November 24, 2010 – L 15 AS 364/09 –; Hamburg Higher Social Court judgment of September 2, 2010 – L 5 AS 19/08 –, appeal pending under B 14 AS 171/10 R).
For the granting of legal aid, in the case of a single subject matter of the dispute – as in the present case – the partial prospect of success of the request is sufficient (see LSG NRW decision of 14.04.2008 – L 19 B 27/08 AS).
3.8 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 30 May 2011, – L 19 AS 431/11 B ER –
The literature convincingly argues that even foreign nationals in need of assistance who are excluded from benefits under Section 23 Paragraph 3 of the Twelfth Book of the German Social Code (SGB XII) or are incapable of working within the meaning of Section 8 Paragraph 2 of the Second Book of the German Social Code (SGB II) must at least be provided with benefits analogous to Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) by the social welfare agency under the SGB XII if they do not receive funds for departure. Further benefits are at the discretion of the social welfare agency (see Schlette in Hauck/Noftz, SGB XII K § 23 Rn 50; Brühl in LPK-SGB II, 3rd ed., § 8 Rn 35; Birk in LPK-SGB XII, 8th ed., § 23 Rn 27).
3.9 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 24 February 2011, – L 7 AS 49/09, BSG – B 14 AS 88/11 B –
The fact that both had their own bedroom does not preclude the assumption of a cohabiting partnership.
According to case law, the absence of a sexual relationship is not a criterion for excluding a cohabiting partnership. Likewise, keeping separate finances for groceries and splitting the rent equally is not sufficient to deny a cohabiting partnership. Separate finances are not uncommon even for married couples.
While the mere fact of a jointly used account does not automatically imply mutual power of disposal, the fact that the woman made her account available to the plaintiff for the purpose of receiving his standard benefits is insufficient to fulfill this requirement, as long as it does not also imply mutual power of disposal over each other's income and assets (LSG NRW, decision of July 4, 2007, file no.: L 19 B 56/07 AS ER, para. 11).
3.10 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 26 May 2011, – L 25 AS 835/11 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 or economic prerequisites for legal aid.
A denial of the personal and economic prerequisites exists not only when an examination reveals a lack of need, but also when an examination is not possible "due to a lack of suitable basis for examination" because, in the opinion of the Social Court, the form required under Section 73a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Courts Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 117 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) was not submitted or was filled out incorrectly (see decision of the Senate of February 25, 2010 – L 25 B 2170/08 AS PKH –).
This legal precedent also extends to cases where the plaintiff has submitted the relevant form but has not attached the documents deemed necessary by the social court – in this case, bank statements.
This is because the supporting documents are part of the declaration of personal and financial circumstances, the absence of which, upon appropriate assessment by the Social Court, is equivalent to a case in which the form was filled out incorrectly. Furthermore, according to the explanatory memorandum to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), 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 BT-Dr. 16/7716 p. 22 on No. 29).
3.11 – Hessian State Social Court decision of 26.05.2011, – L 7 AS 371/10 B –
There is no need for legal protection for an application to extend the granting of legal aid and the appointment of a lawyer to a so-called multi-settlement if only fixed fees according to § 3 RVG are incurred.
3.12 – Bavarian State Social Court decision of 27 May 2011, – L 7 AS 342/11 B PKH –
Legal aid is not intended to enable financially detached, reckless litigation, but rather to put the person concerned on an equal footing with a person of means who reasonably weighs their prospects of success in the proceedings and also takes the risk of costs into account (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 13 March 1990, 2 BvR 94/88, para. 25).
A reasonably well-off person would not have filed a lawsuit against the existing standard benefits on March 2, 2011, if, in light of the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling of February 9, 2010 (1 BvL 1/09) and the already existing draft legislation, they could have been certain that the increase in standard benefits would be minimal and, in any case, retroactive to January 1, 2011 (Federal Constitutional Court, loc. cit., para. 218). The new standard benefit rates were enacted by law on March 24, 2011 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 453).
