1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of March 22, 2012 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of March 22, 2012, – B 4 AS 102/11 R –
Hartz IV for students during the vacation semester
During a semester of leave, students can only receive Hartz IV benefits if they withdraw completely from their studies. If, on the other hand, they still attend lectures or prepare for exams at home, they are not entitled to Hartz IV, according to the ruling on Thursday, March 22nd. 2012, the Federal Social Court (BSG) in Kassel (ref.: B 4 AS 102/11 R).
According to the law, the job centers do not have to pay Hartz IV to applicants who are pursuing training that can be funded with Bafög or Meisterbafög. According to the established case law of the BSG, the only thing that matters is whether the training program is eligible for funding, not whether training funding is actually paid in individual cases. The Kassel judges also emphasized in their new ruling that Hartz IV should not become a “hidden training subsidy”.
When taking a semester off, it depends on whether the student is still attending events at their university or just continuing their studies at home, for example by writing papers or preparing for exams. Only if a student “no longer” pursues their studies can an application for Hartz IV be successful.
1.2 – BSG, judgment of March 22, 2012, – B 4 AS 26/10 R –
No withholding of repayment installments for rental deposit
The withholding made was unlawful because there was no legal reason for it, at least during the period in dispute here.
The defendant cannot rely on the offsetting regulations in Section 51 SGB I because, taking into account the amount of current SGB II benefits, they cannot be seized. The withholding cannot be based on Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II, which, as an exception, contains a right of offsetting for the basic security provider that goes beyond Section 51 SGB I, because this norm expressly only refers to loans for unavoidable needs to secure one's livelihood.
An analogous application of Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II is not possible because there is no unplanned loophole in the regulations. The plaintiff's declaration of February 25, 2008, which was pre-formulated and obtained by the defendant, does not indicate any entitlement to repay the rental deposit loan from the current standard benefit, because waiving these subsistence benefits would in any case constitute a circumvention of legal provisions within the meaning of Section 46 Paragraph 2 SGB I would.
Whether legal provisions have been circumvented must be assessed in the social law relationship between the beneficiary and the social benefit provider based on the meaning and purpose of the respective legal provisions and their system. A waiver obtained here by the SGB II provider is an impermissible attempt, disregarding the special requirements and limits of Section 51 SGB I, to circumvent the impermissible offsetting of ongoing benefits that secure the minimum subsistence level to secure a living .
2. Decision of the Federal Social Court of December 20, 2011 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - BSG, judgment of December 20, 2011, -B 4 AS 46/11-
Monetary contributions from parents are not income to be taken into account, because the contributions from parents replace the benefit that was illegally rejected by the basic social security provider until the legal situation is established.
From the wording of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II there is no further definition of what income is.
Only the services mentioned in the second part of the sentence are excluded from consideration from the outset. With the previous case law of the BSG on unemployment assistance (BSGE 58, 160 = SozR 4100 § 138 No. 11; SozR 4100 § 138 No. 25) and the BVerwG on the concept of income in housing benefit law (stRspr since BVerwGE 54, 358; BVerwGE 69, 247) can also However, within the scope of § 11 Paragraph 1 SGB II, a service that is only temporarily provided by a third party cannot be qualified as income according to the meaning and purpose of the standard.
Only the “increase in value” represents income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 SGB II; Only such income in money or monetary value that causes a change in the asset status of the person who has such income is to be regarded as income. This increase must be left to the beneficiary for final use, because only then will the need for assistance in the amount of the grants be permanently eliminated.
In this respect, according to the previous case law of the two basic security senates of the BSG, with regard to the qualification of third-party donations as income, a distinction must be made between a) cash payments or benefits in kind that are given to a person entitled to SGB II benefits to ensure their permanent residence, b) a loan that is linked to a repayment obligation within the meaning of the German Civil Code (BGB) is burdened on the lender and c) contributions from third parties that are intended to replace a service that was unlawfully rejected by the basic security provider precisely because of the rejection until the legal situation is established.
The latter do not represent income in the sense of the definition of the term income set out at the beginning and do not release the basic security provider from its obligation to provide benefits.
