1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 24.02.2011, – B 14 AS 52/09 R-
With a combined advance payment for the actual heating costs and the costs of hot water preparation, only an amount of 6.22 euros can be deducted from a standard benefit of 345 euros.
The conditions for an exception to this flat-rate charge when hot water costs are recorded separately are not met in this case. It is not possible to allocate the advance payment of €27 per month for heating costs, as stipulated in the lease, between the actual heating costs for the apartment and the hot water costs. According to the lease, the plaintiff was obligated to pay this amount as heating costs, without further differentiation, meaning it covered both the actual heating costs and the hot water costs.
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 24.02.2011, – B 14 AS 49/10 R-
A claim for additional needs due to costly nutrition under Section 21 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) due to an allergy to parabens may exist, because the assumption that even with strict avoidance of foods containing the allergen, no further costs would arise with regard to a balanced diet, cannot be assumed as general experience of the court.
The finding that the person in need of assistance could easily avoid the allergen through attentive and merely time-consuming, but not costly, consumer behavior is neither a generally known fact nor does the judgment otherwise reveal on what the court bases this conclusion.
According to Section 21 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), employable individuals in need of assistance who require a special diet for medical reasons are entitled to an additional allowance of an appropriate amount. The law thus establishes a legal entitlement for those in need of assistance when a special diet is medically necessary. A prerequisite is a health impairment that necessitates a diet whose costs are higher ("more expensive") than those of individuals without such a restriction (see Düring in Gagel, SGB II/SGB III, as of November 2010, Section 21 SGB II, marginal note 31; O. Loose in GK-SGB II, as of July 2010, Section 21, marginal notes 34 et seq.; Münder in ders., SGB II, 3rd edition 2009, Section 21, marginal note 25). Such a special, medically justified nutritional need leads to an entitlement to an additional allowance in an appropriate amount (for the whole, see BSGE 100, 83 = SozR 4-4200 § 20 No. 6, each para. 39 and BSG SozR 4-4200 § 21 No. 2 para. 24).
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 08.07.2011 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – BSG, Judgment of 07.07.2011, – B 14 AS 51/10 R –
Electricity costs for the heating pump are eligible to be considered as additional accommodation costs, whereas additional electricity costs for outdoor lighting and garden maintenance are not eligible to be considered as housing costs.
++ Note: 1. Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of 10 May 2011, -B 4 AS 100/10 R-
When recording the electricity consumption for a fan heater in the bathroom with only one meter, an estimate can be made to differentiate between electricity costs covered by the standard rate (household electricity) and electricity costs as accommodation costs (heating costs).
State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of March 2, 2011, – L 2 SO 4920/09 –
When electricity consumption is recorded with only one meter, an estimate can be made to differentiate between electricity costs covered by the standard allowance (household electricity) and electricity costs as accommodation costs (heating costs) (following BSG judgment of 20.8.2009 – B 14 AS 41/08 R -; LSG Baden-Württemberg judgment of 23.10.2009 – L 12 AS 4179/08 -).
2.2 – BSG, Judgment of 07.07.2011, – B 14 AS 153/10 R –
Hartz IV: Children are not liable for their parents' actions
Section 1629a of the German Civil Code (BGB) is also generally applicable in the context of the recovery of benefits for securing subsistence under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
According to Section 1629a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), liability for obligations incurred by the parents within the scope of their legal authority, or by other authorized representatives within the scope of their authority, through legal transactions or other actions with effect for the child, or which arose from an inheritance acquired during the child's minority, is limited to the assets the child possesses upon reaching the age of majority. As the reference in Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 to Sections 1990 and 1991 of the German Civil Code (BGB) indicates, this constitutes a permanent, peremptory defense that precludes the enforceability of an otherwise valid claim.
++ Note: See my following post on this topic: Another opinion is expressed in the post on the blog: Claims for reimbursement can also be asserted against minors if the person liable has since reached the age of majority.
