1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 19 June 2012 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of June 19, 2012, – B 4 AS 163/11 R –
No deduction of expenses for business clothing and hairdresser visits from income
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 19.06.2012, – B 4 AS 162/11 R –
Children with disabilities attending day care centers in Lower Saxony are entitled to school supplies under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (so-called "school starter package").
juris.bundessozialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 06.06.2012, – L 20 AS 95/12 NZB –
The question of whether income from a doctoral scholarship is to be treated as earmarked income pursuant to Section 11a Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in the version applicable from 01 April 2011, is not a legal question requiring clarification.
2.2 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 09.05.2012, – L 13 AS 10/11 –
The provisions of Sections 14 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) only allow for the granting of benefits for integration into employment to support employable benefit recipients and cannot be extended to social assistance recipients who are not yet 15 years old.
2.3 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 09.05.2012, – L 13 AS 105/11 –
The mere submission of a joint application form for basic income support benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is a strong indication of a cohabiting partnership; furthermore, the signature of the partner, who is clearly not in need of assistance on their own, on the objection filed against the rejection notice; the objection and legal proceedings were also conducted jointly.
1. According to the wording of Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 3c of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), three conditions must be met for the assumption of a partnership leading to the existence of a community of need: a shared household, a partnership, and the mutual will to take responsibility for each other and to stand up for each other.
2. Living together in a shared household does not require a specially designed economic community; living together in a shared apartment is usually sufficient.
3. The distinction from a mere shared apartment is made according to the legal system based on the characteristic that the existence of a partnership is a prerequisite for the factual application of the presumption rule of § 7 para. 3a SGB II.
4. The willingness to take responsibility and stand up for others refers to the readiness to step in during all of life's emergencies and adversities. It should not be confused with the willingness to prioritize supporting one's partner with basic necessities over claiming tax-funded social benefits.
5. The provision of Section 7 Paragraph 3a No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not justify the converse conclusion that a community of responsibility and support cannot be assumed in cases of cohabitation of less than one year.
2.4 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 09.05.2012, – L 12 AS 1464/11 –
No supplementary payment of ALG II (unemployment benefit II) is granted, because the two-family house is not exempt from realization pursuant to Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as it is not a self-occupied residential property of reasonable size or a corresponding condominium privileged by this provision.
Not only the living space of the owner-occupied apartment, but the living space of the entire property is decisive (cf. BSG judgment of 22.03.2012 – B 4 AS 99/11 R; similarly judgment of the deciding Senate of 12.12.2007 – L 12 SO 12/07; LSG NRW judgment of 01.06.2010 – L 6 AS 15/09 Rn 27).
2.5 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 12 June 2012, – L 7 AS 916/12 B ER –
The request to the recipient of assistance to apply for an old-age pension constitutes an administrative act that necessitates the exercise of discretion by the SGB II benefit provider.
According to Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if benefit recipients fail to submit a required application for benefits from another provider despite being requested to do so, the benefit providers can submit the application and lodge legal remedies and appeals under this book.
It follows, however, that not only is the submission of the application on behalf of the benefit recipient at the discretion of the benefit provider ("may submit"), but even the request itself requires a discretionary decision (LSG NRW, decision of 01.02.2010 – L 19 AS 371/09 AS ER para. 9 juris; LSG Hessen, decision of 24.05.2011 – L 7 AS 88/11 B ER para. 21 juris; Knickrehm in Eicher/Spellbrink, SGB II, 2nd ed., § 5 para. 32; Luthe in Hauck/Noftz, SGB II, § 5 para. 119; Armborst in LPK-SGB II, 4th ed. 2012, § 5 para. 49).
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2.6 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Decisions of 15 June 2012, – L 19 AS 728/12 B ER – and – L 19 AS 729/12 B –
No reimbursement of costs for ancillary cost statement if the applicant's apartment is deemed unsuitable.
According to its wording, the provision of Section 22 Paragraph 8 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) protects the apartment when its preservation is justified by the assumption of debts.
In principle, according to the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG), for the assumption of debts, it will be required that the ongoing costs for accommodation are abstractly reasonable within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II.
The long-term preservation of an apartment, which is the aim of assuming the debts, only appears justified if the (future) ongoing costs correspond to what the basic income support provider is required to cover within the comparison area to be referenced pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (BSG Judgment of June 17, 2010 – B 14 AS 58/09 R, Rn 26).
3. – Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Social Court Berlin, Judgment of 18 April 2012, – S 174 AS 18801/10 –
1. To determine the entitlement to subsequent payment of ancillary costs after the costs of accommodation and heating have been capped.
2. An “overpayment” of accommodation costs must be taken into account as a reduction when determining the claim for additional payment with regard to heating costs, because the decisive factor is the coverage of the reasonable total need for accommodation and heating costs.
4. The Triangular Relationship in Social Welfare Law? Legal relationships between those in need of assistance, social welfare providers, and service providers.
Social Law Today, Journal for Social Counseling, Nomos, Issue 3.
www.sozialrecht-aktuell.nomos.de
5. Federal Constitutional Court: Karlsruhe has doubts about the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act
Author of the legal case ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