It was already recognized at the BSHG that the help of a third party does not exclude the entitlement to social assistance if the third party steps in temporarily - as it were in place of the social assistance provider and subject to the request for reimbursement - only because the social assistance provider did not help in a timely manner or refused help (cf BVerwG of June 23, 1994 - 5 C 26/92 - BVerwGE 96, 152; BVerwGE 94, 127; 90, 154; 26, 217). The 14th and 4th Senates of the BSG followed this (BSG of October 6th, 2011 - B 14 AS 66/11 R - and September 27th, 2011 - B 4 AS 202/10 R and November 22nd, 2011 - B 4 AS 204/10 R-).
The parents' contributions were not burdened with a repayment obligation until the month after they were received. Otherwise, according to the case law of the BSG, the beneficiary would be obliged to use the benefit as “ready resources” in the month in which it is received. The repayment obligation that only arises thereafter becomes a debt repayment that does not have to be paid out of the basic security benefit - apart from legally standardized exceptional cases (see for the case of reclaiming the wrongly granted unemployment benefit in the month after the inflow, BSG of August 23, 2011 - B 14 AS 165 /10 R -).
socialcourtsabilty.de
Note from Willi 2: BSG, judgment of December 20, 2011, – B 4 AS 200/10 R –
If relatives give Hartz IV recipients money to pay off their current account debts, this leads to a reduction in unemployment benefit II
Tacheles KW 52/2011
3. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - Hamburg State Social Court, judgment of March 15, 2012, - L 4 AS 40/09 -
Due to the application requirement according to Section 37 SGB II, a claim to initial housing equipment can only exist in relation to those items that were purchased after the application was submitted
There was no need for initial equipment - namely with regard to the initial equipment purchased before February 19, 2008 - because the plaintiff's parents had already made the purchases before the defendant even had the opportunity to cover the costs.
The need was covered with the benefit in kind, and given the chronological order of purchase and application, the plaintiff's parents were not interested in substituting a benefit that had been unlawfully rejected by the basic social security provider, precisely because of the rejection until the legal situation was established (cf. BSG , judgment of December 20, 2011 – B 4 AS 46/11 R).
That would not have released the basic security provider from its obligation to provide benefits; But that is not the case here.
The plaintiff's parents didn't just help in the form of a loan; The plaintiff's obligation to provide restitution was never stated and not otherwise evident. Rather, the plaintiff stated in the lawsuit that his parents had advanced the purchase costs and wanted to receive the reimbursement amount from the defendant. There is no loan agreement to be seen there.
socialcourtsabilty.de
Note from Willi 2nd BSG, judgment of December 20, 2011, -B 4 AS 46/11 R –
Monetary contributions from parents are not income to be taken into account, because the contributions from parents replace the benefit that was illegally rejected by the basic social security provider until the legal situation is established.
socialrightsexperte.blogspot.de
3.2 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of February 16, 2012, – L 19 AS 91/12 B ER
There is no subjective public right for a beneficiary to (co)determine the person responsible for their benefit matter.
The assignment of tasks to a clerk is an internal administrative decision that cannot be reviewed by a person entitled to benefits in court (see North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court decision of April 23, 2010 - L 6 B 93/09 AS - with further case law evidence).
From the provision of Section 14 Sentence 2 SGB II, according to which a personal contact person should be named for an employable person entitled to benefits, no subjective public right of the beneficiary to reject a specific clerk and be assigned another clerk can be derived. § 14 Sentence 2 SGB II only contains an objective legal assignment of tasks to the service provider, but not a legal claim of the beneficiary to certain personnel structures in case processing (BSG judgment of September 22, 2009 - B 4 AS 13/09 R = BSGE 104, 185, juris Rn 26 mwN; State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia decision of April 23, 2010 - L 6 B 93/09 AS -),
Even if the applicant considers the respondent's responsible clerk to be against her, i.e. biased, Section 17 Tenth Book of the Social Security Code (SGB = juris Rn 27 mwN).
The decision to be made internally by the administration regarding the concern that an employee is biased has no external legal effect and cannot be independently challenged (BSG judgment of September 22, 2009 - B 4 AS 13/09 R = BSGE 104, 185, juris Rn 26 mwN; State Social Court North Rhine-Westphalia resolution of April 23, 2010 - L 6 B 93/09 AS - mwN ; OVG NRW resolution of January 10, 2000 - 18 A 4228/95 = DVBl. 2000, 572; BFH resolution of May 7, 1981 - IV B 60/ 80 = BFHE 133,340).