Social Court Aachen, judgment of 26 May 2011, – S 14 AS 22/10 –, pending before the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia – L 19 AS 1061/11 –
Section 1629a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB)
According to Section 1629a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), liability for obligations incurred by the parents within the scope of their legal authority, or by other authorized representatives within the scope of their authority, through legal transactions or other actions with effect for the child, or which arose from an inheritance acquired during the child's minority, is limited to the assets the child possesses upon reaching the age of majority. As the reference in Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 to Sections 1990 and 1991 of the German Civil Code (BGB) indicates, this constitutes a permanent, peremptory defense that precludes the enforceability of an otherwise valid claim.
The provision of Section 1629a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is not applicable in favor of the plaintiff, who has now entered adulthood without assets.
sozialrechtsexperte.blogspot.com
2.3 – BSG, Judgment of 07.07.2011, – B 14 AS 79/10 R-
Monthly repayment installments for the payment of an interest-free deferred purchase price for a self-occupied house – acquired without equity capital during the receipt of tax-financed social benefits – are not to be considered as accommodation costs pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
The appropriateness of housing costs for tenants and homeowners must be determined according to uniform criteria. Mortgage payments for an owner-occupied property are not automatically excluded from consideration as housing costs; however, they can only be taken into account in exceptional cases. Such an exceptional case does not exist simply because the owner's total financing costs do not exceed the total costs of a reasonable rental apartment. The circumstances of the present case, which emphasize private wealth accumulation using public funds, preclude the assumption of an exceptional case as described in the Senate's previous rulings.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Hessian State Social Court decision of 22 June 2011, – L 7 AS 700/10 B ER –
The complete denial of benefits under Section 66 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I), is not covered by the exhaustive list of cases regarding the denial of benefits in Section 39 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), according to the clear wording of the provision (Saarland Higher Social Court, judgment of May 2, 2011, L 9 AS 9/11 B ER; Baden-Württemberg Higher Social Court, judgment of April 8, 2010, L 7 AS 304/10 ER-B; Groth in GK-SGB II, Section 39, marginal note 25; Hengelhaupt in Hauck/Noftz, SGB II, Section 39, marginal note 75). This is because the denial of benefits under Section 66 of the SGB I is specifically not aimed at the annulment of a previous benefit award or at a reduction of benefits.
The requirement of effective legal protection under Article 19 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the Basic Law makes it necessary in this case to issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Social Courts Act (for social assistance: Hessian State Social Court, judgment of December 22, 2008, L 7 SO 80/08 B ER; SGB II: Saarland State Social Court, judgment of May 2, 2011, L 9 AS 9/11 B ER; Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of April 8, 2010, L 7 AS 304/10 ER-B and judgment of July 2, 2004, L 13 RJ 2467/04 ER-B). For only by issuing a preliminary injunction is the applicant given the opportunity to obtain preliminary legal protection with regard to the underlying claim for benefits itself, before a decision is made on the merits of the action challenging the refusal notice.
3.2 – Hessian State Social Court decision of 27 June 2011, – L 7 AS 121/11 B ER –
A subsidy under Section 22 Paragraph 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not applicable according to the wording of the provision, because the applicant does not receive BAföG (Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of January 25, 2011, L 6 AS 206/10; Herold-Tews in Löns/Herold-Tews, SGB II, 2nd edition 2009, Section 22, marginal note 74; Berlit in LPK-SGB II, 3rd edition 2009, Section 22, marginal note 137; Lang/Link in Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd edition 2008, Section 22, marginal note 120; Lauterbach in Gagel, SGB II/SGB III, 39th supplement 2010, marginal note 111; see also Federal Social Court, judgment of September 6, 2007, B 14/7b AS 36/06 R).
3.3 – Bavarian State Social Court decision of 11 April 2011, – L 7 AS 214/11 B ER –
The withdrawal notice is immediately enforceable as a reduction of benefits pursuant to Section 39 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (see also the decision of the Bavarian State Social Court of 13 October 2009, L 16 AS 590/09 B ER, and in the literature Oestreicher, SGB II/SGB XII, Section 39 SGB II, marginal notes 30, 37, and Hauck/Noftz, SGB II, Section 39, marginal note 76).
