1. Decision of the Federal Social Court of 20 December 2011 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 20.12.2011, – B 4 AS 200/10 R –
A gift is income
Liabilities – apart from the exception of expenses for fulfilling legally established maintenance obligations, which is not relevant here – are not deductible from income (BSG SozR 4-4200 § 11 No. 18 para. 25). Since the classification depends solely on the increase in the benefit recipient's income, it is irrelevant whether and to what extent the payments resulted in a positive account balance in the plaintiff's account.
Disregarding the payments cannot be based on the argument that they should be classified as loans. Therefore, consideration of the payments in question cannot be denied on the grounds that they were made on the basis of a legally valid loan agreement and were subject to a repayment obligation (see BSGE 106, 185 = SozR 4-4200 § 11 No. 30, para. 17 et seq.).
Finally, disregard cannot be based on the intended purpose of the grants.
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decisions of 19 April 2012, – L 7 AS 1305/11 B – and – L 7 AS 1134/11 B –
Standard benefit rates have been set at an unconstitutional level.
2.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 02.04.2012, – L 19 AS 57/12 B –
The new regulations regarding the crediting of parental allowance do not constitute unconstitutional legislative injustice.
No violation of the fundamental right under Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, which places marriage and family under the special protection of the state, is apparent from the crediting of parental allowance (cf. Federal Constitutional Court decision of 11 March 2010 – 1 BvR 3163/09 = NJW 2010, 1803 f. = juris; cf. also Social Court Marburg judgment of 12 August 2011 – S 8 AS 169/11 = juris).
2.3 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 02.04.2012, – L 19 AS 312/12 B –
The claim of the person in need of assistance for reimbursement of the costs of appropriate legal action, including the fees and expenses of a lawyer for an isolated objection procedure pursuant to Section 63 Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), is not a claim that a lawyer can assert in his own name against the defendant, but rather a claim for reimbursement of expenses by the client against the defendant (Federal Social Court judgment of February 25, 2010 – B 11 AL 24/08 R = juris Rn 16).
Expenses for the appropriate pursuit of legal remedies within the meaning of Section 63 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) are generally only those fees and expenses that a lawyer bills their client for (see Federal Social Court (BSG) judgments of December 21, 2009 – B 14 AS 83/08 R = juris Rn 16 and of July 1, 2009 – B 4 AS 21/09 R = juris Rn 15). According to Section 10 of the German Lawyers' Fees Act (RVG), the lawyer must provide a calculation of the fees and expenses. Without this calculation, the client has no obligation to pay and there is no default on payment (Hartmann, Kostenrecht [Law of Costs], 42nd ed., Section 10 Rn 4; Gerold/Schmidt, RVG, 19th ed., Section 10 Rn 14).
2.4 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 01.03.2012, - L 5 AS 339/09 -, Appeal allowed
Repayment of Hartz IV benefits due to income generation
If a recipient of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), later receives additional income or sick pay, he must repay the excess benefits received.
This also applies if the commencement of employment and the benefits received have been properly reported. The recipient's fault is irrelevant.
However, only an actual inflow of income leads to a repayment obligation for the respective month in which benefits are received. If, for example, sick pay is transferred late, it can only be credited for that month.
2.5 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 28 March 2012, – L 7 AS 131/12 B ER –
Hartz IV recipients must claim benefits for medical treatment in accordance with Sections 27 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book V (BSG, judgment of 26.05.2011, B 14 AS 146/10 R).
2.6 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 12 April 2012, – L 7 AS 222/12 B ER –
Since the amendment of Section 39 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) on April 1, 2011, the withdrawal of the granted benefit pursuant to Section 66 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) is no longer immediately enforceable pursuant to Section 39 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
An objection therefore automatically has suspensive effect pursuant to Section 86a Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) (similarly, Higher Social Court of Hesse, decision of 16 January 2012, L 6 AS 570/11 B ER).
2.7 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 28 February 2012, – L 7 AS 43/12 B ER –
Pupils are entitled to supplementary learning support even if they have received a grade of 3 in German, but only have below-average performance in spelling.
2.8 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 03.04.2012, – L 5 AS 2157/11 B ER –
There are no objections under European law to the exclusion of benefits pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), insofar as standard needs are concerned.
2.9 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Judgment of 17 February 2012, – L 32 AS 1030/10 –
The restrictive interpretation of Section 9 Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in the case of a household with a pensioner also applies if the pensioner would be entitled to benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in substantive law, but a corresponding application has been definitively rejected.
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Social Court Berlin, decision of 25 April 2012, – S 55 AS 9238/12 –
Hartz IV unconstitutional – standard rate 36 euros too low, referral decision of the Social Court of Berlin to the Federal Constitutional Court
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