The new standard benefit rates were established by the Act on the Determination of Standard Benefit Rates and the Amendment of Books Two and Twelve of the Social Code of March 24, 2011 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 453). Courts are bound by the law (Article 20, Paragraph 3, Article 97, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law). In the event of a conflict between an ordinary law and the constitution, a court cannot place itself above the law – it can only refer the law to the Federal Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 100, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. However, this is only possible if the referring court is convinced of the unconstitutionality of the ordinary law (Jarass/Pieroth, Basic Law, Article 100, marginal note 10). There is no evidence to suggest that the new standard benefit rate law is unconstitutional.
As can be seen from the explanatory memorandum to the Standard Needs Assessment Act (Bundestag printed matter 17/3404, pp. 42 ff), the legislature adhered very closely to the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling of February 9, 2010. Based on a special analysis of the 2008 Income and Expenditure Survey (EVS), the needs of adults and children were determined in detail. Deductions for individual consumption items were either no longer applied (e.g., for clothing) or corrected through special analyses (e.g., the share of electricity for heating, local public transport, telephone costs). The adjustment of standard needs was linked to price developments and net wages (see Section 20 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II), instead of to pension developments. Separate legal bases for entitlement were established for benefits for education and participation for children and young people (Sections 28, 29 of the German Social Code, Book II). For the additional needs in atypical hardship cases, a legal basis for entitlement was already established in Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) by the law of May 27, 2010 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1706), which complies with the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court.
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – Social Court Dresden Judgment of 30 May 2011, – S 3 AS 2611/09 –, Appeal allowed
For owner-occupied houses or condominiums, the accommodation costs to be covered include reasonable interest payments on a financing loan, operating costs as for rented apartments, property taxes, public charges, insurance premiums, other expenses for the management of the house and property, as well as a maintenance reserve fund decided upon by the owners' association (see Piepenstock at juris PK-SGB II, 2nd edition 2007, § 22, para. 40).
This includes all debt interest even if the resident only owes half of the loan interest in the internal relationship of a joint and several liability, at least if the assumption of the full loan interest is ultimately unavoidable – even if only factually.
The legal question of whether, or under what conditions, in the case of separated co-owners, the full interest payments on owner-occupied residential property should be included in the calculation of the accommodation costs of the co-owner in need of assistance is of fundamental importance.
4.2 – Frankfurt Social Court, decision of 5 May 2011, – S 26 AS 463/11 ER –
Children of Hartz IV recipients are not automatically entitled to state-funded tutoring if they receive poor grades.
According to § 28 para. 5 SGB II in the version applicable since 01.1.2011, appropriate supplementary learning support for pupils is taken into account insofar as it is suitable and additionally necessary to achieve the essential learning objectives set out in the school regulations.
The job center is only obligated to cover the costs of tutoring if it enables the student to achieve essential learning goals, such as passing to the next grade. The tutoring the 16-year-old has been receiving since 2010 does not meet this condition.
4.3 – Social Court Berlin Judgment of 11 May 2011, – S 55 AS 13521/10 –
A 4-year-old child growing up in a migrant and income-less family has a claim against the job center for an increased monthly allowance of 15.00 EUR due to childcare costs in a daycare facility.
The claim arises from Article 1 Paragraph 1 and Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. This follows directly from the operative part of the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of February 9, 2010, file numbers: 1 BvL 1/09, 1 BvL 3/09, 1 BvL 4/09, with the following preliminary order: "In the new regulations, the legislature must provide for a claim to benefits to ensure an unavoidable, ongoing, and not merely one-off, special need for those entitled to benefits under Section 7 of the Second Book of the Social Code, which is not currently covered by the benefits under Sections 20 et seq. of the Second Book of the Social Code, but which must be covered to guarantee a dignified minimum standard of living. Until the new regulations are enacted by the legislature, it is ordered that this claim may be asserted directly against the Federal Government on the grounds of Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law."