3.3 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of March 8, 2012, – L 19 AS 2025/11 B –
The assurance according to Section 22 Paragraph 4 SGB II is only relevant for cases in which the move has not yet been completed.
The regulation of Section 22 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB II is a target regulation and has no mandatory character, but only fulfills an educational and warning function (cf. Berlit in LPK-SGB II, 4th edition 2011, Section 22 Rn. 119).
When the plaintiff moves into the new apartment, an assurance in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB II is no longer possible, as the meaning and purpose of the norm can no longer be applied from this point on (see LSG Berlin-Brandenburg L 26 AS 421/07 = juris Rn. 15; see also BSG judgment of November 22, 2011 - B 4 AS 219/10 R = juris Rn. 14 ff.).
There is therefore no need for legal protection for the lawsuit filed.
socialcourtsabilty.de
Note from Willi 2: BSG, judgment of November 22, 2011, – B 4 AS 219/10 R –
Those in need of help are not entitled to an assurance of the appropriateness of the basic rent for the accommodation they already occupy in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 2 SGB II.
Sozialrechtsexperte.blogspot.de
3.4 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of January 12, 2012, – L 19 AS 17/11 –
The claim from a capital life insurance policy in the event of early termination of the contract is an asset.
Assets within the meaning of Section 12 SGB II are all usable assets. In addition to movable property and real estate, this also includes securitized or non-securitized claims and cash payments in the form of surrender values from insurance.
The consideration of claims as assets within the meaning of § 12 SGB II does not prevent the fact that further exploitation actions must be “interposed” in order to achieve an actual inflow of the claim as income in money or monetary value and thus as income within the meaning of § 11 SGB II.
Therefore, (future due) claims and rights that are established as full rights (cf. BSG judgment of August 30, 2010 - B 4 AS 70/09 R = juris Rn 14f mwN) can also be assets within the meaning of Section 12 SGB II as non-ready means are to be used to secure livelihoods if they are usable (cf. BSG judgment of August 30, 2010 - B 4 AS 70/09 R = juris Rn 14, 15).
socialcourtsabilty.de
Note from Willi 2: Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of January 24, 2012, – L 13 AS 2954/11 –
1. Partial payouts from life insurance not only reduce the market value of the insurance in the form of the surrender value, but also the real value of the asset being valued (substance value).
2. When examining whether the utilization of a life insurance policy is obviously uneconomical (Section 12 Para. 3 No. 6 Alt. 1 SGB II), partial payouts must be taken into account and as part of the comparison of the contributions paid and the surrender value of the contributions paid to bring deduction.
socialrightsexperte.blogspot.de
3.5 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of February 22, 2012, – L 7 AS 1716/11 B –
A recipient of basic security benefits for jobseekers may not, without exception, be given priority to seek legal protection under civil law if there is an impending power cut.
Taking into account the duration and the unpredictable prospect of success of a civil law dispute, it is necessary to examine whether the applicant has exhausted reasonable self-help options and to what extent the respondent was obliged to provide advice and assistance (LSG NRW, decision of April 2, 2008 - L 7 B 251/ 07 AS ER; Hammel, info also 6/2011, 251 ff.; Berlit in LPK-SGB II, Commentary on SGB II, 4th edition 2011, § 22 Rn. 194).
According to Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, an employable person entitled to benefits must exhaust all options to end or reduce their need for assistance.
However, it does not follow that this can always be referred to urgent civil court legal protection with regard to outstanding energy costs.
According to the legal opinion of several civil courts, the energy supplier is only obliged to resume the interrupted energy supply if all of the outstanding energy costs have been paid off (see Gotzen, ZfF 2007, pp. 248, 249 f. on the civil law legal situation).
In addition, an obligation for the employable beneficiary to cooperate does not release the basic security provider from its obligation to provide support established in Section 17 of the First Book of the Social Code (SGB I).
The reference to urgent civil court legal protection in the event of disproportionate impending power cuts (Section 19 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 StromGVV) regularly requires consistent advice and support from the service provider (Berlit in LPK-SGB II, Commentary on SGB II, 4th edition 2011, Section 22 Rn . 194).
