1. Decision of the Federal Social Court of 25 January 2012 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 25 January 2012, – B 14 AS 101/11 R –
Inheritance income is considered income, because in the case of universal succession, the heir can dispose of their share of the estate immediately upon the death of the testator.
2. Decision of the Federal Social Court of 23 May 2012 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – BSG, Judgment of 23.05.2012, – B 14 AS 100/11 –
Hartz IV recipients must sell their coin collection if its sale is not uneconomical.
Note:
Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, judgment of August 10, 2010, – L 7 AS 382/08 –, appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number: – B 14 AS 100/11 R –
The sale of a coin collection is not uneconomical within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 6 SGB II simply because the market value based on market activity is lower than the acquisition costs.
The risk of economic losses due to changing market prices lies within the sphere of the benefit recipient.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 07.05.2012, – L 11 AS 292/12 B PKH –
There is no evidence to suggest that the new standard needs law is unconstitutional.
Note: Different view: State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, 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.
3.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decisions of May 21, 2012, – L 12 AS 609/12 B ER – and – L 12 AS 610/12 B –
A move is necessary if there is a reasonable reason for it, one that would also motivate someone not receiving assistance. According to the explanatory memorandum to the law, this is particularly the case if the change of residence is necessary for integration into employment or for health or social reasons; however, it is not sufficient if the move merely appears sensible or desirable (cf. Boerner in Löns/Herold-Tews, SGG, 3rd ed. 2011, § 22 para. 57 with further references).
3.3 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decisions of 16 May 2012, – L 6 AS 725/12 B ER – and – L 6 AS 726/12 B –
A ground for an order in proceedings aimed at granting ongoing benefits for accommodation and heating is regularly only present when there is a concrete threat of homelessness (see also North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 27 November 2008, L 9 B 183/08 AS ER para. 11 with further references).
3.4 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 16 May 2012, – L 19 AS 719/12 B ER
Exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for Romanian citizens, since the applicant's right of residence arises solely from Section 2 Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU – residence for the purpose of job seeking.
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
It is not yet clear whether the provision of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is compatible with European Community law and therefore must be interpreted restrictively for EU citizens. This is a matter of debate in case law and commentary (see the decisions of the Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg of February 29, 2012 – L 20 AS 2347/11 B ER – and of April 3, 2012 – L 5 AS 2157/11 B ER, which summarize the prevailing opinions; see also the decision of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia of December 7, 2011 – L 19 AS 1956/11 B ER and the judgment of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia of June 22, 2010 – L 1 AS 36/08).
Note II:
Georg Classen, Berlin Refugee Council, has summarized the factual and legal situation and incorporated current case law in a short commentary on the EFA reservation clause:
www.fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de (pdf)
3.5 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decisions of 14 May 2012, – L 19 AS 702/12 B ER – and – L 19 AS 703/12 B –
Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not provide a legal basis for the assumption of costs for premises used for professional purposes (see, for example, the Federal Social Court's judgment of April 13, 2011 – B 14 AS 32/09 R, para. 35, referring to the Federal Social Court's judgment of November 23, 2006 – B 11b AS 3/05 R, para. 15).
3.6 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 09.05.2012, – L 19 AS 611/12 B ER –
Section 21 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not provide for additional needs for medicines and aids.
The costs of necessary medical treatment are covered by the entitlement to medical treatment under Section 27 Paragraph 1 of the Fifth Book of the Social Code (SGB V) (see BSG judgment of 15.12.2010 – B 14 AS 44/09 R, Rn 21 with further references).
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – Social Court Berlin, decision of 14 May 2012, S 124 AS 7164/12 ER –
1. Section 7 paragraph 1 sentence 2 number 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which excludes foreigners whose right of residence is solely for the purpose of seeking employment from benefits under SGB II, is applicable despite the principle of equal treatment in Article 1 of the European Convention on Social and Cultural Rights (EuFürsAbk) of 11 December 1953, since the reservation declared by the Federal Government pursuant to Article 16 letter b EuFürsAbk is compatible with Article 59 paragraph 2 sentence 1 of the Basic Law (GG).
2. Section 7(1) sentence 2 no. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not contradict the principles of equal treatment under European secondary law (Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC (EC Directive) of 29 April 2004 – Citizens' Rights Directive –; Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems – EC Treaty 883/2004). However, a violation of European primary law is possible, specifically the general prohibition of discrimination under Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (formerly Article 12 EEC Treaty), but not the principle of free movement of workers under Article 45 TFEU (formerly Article 39 EEC Treaty)
Author of the legal case ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