While this is not an atypical case, the childcare costs represent a frequently occurring special need that cannot be fully reflected in the standard benefits provided by the legislature due to its standardized and generalized regulations. However, this need must be recognized because it is the stated aim of the federal legislature to enable appropriate support for preschool children – from the age of three, there is even an entitlement to support in daycare facilities (§ 24 SGB VIII, and from August 2013 also for younger children). Furthermore, Article 6 of the Basic Law and Section 1 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 No. 4 of the Social Code, Book II (in the version valid until December 31, 2010) stipulate that the provision of support for preschool children by pedagogically trained staff in a child-friendly environment within the community of other children must be promoted within the framework of basic income support. It is therefore inadmissible to refer those affected to childcare provided by their non-working, dependent parents. If parents decide to use services in a daycare facility for their child, this constitutes a need that is unavoidable from a legal perspective.
Insofar as there is no general exemption from childcare fees under state law and no other compensation for these fees is provided under basic income support law, the need can and must be covered by the hardship provision, unless a corresponding additional need is provided for by law. The fact that an exemption is possible under Sections 90 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book VIII (SGB VIII), and 4 Paragraph 4 of the German Act on the Provision of Childcare Fees (TKBG) does not alter the existence and inevitability of such a need. Therefore, the instruments of Section 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) must be exhausted, and, if necessary, the defendant must assert corresponding claims for reimbursement against the youth welfare agency. As long as an exemption from childcare costs has not been granted, a corresponding need exists. Other claims that are currently not feasible under Section 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), do not preclude claims under the hardship provision
5. Subsequent application for legal aid, a contribution by social law expert Attorney Ludwig Zimmermann
sozialrechtsexperte.blogspot.com
6. Statement by the German Pension Insurance Association (DRB) on sanctions in basic social security
The German Association of Judges (DRB) has issued a statement on sanctions in basic social security.
On June 6, 2011, a public hearing of the Committee on Labour and Social Affairs of the German Bundestag took place regarding the motions by Member of Parliament Katja Kipping, other Members of Parliament and the Left Party parliamentary group "Abolish sanctions in the Second Book of the Social Code and benefit restrictions in the Twelfth Book of the Social Code" (BT-Drs. 17/5174 – PDF, 72 KB) and by Member of Parliament Brigitte Pothmer, other Members of Parliament and the Alliance 90/The Greens parliamentary group "Strengthen the rights of job seekers – suspend sanctions" (BT-Drs. 17/3207 – PDF, 68 KB).
The following statement is limited to aspects of social court practice and the principles established in the existing case law of the social courts and the Federal Constitutional Court. A socio-political assessment, however, is not within the remit of the German Association of Judges and Public Prosecutors (DRB) as a professional association of judges and public prosecutors. Nor does this statement constitute a constitutional assessment of the applicable legal regulations that goes beyond existing case law.
1. The Second Book of the German Social Code (SGB II) follows the principle of the activating welfare state, based on the priority of self-help and the subsidiarity of tax-financed social benefits. The heading of Chapter 1 of the SGB II refers to this as "promoting and demanding." The task and goal of basic income support for job seekers are described in Section 1 of the SGB II, among other things, as strengthening personal responsibility and contributing to enabling employable individuals in need to secure their livelihood independently of basic income support through their own resources and efforts. In this context, the term "integration principle" is used (see Spellbrink in: Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd ed., 2008, before Section 1, para. 6). This concept corresponds to the concept of humanity in the Basic Law, which assumes a self-reliant individual living in a social community (cf., for example, BVerfGE 4, 7; BVerfGE 12, 45; BVerfGE 24, 119; BVerfGE 65, 1; BVerfGE 121, 69).
Continue to the text here:
www.juris.de
7. Current developments in the benefits provided under the basic income support scheme for job seekers.
Households in need, families, couples
Essay by Udo Geiger
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