The basic security provider must ensure that the employable beneficiary is only required to cooperate to the extent that is objectively and subjectively reasonable.
It is not consistent with this to refer a beneficiary who regularly lacks experience in the field of urgent legal protection in civil courts to this special form of legal protection in court and without offering advice and assistance (if necessary also from a lawyer).
Note from Willi 2: Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of August 8, 2011, – L 5 AS 1097/11 B ER –
Hartz IV - recipient has been in the dark since May 12, 2011 - electricity cut - no assumption of electricity debts.
socialrightsexperte.blogspot.de
3.6 – Bavaria. State Social Court judgment of February 2, 2012 – L 11 AS 675/10 –
Need for help according to SGB II despite having real estate assets
Only needy people are in need of help and are therefore entitled to benefits under SGB II – Hartz -IV. Anyone who has wealth must use it for their livelihood.
There are exceptions, such as for protected assets protected by allowances. Assets do not count as assets that cannot be exploited, also because they are not marketable. When it comes to real estate, marketability includes, among other things, the fact that it can be transferred without the consent of others.
The Bavarian State Social Court decided on a memorable case in this regard.
Starting point
The plaintiff had been given a residential building and leased agricultural land by his parents. In the land register, the parents had reserved a right to retransfer if the property was to be resold without their consent. In addition, the property was secured by a notary for a grandchild until 2017. From their point of view, the parents wanted to prevent the property from being squandered in favor of their grandchild because of the plaintiff's handling of money in the past. When the plaintiff applied for Hartz IV benefits, the job center refused because the plaintiff was not in need. The apartment building and the agricultural land of more than 12,000 square meters are to be used as assets. The social court had confirmed the decision and also denied basic security benefits.
The decision
The Bavarian State Social Court overturned the social court's ruling and sentenced the job center to benefits in accordance with SGB II. The plaintiff's house and agricultural lands are not assets that are usable and marketable.
This is prevented by the land register-secured retransfer claim. This not only serves the purpose of undermining the subordinate status of Hartz IV benefits, but also the legitimate goal of preserving the assets for the grandchild. There is therefore no immoral cooperation between the plaintiff and his parents to the detriment of basic security.
Effects of the decision
The Bavarian State Social Court has decided on another case constellation regarding the usability of real estate assets and thus determined the need for help according to SGB II despite an apartment building and agricultural land of more than 12,000 square meters. The State Social Court denied the exceptional case of immoral cooperation between the people involved.
socialcourtsability.de
Note from Willi 2: According to Section 9 Paragraph 4 SGB II, anyone who is unable to immediately consume or utilize the assets to be taken into account is also in need of help or for whom this would mean particular hardship.
socialrightsexperte.blogspot.de
3.7 - LSG Schleswig-Holstein, resolution of March 7, 2012, - L 11 AS 29/12 B ER - and L 11 AS 29/12 B ER PKH -
Poor students who are in the exam phase cannot be expected to continue to work in order to be able to finance their studies, if they are required to use all their energy for a successful exam in order not to jeopardize the success of their final thesis.
In this situation, the exclusion of benefits according to SGB II represents a particular hardship within the meaning of Section 27 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB II if successful completion of the course of study means that completed vocational training can be demonstrated for the first time.
Article: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
Resolution of the LSG as a scan: socialberatungkiel.files.wordpress.com (pdf)
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – Schleswig Social Court, decision of October 6, 2011, S 1 AS 137/11 ER –
A lack of a subletting permit (Section 540 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 BGB) does not affect the effectiveness of a sublease agreement concluded with an employable beneficiary.
The subletting permit only works in the relationship between the landlord and the main tenant.
The full text of the resolution can be found here:
Article: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
Resolution: Sozialberatungkiel.files.wordpress.com (pdf)
4.2 – Berlin Social Court, judgment of January 18, 2012, – S 55 AS 30011/10 -, appeal permitted
If two monthly salaries are received from the same employment relationship within a calendar month, the allowances in accordance with Sections 11 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2, Section 30 Paragraph 1 SGB 2 aF (now: Section 11b Paragraphs 2 and 3 SGB 2) must be granted for each monthly salary, unless Remuneration is received from multiple employment relationships or activities and the allowances are exhausted.
5. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 - Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of February 23, 2012, - L 7 SO 1246/10 -
1. The assumption of the costs for systemic exercise therapy for a severely disabled child can be part of the integration assistance benefits as an aid to an appropriate school education within the meaning of Section 54 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB XII in conjunction with Section 12 No. 1 EinglHV.
2. The granting of integration assistance by covering the costs of systemic exercise therapy is not already excluded by the principle of subordinate social assistance with regard to the responsibility of the school because this form of therapy also contains (curative) educational elements. What is more important is whether the measure can be assigned to the core area of the teachers' pedagogical work within the meaning of the school's educational mission; Even taking into account the change in school regulations in connection with increasing integrative schooling of disabled children and young people, there may also be a need for additional integration.
5.2 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of February 6, 2012, – L 20 SO 527/11 B –
Granting of legal aid, because the change in the standard rates that came into force on January 1, 2011 according to the appendix to Section 28 SGB XII is, where possible, unconstitutional.
According to Section 27a Paragraph 2 SGB This is divided into standard need levels, which take into account age-related differences for children and young people and the number of adults in the household and the management of a household (sentence 2). In order to cover the standard needs that arise according to the standard need levels in the appendix to Section 28 SGB XII, monthly standard rates must be granted in accordance with Section 27a Paragraph 3 SGB and in the event of reduced earning capacity. The appendix to § 28 SGB Spouse, life partner or in a marriage-like or civil partnership live a common household.
Although the defendant based the approval of benefits on the standard needs level in accordance with the legal requirements from April 1, 2011, it is - following the plaintiff's argument - entirely possible and at least not unreasonable in the sense of the principles presented at the beginning that § 8 para. 1 No. 3 RBEG is unconstitutional.
In this respect, it may ultimately remain open whether this provision violates the fundamental right to a humane subsistence minimum, which is constitutionally guaranteed in Art. 2010 - 1 BvL 1/09, 3/09 and 4/09 (BVerfGE 125, 175 ff.) did not sufficiently take into account the constitutional requirements for determining the humane minimum subsistence level for the group of people covered by standard needs level 3 (see, among others, Münder , ibid, p. 82); Because regardless of this, it is at least conceivable that Section 8 Paragraph 1 No. 3 RBEG is unconstitutional insofar as the different treatment of adults (after the age of 25) in SGB II and SGB XII violates the principle of equal treatment in Article 3 Paragraph 1 GG injured.
The general principle of equality in Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law prohibits treating a group of addressees of the norm differently in comparison to other addressees of the norm, even though there are no differences between the two groups of such a nature and importance that they can justify unequal treatment (BVerfGE 100 , 195, 205; 107, 205, 214; 109, 96, 123). Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law requires that unequal treatment be linked to an objectively justified distinguishing feature. Depending on the subject matter of the regulation and the differentiating feature, the general principle of equality results in different limits for the legislature, ranging from a mere prohibition of arbitrariness to a strict commitment to the principles of proportionality (cf. BVerfGE 97, 271, 290; 99, 367, 388; 107, 27, 45 ). However, the legislature must be granted particularly wide freedom of design in the area of social law (cf. BVerfGE 17, 210, 216; 77, 84, 106, 81, 156, 205).
Based on this, there is unequal treatment within the meaning of Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, as people who are permanently completely incapacitated and are subject to the benefit system of SGB XII and live in a household with another adult (e.g. parents) without having a household of their own to lead, even after reaching the age of 25 in accordance with Section 8 Paragraph 1 No. 3 RBEG in conjunction with Section 28 SGB who are in a corresponding situation, benefits according to standard needs level 1 (amounting to EUR 364.00) are provided after reaching the age of 25 (see Section 20 Paragraph 2 No. 2 and Paragraph 3 SGB II, according to which benefits at the level of standard need level 3 is only to be granted to adult members of a community of need and to those under 25 who have moved out without the consent of the local authority). However, it cannot at least be ruled out that this unequal treatment is not objectively justified.
