1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 17 April 2012, – L 7 AS 1408/11 B –
Legal aid should be granted because the standard benefit rates have been set at an unconstitutional level.
Note: 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
(sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
).
1.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 08.05.2012, – L 7 AS 541/11 B –
Legal aid should be granted because the standard benefit rates have been set at an unconstitutional level.
1.3 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 26 April 2012, – L 7 AS 552/12 B ER –
In the case of premature consumption of one-off income, e.g. due to debt repayment, a fictitious crediting is not justified with regard to the provisions of §§ 31 para. 2, 31a, 34 SGB II.
The sanction provision of Section 31a Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) states that even the spendthrift is to be granted reduced unemployment benefit II, burdened with the claim for compensation according to Section 34 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Note: Bavarian State Social Court holds a different view, judgment of 13 April 2007, file no.: L 7 AS 309/06; in this direction Federal Social Court, judgment of 30 September 2008, file no.: B 4 AS 29/07 R.
Debts outstanding at the time of income payment are not deductible from income.
dejure.org
dejure.org
1.4 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, 4 decisions of 23 April 2012, - L 7 AS 1059/11 B -, - L 7 AS 1242/11 B -, - L 7 AS 1756/11 B - and - L 7 AS 904/11 B -
The determination of the standard needs is not in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court.
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1.5 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 12 March 2012, – L 19 AS 174/11 –
The concept for determining the price per square meter for the basic rent is inconclusive, because
1. The concept is not based on a data set representing 10% of the housing stock.
2. Only rents from new leases were considered. However, existing rents must also be included when developing a coherent concept (Federal Social Court judgment of 23 August 2011 – B 14 AS 91/10 R, para. 25 with further references).
3. The restriction to data from specific building age categories for determining the limit of reasonableness is only permissible under certain strict conditions (BSG judgment of 19 October 2010 – B 14 AS 2/10 R = Rn 23, 24; judgment of 20 December 2011 – B 4 AS 19/11 R, Rn 30).
4. Furthermore, a price per square meter differentiated according to apartment sizes, as required by the Federal Social Court (judgment of 20.08.2009 – B 14 AS 41/08 R, para. 20), has not been established, but only a uniform price per square meter for all apartment sizes.
1.6 Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Judgment of 26 April 2012, - L 18 AS 2167/11 –
The denial of benefits was unlawful because the benefit recipient could not provide proof of income or assets of his mother and her partner, nor proof of the costs of accommodation.
The Jobcenter would therefore have been obliged to request the relevant information and/or documents directly from the mother and her life partner, on the basis of Section 60 Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in conjunction with Section 1605 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) – from the mother – and according to Section 60 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) from her partner.
As long as the benefit provider has not made sufficient efforts to enforce its right to information against third parties, a decision on the burden of proof in the matter to the detriment of the plaintiff is not possible (cf. BSG, judgment of July 1, 2009 – B 4 AS 78/08 R = SozR 4-1200 § 66 No. 5).
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note: Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of February 24, 2011, – B 14 AS 87/09 R –
A partner's obligation to provide information only applies if they live together as a couple.
juris.bundessozialgericht.de
1.7 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 28 March 2012, – L 9 AS 1241/11 B ER –
Arrears in private health insurance contributions due to surcharges for uninsured persons pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 4 of the Insurance Contract Act (juris: VVG 2008) are not to be covered by the social security provider under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II), neither within the framework of the provision of benefits pursuant to Section 26 SGB II nor as a hardship need not covered by the standard benefit, since this does not constitute an ongoing need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II.
Note: Lower court: Hildesheim Social Court, decision of December 8, 2011, – S 55 AS 1910/11 ER
According to Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the applicant's past contribution arrears in her private health insurance must be covered.
(sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1.8 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of February 28, 2012, - L 7 AS 1392/09 -, Appeal allowed.
The increase of the appropriate living space for single parents by 10 square meters, possible under the Lower Saxony housing promotion regulations, does not mean that, in the absence of a conclusive concept, the rent ceiling to be determined according to the table of the Housing Benefit Act must be set by adding a non-existent, additional household member.
1.9 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 31 October 2011, - L 6 AS 18/10 -, Appeal allowed
When examining an entitlement to unemployment benefit II in so-called mixed benefit communities, the calculation of the income to be taken into account of the non-benefit-entitled member from employment in a workshop for disabled people is governed by the Social Code Book Twelve (SGB XII) – Social Assistance.
1.10 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 01.11.2011, – L 15 AS 240/10 B ER –
The regular exercise of parental visitation rights can trigger an additional need for living space for the parent entitled to visitation, which must be taken into account when calculating the reasonable costs of accommodation in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note: Regarding the range, see, on the one hand, the Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court, decision of August 4, 2010, file no. L 11 AS 105/10 B: only exceptionally minor additional needs; on the other hand, the Fulda Social Court, judgment of October 27, 2010, file no. S 10 AS 53/09: for two children with whom there is visitation rights, an increase to 60 sq m.
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Social Court Reutlingen, Judgment of 23.04.2012,- S 12 AS 2086/11 –
Income received by a recipient of basic income support as monthly pocket money, food and housing allowance during a voluntary social year is to be taken into account as income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB 2.
An employment allowance is not to be applied in addition to the deduction amount pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 13 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
2.2 – Social Court Berlin, decision of 08.05.2012, – S 91 AS 8804/12 ER –
The exclusion of benefits pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) remains disregarded for job-seeking Union citizens due to the principle of equal treatment under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, which takes precedence.
2.3 – SG Berlin, decision of 10.05.2012, – S 75 AS 10822/12 ER –
The exclusion of benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) violates the principle of equal treatment under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004.
Not yet published
2.4 – Social Court Berlin, decision of 25 April 2012, – S 55 AS 29349/11 –
Reassessment of the SGB II standard benefit rates for single benefit recipients is unconstitutional
Note: SG Berlin, decision of 25.04.2012, - S 55 AS 9238/12 –
New regulations for SGB II standard benefits for cohabiting parents receiving benefits and for young benefit recipients up to the age of 18 are unconstitutional
(sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de).
2.5 – Social Court Berlin, decision of 15 February 2012, – S 107 AS 1034/12 ER –
According to Section 4a of the Federal Data Protection Act, it is the free choice of a person in need of assistance to consent to the collection and storage of personal data in a personnel questionnaire. Conversely, refusal cannot lead to the person in need of assistance being sanctioned under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
3. New rules for unemployment benefits
An article by Ute Winkler, printed in the info magazine, issue 2/2012
4. Hartz IV accommodation costs in North Rhine-Westphalia – submit a review application now!
Author of the legal case ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