3.4 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 10 May 2011, – L 19 AS 629/11 B ER
According to Section 22 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the municipal authority is only obliged to grant a commitment if the move is necessary and the expenses for the new accommodation are reasonable.
The local authority responsible for the location of the new accommodation must be involved. The wording of the regulation ("the" new accommodation) already indicates that the aforementioned assurance can only refer to a new – specific – accommodation and only covers the case of an impending agreement for such accommodation (cf. judgments of the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court (LSG) of October 16, 2010 – L 7 AS 6055/09 – and June 16, 2009 – L 13 AS 3036/07 – with further references; decisions of the Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court of March 24, 2010 – L 10 AS 216/10 B ER – and October 4, 2010 – L 18 AS 1841/10 B PKH –).
However, a specific housing offer is no longer the subject of the proceedings because the initially presented offer of a rental apartment is no longer available. Therefore, the application for a declaratory judgment submitted by the applicant in need of assistance would correspond to a declaratory action to be brought in the main proceedings, with the aim of establishing the necessity of moving out of the currently occupied apartment within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Such an action would be inadmissible due to the lack of a legal relationship within the meaning of Section 55 Paragraph 1 Number 1 of the German Social Court Act (SGG).
No (partial) determination of the necessity of a move without a concrete offer of a target apartment. Such a claim is only considered admissible if the dispute between the parties can be completely resolved by a judicial determination of a single element of a legal relationship (cf. Federal Social Court (BSG) in SozR 3 – 2600 § 58 No. 9). This requirement would not be met, as the applicant would not have come any closer to her actual goal of changing her living situation. Even if a legally binding determination of the necessity to move out is established, further disputes between the parties as to whether the expenses for a specifically envisaged new accommodation are reasonable cannot be ruled out (cf. decisions of the Higher Social Court (LSG) Berlin-Brandenburg of March 24, 2010 – L 10 AS 216/10 B ER – and of October 4, 2010 – L 18 AS 1841/10 B PKH-; judgment of the Higher Social Court (LSG) Baden-Württemberg of June 16, 2009 – L 13 AS 3036/07 – (see also the press release of the Federal Social Court (BSG) No. 15/11 of April 6, 2011 on B 4 AS 5/10 R).
Insofar as the 5th Senate of the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg) in its decision of December 15, 2006 – L 5 AS 1147/06 AS ER – exceptionally deemed the declaratory judgment action admissible for reasons of legal protection and practical considerations, it has expressly abandoned this view in subsequent decisions (see decisions of June 25, 2008 – L 5 B 1156/08 AS ER – and January 16, 2009 – L 5 B 2097/08 AS ER –). Ultimately, the principle of subsidiarity of the declaratory judgment action compared to the action for annulment and performance to be brought in the main proceedings would also preclude the admissibility of the declaratory judgment action. Although Section 55 of the Social Court Act (SGG), unlike Section 43 Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act and Section 41 Paragraph 2 of the Fiscal Court Procedure Act, does not expressly establish a subsidiary relationship between the types of action, it is also recognized for social court proceedings that a plaintiff cannot demand a judicial determination insofar as he has the possibility of pursuing his rights with a declaratory or performance action.
A legitimate interest in a declaratory judgment is regularly to be denied if the factual and legal issues underlying the requested declaratory judgment are already to be decided within the framework of the aforementioned combined action for annulment and performance, by which a (specific) claim for assurance within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) can be enforced in court (established case law; cf. only Federal Social Court (BSG) in SozR 4 – 2700 Section 136 No. 3 with further references). Although the principle of subsidiarity does not apply to declaratory judgment actions against public legal entities because it can be assumed that, given their constitutionally enshrined obligation to uphold law and justice, these entities will satisfy the beneficiaries even without a judgment ordering performance (see, most recently, Federal Social Court [BSG], judgment of October 27, 2009 – B 1 KR 4/09 R –), this exception only applies if it can be expected that the dispute will be definitively resolved by the judicial declaration, meaning that the courts will not have to deal with the matter again to decide on further disputed points not covered by the requested declaration (see BSG in SozR 3 – 3300 § 38 No. 2 with further references). However, for the reasons already explained, this is precisely not the case.