There are system differences between the basic security for job seekers and social assistance in that those who are able to work and therefore also over 25 years old in their parents' household are obliged to take up employment, which requires an increased degree of personal responsibility and economic mobility (according to the justification in the report by the Committee for Labor and Social Affairs, BT-Dr. 17/4095, p. 27). In particular, different or higher expectations are placed on employable people with regard to their efforts to integrate into the labor market, which can be reflected, for example, in application costs, travel costs and expenses for clothing (cf. Münder, ibid., p. 83). With regard to the question of whether and to what extent these expenses, insofar as they cannot already be covered as part of the benefits for integration into work and are therefore not relevant to standard requirements, the lower ones set out in Section 8 Paragraph 1 No. 3 RBEG Benefits of standard needs level 3 are justified, but there is obviously a lack of appropriate investigations by the legislature with regard to the group of people in SGB PK-SGB XII, § 27a Rn. 79).
However, such investigations may have been necessary; Because in its decision of February 9, 2010 - 1 BvL 1/09 et al. - as far as can be seen - the BVerfG expressly only permitted a typical consideration in connection with the reduction of standard requirement level 2 for partner households (to 180% of the corresponding requirements of a single person). considered, while the plaintiff is a member of a household of (at least) two other people. In addition, in its decision of May 19, 2009 - B 8 SO 8/08 R, the BSG, with reference to the constitutional case law on Article 3 Para. 1 GG, reduced the standard rate in SGB XII in comparison to the amount of the standard benefit in SGB II was not considered objectively justified in the case of classification as household members because of the identical social law function of both benefits, namely securing the minimum subsistence level.
Whether the different treatment of people over 25 years old in SGB II and SGB Taking into account maintenance claims or expectations of the household member entitled to benefits from their parents and/or the different treatment of the use of assets or the recognition of earned income in SGB II or SGB XII, can be supported (cf. the report of the Committee for Labor and Social Affairs – BT-Drs 17/4095, p. 27), is doubtful; Because it is not clear from the justification for the law, at least when examined summarily, why these differences should increase the overall requirement in the SGB II area (similar to Gutzler, ibid., § 27a Rn. 79).
Note from Willi 2: Aachen Social Court, judgment of January 20, 2012, - S 19 SO 108/11 -, appeal permitted
New rule sets constitutionally compliant with
Sozialrechtsexperte.blogspot.de
6th Federal Labor Court, judgment of March 21, 2012 – 5 AZR 61/11 –
Scope of the transfer of claims for “Hartz IV benefits”
If a social benefit provider provides benefits to an employee because the employer does not pay the remuneration, the claim to remuneration is transferred to the benefit provider in accordance with Section 115 Paragraph 1 SGB On the other hand, basic security benefits for job seekers to members of a community of needs according to SGB II violate the principle of personal identity. If an ARGE (now: job center) provides services to the non-separated spouse, the life partner of the person in need of help and their unmarried children under the age of 25 because the employer does not pay the employee's remuneration, the employee's claim to remuneration is based on Section 34b SGB II The special regulation included also transfers the amount of the benefits provided to these people to the basic security provider.
The defendant insolvency administrator owed the plaintiff wages for several months. The plaintiff and his wife therefore received benefits to secure their livelihood in accordance with SGB II. The defendant complied with the basic security provider's request to reimburse the social benefits provided to both spouses and only paid the remaining amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff demands additional payment of his wages in the amount of the basic security accrued to his wife.
The labor court dismissed the payment claim and the state labor court upheld it. Following the defendant's appeal, the matter was referred back to the State Labor Court. It still remains to be determined to what extent the basic security was provided because the defendant did not pay the remuneration.
7. Note on: BSG 14th Senate, judgment of April 13, 2011 – B 14 AS 98/10 R –
Author: Dr. Thomas Harks, RiSG, reference: jurisPR-SozR 6/2012 Note 1
Public law reimbursement claim for one-euro jobs
Guiding principles
1. If a job opportunity for compensation for additional expenses (so-called one-euro job) lacks the additionality feature, the participant can demand compensation from the basic security provider for the work performed without legal reason on the basis of a claim for reimbursement under public law.
2. The compensation is to be determined each working day based on what would otherwise have been spent to maintain the work and what expenses the provider incurred in comparison to this.
www.juris.de
Note from Willi 2: Note on: BSG 14th Senate, judgment of April 13, 2011 - B 14 AS 101/10 R - Assignment of a one-euro job as an administrative act
socialrechtsexperte.blogspot.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