The outcome thus reached does not constitute a denial of the legal protection guaranteed by Article 19 Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law (GG), as the Social Court believes, because the applicant remains free to obtain an assurance upon presentation of a concrete housing offer. At the very least, the provision in Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) grants her a certain degree of security, since it stipulates that at least the previous level of need is recognized if the reasonable expenses for accommodation and heating increase after a move that was not deemed necessary. The Senate also sees no infringement of the fundamental right to freedom of movement (Article 11 GG), because the applicant remains free at any time to move into a new apartment even without an assurance from the respondent, particularly in light of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the SGB II.
3.5 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Decision of June 28, 2011, – L 25 AS 438/09 B PKH –
The upper limit specified in the Berlin Housing Guidelines (444 euros for a two-person household) is unsuitable for assessing reasonable housing costs because it represents a gross rent including utilities, even though the assessment of accommodation costs must be independent of the assessment of heating costs (cf. Federal Social Court, Judgment of October 19, 2010 – B 14 AS 2/10 R-).
Granting of legal aid, because the job center and the social court wrongly decided on the appropriateness of the housing costs and heating costs on the basis of the implementing regulations for determining appropriate housing costs pursuant to Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) of the Senate Department for Health, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection of the State of Berlin (hereinafter: AV-Wohnen).
These are merely administrative regulations that have no direct legal effect on those affected. Neither the AV-Wohnen (Administrative Regulations on Housing) themselves nor the defendant's submissions indicate that the upper limits mentioned therein (444 euros for a two-person household) are based on a coherent concept as defined by the cited case law (see Federal Social Court, judgment of October 19, 2010 – B 14 AS 2/10 R). Furthermore, the reference value mentioned in the AV-Wohnen is unsuitable for assessing reasonable housing costs because it specifies a gross rent including utilities, even though the assessment of accommodation costs must be independent of the assessment of heating costs (see Federal Social Court, judgment of October 19, 2010 – B 14 AS 2/10 R).
The social court will now have to assess the appropriateness of the housing costs according to the standards established by the Federal Social Court (BSG) in its judgment of October 19, 2010. It will also have to assess the appropriateness of the heating costs separately.
If housing costs exceed what is reasonable given the specific circumstances of the individual case, they must be considered as part of the needs of the single person in need of assistance or the household for as long as it is impossible or unreasonable for the single person in need of assistance or the household to reduce the costs by moving, subletting, or otherwise, but generally for no longer than six months. This provision, which also applies to heating costs (see Federal Social Court [BSG], judgment of July 2, 2009 – B 14 AS 36/08 R – juris), does not establish a six-month grace period that must be observed in every case (see, in this regard and for the following, Federal Social Court [BSG], judgment of February 19, 2009 – B 4 AS 30/08 R – juris). However, the person in need of assistance must at least be aware of their obligation to reduce their housing costs, and cost-reduction measures must be both subjectively reasonable and possible for them. Only then can he demand reimbursement of his expenses from the point in time at which these measures could become effective, for example, by adhering to notice periods, etc., only in the amount of the reference rent
++ Note: See also the article – Average Berlin rent for Hartz IV recipients at approximately €5.00 per square meter?
sozialrechtsexperte.blogspot.com
3.6 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 11 April 2011, – L 28 AS 190/09 NZB –
To assess whether a particular household appliance is necessary for orderly household management within the meaning of Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), reference can be made to the case law of the administrative courts under the Federal Social Assistance Act (BSHG).
Therefore, an electric clothes dryer is not considered part of the necessary means of subsistence (§ 12 BSHG). Even today, a clothes dryer is generally perceived as a mere convenience that many citizens cannot afford, or cannot afford without foregoing other desires (cf. Munich Administrative Court, judgment of December 16, 2004, M 15 K 03.6680).
https://sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
3.7 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 30 June 2011, – L 19 AS 1005/11 B –
If the move has already been completed and costs for accommodation and heating for this apartment have been approved, the lawsuit does not offer sufficient prospects of success, as it is inadmissible due to the lack of a need for legal protection (BSG judgment of 06.04.2011 – B 4 AS 5/10 R).
The lawsuit does not offer sufficient prospects of success, as it is inadmissible due to the lack of a legitimate interest in legal protection (BSG judgment of 06.04.2011 – B 4 AS 5/10 R).
The combined action for annulment and performance brought by the plaintiffs pursuant to Section 54 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), aimed at ordering the defendant to issue the assurance pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 2 of the Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for a specific apartment (cf. regarding the admissibility of such an action: Federal Social Court judgment of April 6, 2011 – B 4 AS 5/10 R, paragraph 13), was already inadmissible at the time the action was brought due to a lack of a legitimate interest in legal protection.
The contested initial decision has already been rendered moot by the plaintiffs' move into the apartment and the defendant's approval of costs for accommodation and heating for this apartment pursuant to Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) during the objection proceedings (cf. regarding the cessation of legal protection also Federal Social Court judgment of 06.04.2011 – B 4 AS 5/10 R, paragraphs 14f).
3.8 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 30 June 2011, – L 19 AS 1023/11 B ER –
Tax-free supplements must be taken into account as income in relation to earned income, since the amendment of the provisions of Sections 11 and 11a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as amended by the law of March 24, 2011 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 453), eliminated the preferential treatment of income with a private-law purpose, and these wage supplements were not considered privileged income under Section 11 Paragraph 3 of the SGB II as amended up to December 31, 2010 (cf. regarding tax-free supplements for night, Sunday, and public holiday work: Federal Social Court judgment of June 1, 2010 – B 4 AS 89/09 R, paragraphs 16f).
Costs of maintaining two households are to be considered as necessary expenses related to generating income within the meaning of Section 11b Paragraph 1 Number 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). For the interpretation of these provisions, the tax regulations concerning work-related expenses for employees or business expenses for self-employed individuals can be consulted (Brühl in LPK-SGB II, 3rd edition, Section 11, marginal note 49). According to Section 9 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 Number 5 of the German Income Tax Act (EStG), necessary additional expenses incurred by an employee due to maintaining two households for professional reasons are also considered work-related expenses.
3.9 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 30 June 2011, – L 6 AS 2032/10 –
The crediting of the injury pension against the benefits of basic income support for job seekers does not violate the Basic Law.
In its judgment of 05.09.2007 – B 11b AS 15/06 R, the Federal Social Court explained in detail that, within the broad scope of discretion to be granted to the legislator, it is not constitutionally objectionable if the injury pension is not exempt from being counted as income under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). The deciding Senate also holds, in accordance with the established case law of the Federal Constitutional Court (e.g., Federal Constitutional Court decision of 22 May 2003 – 1 BvR 452/99, para. 17 in FamRZ 2003, 1084 et seq.; decision of 26 April 1988 – 1 BvL 84/86, para. 47 in BVerfGE 78, 104 et seq.), the view that judicial correction of legislative decisions, in particular those within the framework of granting state activity, is only possible to a limited extent. This applies in particular also with regard to the fact that there is no constitutionally guaranteed entitlement to specific sums of money for specific needs (cf. BSG judgment of 18.06.2008 – B 14 AS 55/07 Rn 44 with further references in SGb 2009, 548 ff.).
It should also be noted that the exemption of the injury pension from being taken into account has not been included in the new version of Sections 11 and 12 of the German Social Code, Book II and Book XII, which was amended by the Act on the Determination of Standard Needs and the Amendment of the German Social Code, Book II and Book XII, of March 24, 2011.
3.10 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of June 28, 2011, – L 6 AS 272/11 B –
The urgent application is not without prospect of success simply because it was filed before the objection to the sanction notice.
Although, given such a sequence of events, the application for interim relief is inadmissible at the moment it is filed with the Social Court, since an objection for which the suspensive effect is sought has not (yet) been filed (see also Keller in Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer, SGG, 9th ed. 2008, § 86b para. 7), the application becomes admissible the moment the objection for which suspensive effect is sought is filed.
Here, the Social Court would have had to grant the urgent application – if the matter had not been settled by a remedial decision – from 27 September 2011 at 14:21, since the invitation of 20 July 2010, which was the basis for the sanction, had not been received by the applicant and the sanction decision was therefore unlawful.
3.11 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of June 24, 2011, – L 7 AS 40/11 B –
The appeal is also excluded if the appeal on the merits would not be admissible by law without further ado, but would first require leave to appeal.
The Senate does not agree with the legal opinion expressed in the decision of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court (decision of 24 February 2010, file no.: L 7 AS 1446/09 B ER) that the exclusion provision of Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 1 of the Social Courts Act (SGG) is not applicable if, in the main proceedings corresponding to the subject matter of the preliminary legal protection, there is a ground for granting leave to appeal pursuant to Section 144 Paragraph 2. The wording of Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 1 of the Social Court Procedure Act (SGG) already reveals that an appeal is only admissible if an appeal on the merits would be admissible in the main proceedings, i.e., only in those proceedings where admissibility is affirmed by law due to the absence of the grounds for exclusion under Section 144 Paragraph 1 SGG (Adjudicating Senate, Decision of June 16, 2011, Case Nos.: L 7 AS 999/11 B ER and L 7 AS 1000/11 B). Like the 9th and 12th Senates of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (LSG NRW), the adjudicating Senate also holds the view that the purpose of the provision supports this interpretation. The provision of Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 1 SGG is intended to relieve the Higher Social Courts of appeal proceedings in preliminary injunction proceedings and to prevent them from being privileged compared to appeals in main proceedings. Furthermore, Section 172 of the Social Court Act (SGG) does not contain any reference to the provision of Section 144 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (LSG NRW, decision of 15 April 2010, file no.: L 12 SO 113/10 B; decision of 10 April 2008, file no. L 9 B 74/08 AS ER).
3.12 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of June 10, 2011, – L 12 AS 5755/09 –
A residential facility within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) exists if the objective structure of the facility does not allow a person in need of assistance to pursue gainful employment on the general labor market for 3 hours a day (following BSGE 99, 88 = SozR 4-4200 § 7 No. 7).
A person in need of assistance who is fully accommodated in a residential facility within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as part of services to overcome special social difficulties, is not accommodated in a residential facility if, apart from a morning room tour, he does not have to attend any mandatory appointments in the facility.
4. Kiel rent caps confirmed
Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, judgments of 11 April 2011, - L 11 AS 126/09 - and - L 11 AS 123/09 -
The 11th Senate of the Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, responsible for Hartz IV proceedings from Kiel, has confirmed in two cases the calculation of the rent ceilings by the chambers of the social courts Kiel and Schleswig for the years 2008 and 2009 and rejected the appeals filed against this by the Kiel Job Center.
Following a resolution by the Kiel City Council, the method for calculating rent ceilings that has been accepted since mid-2009 now applies. However, the rent ceilings currently recognized by the Kiel Job Center were still calculated based on data from the 2008 rent index.
Since December 2010, the new Kiel rent index has been in effect. Therefore, the Kiel Job Center is obligated to recalculate housing benefits starting in December 2010.
This will lead to higher housing allowances in many cases. For single-person households, for example, the maximum allowance will increase from €301.50 to €308.50 including operating costs from December 2010.
Those eligible for benefits whose rent exceeds the maximum allowable rent should therefore have their benefit notices reviewed in accordance with Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), from December 1, 2010, and file an objection against any new benefit notices. (Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court, judgments of April 11, 2011, L 11 AS 126/09 and L 11 AS 123/09).
5. Harald Thomé: Presentation slides on ALG II / Status: July 5, 2011
6. Guide to ALG II / Social Assistance from AZ
The new guide is now complete and available
The guide to ALG II / social assistance from the Tacheles author team Frank Jäger and Harald Thomé is now complete and available. The guide is a sound resource for those affected and their advisors – it aims to empower and encourage them to take legal action and to stand up against social cutbacks and wage dumping. The guide contains 536 pages and is available for €11 including shipping.
Sources: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
