1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of July 12, 2012 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - BSG, judgment of July 12, 2012, - B 14 AS 153/11 R -
Hartz IV standard rates are constitutional.
1.2 – BSG, judgment of July 12, 2012, - B 14 AS 35/12 R 20 -
No right to trial for 20 cents Hartz IV.
There is no (general) need for legal protection for a beneficiary whose lawsuit solely alleges a violation of the rounding regulation in accordance with Section 41 Paragraph 2 SGB II old version.
1.3 – BSG, judgment of July 12, 2012, - B 14 AS 158/11 R –
No grant of ALG II if the house property is usable assets that must be taken into account when determining the need for assistance.
The house property owned by the plaintiff is usable assets that must be taken into account when determining the need for assistance. The total area of the house of 174 square meters exceeds the appropriateness limit of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB II; The house is therefore not part of the so-called protected assets.
It can also be used despite the burden of the parents' right of residence because it could be used as a mortgage.
2. Decision of the Federal Social Court of March 22, 2012 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - BSG, judgment of March 22, 2012, - B 4 AS 26/10 R -
No retention of repayment installments for rental deposit - inadmissibility of repayment by offsetting analogous to Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB 2 or from a waiver obtained from the person in need of help
3. Decision of the Federal Social Court of March 14, 2012 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – BSG, judgment of March 14, 2012, – B 14 AS 98/11 R –
If, as a result of a transfer of entitlement, the beneficiary does not receive the income to be taken into account (here maintenance) within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 SGB II, the (fictitious) deduction of amounts in accordance with Section 11 Paragraph 2 SGB II in conjunction with Section 11 Paragraph 2 SGB II in conjunction with the calculation of the Alg II entitlement is also included Alg II-V is not taken into consideration.
4. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 - Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of June 21, 2012, - L 20 AS 1322/12 B ER -
Employed Union citizens are not entitled to basic security according to the second when staying to look for work Book of the Social Code or after the twelfth book of the Social Code.
4.2 - Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of June 21, 2012, - L 20 AS 1278/12 B ER -
The reduction of 10 percent of the standard benefit for the rental deposit does not cause such an emergency that would have to be addressed with an interim order, since an amount of 80 percent of the standard output would be sufficient, even if an interim order was issued to avert possible emergencies (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg of May 6, 2010, L 5 AS 457/10 B ER, para. 5 with further references).
Note:
aA BSG, judgment of August 19, 2010, - B 14 AS 13/10 R -
Ultimately, the reduction of the standard requirement by 10% cannot be dismissed as - trivial. In its decision on special needs due to an HIV infection, the BSG assessed an amount of 20.45 euros as significant
Note:
The amount of EUR 37.40 is well above the trivial threshold of EUR 20 total value in dispute indicated in the BSG dated May 26, 2011 - B 14 AS 146/10 R.
Note:
If a beneficiary cannot be told that he will be without 10% of the standard requirement for a longer period of time, the fact that the subject matter of the proceedings is “only” a further 10% of basic security benefits does not stand in the way of the prospect of success of the urgent application (reason for the order) (see LSG Baden). -Württemberg from September 6th, 2006 - L 13 AS 3108/06 ER-B; LSG NRW from November 19th, 2008 - L 19 B 178/08 AS; from September 10th, 2009 - L 7 B 269/09 AS ER; LSG Hessen from January 16th .2008 – L 9 SO 121/07 ER).
4.3 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of June 15, 2012, - L 12 AS 1764/11 -
The distribution of benefits by month only represents a specification of the benefits approved for the entire period in terms of their amount.
Even if one mentally divides or subdivides the benefits, which were basically approved for 6 months, into individual orders according to the monthly principle, these are only part of the overall order, as they do not make any statement that deviates from it and therefore have no independent meaning.
The approval has already been granted in the general decree. For this reason, even the complete cancellation of benefits for one month can only be seen as a partial cancellation of the approval as a whole.
Note:
aA Aubel in Juri's practical commentary e.g.
SGB II 3rd edition 2012, § 40 Rdz 140 The complete cancellation of the benefit for one month of a 6-month approval period is not a partial cancellation because the approval notices contain an independent disposition rate for each month due to the monthly principle.
4.4 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decisions of July 4, 2012, - L 19 AS 961/12 B - and - L 19 AS 572/12 B -
Granting of PKH for standard rate claims.
4.5 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of June 20, 2012, - L 5 AS 112/12 B –
The entry-level allowance is not required if the employment relationship is started without the approval of an entry-level allowance and the integration has therefore also taken place without funding (see Bayerisches LSG, judgment of November 20, 2011, L 7 AS 643/11, on the requested funding). activity already carried out).
5. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
5.1 – SG Augsburg, judgment of June 21, 2012, - S 15 AS 664/11 -
The right to continued payment of services after a change of responsibility pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 3 SGB X only exists to the extent that the continued provision of services is lawful under substantive law.
The regulations that must then be observed also include the regulations on unauthorized absences in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 4a SGB II. The legality of the provision of services depends exclusively on the existence of the legal requirements for the previously responsible service provider who provided the requested advance service should.
www.gesetze-bayern.de
5.2 - Duisburg Social Court, judgment of March 20, 2012, - S 17 AS 2049/11 -, jump revision permitted
There is no apparent violation of fundamental rights at the existing level of standard requirements.
5.3 - SG Landshut, judgment of May 2, 2012, - S 11 AS 698/08 -
1. In order to assert a reimbursement claim by the service provider against the landlord of a service recipient due to accommodation costs transferred directly to the landlord, the public legal process is open to the social courts.
2. The claim for reimbursement cannot be based on the claim for reimbursement under public law. This is subsidiary to reimbursement claims expressly regulated by law and, in particular, must not lead to the circumvention of special legal requirements. If there are special legal regulations that regulate the reversal of services that have been wrongly provided, these have a “blocking effect” on the general legal institution of the public law claim for reimbursement, which is recognized for general considerations of justice. If special regulations exist and these cannot be enforced in individual cases because the prerequisites are not met, reimbursement must be ruled out altogether.
3. Special provisions in this sense are contained in Sections 53 SGB I and Section 50 SGB X, which are to be considered conclusive. The cancellation and reimbursement claims in these books are a self-contained reimbursement system; there remains no scope for an additional claim from the institution of the public law reimbursement claim.
5.4 – SG Landshut, resolution of May 7, 2012, – S 10 AS 259/12 ER –
1. The sanction regulations of Sections 31 ff. SGB II in the version applicable from April 1, 2011 do not violate the provisions of Article 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with. Decent subsistence minimum derived from Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The Basic Law does not guarantee a claim to a certain level of performance that is independent of obligations to cooperate and personal activities.
2. Even a complete sanction over a longer period of time does not lead to Sections 31 ff SGB II (2011) becoming unconstitutional. The legislature provides differentiated regulations, e.g. B. a “last basic supply” is guaranteed by granting (supplementary) benefits in kind or in kind.
6. Decision of the social court on social assistance (SGB XII)
6.1 – Giessen Social Court, judgment of June 12, 2012, S 18 SO 222/11 –
Account management fees are not a necessary expense associated with generating income according to Section 82 Paragraph 2 No. 4 SGB , judgment of May 10, 2011, Ref.: S 9 SO 406/08).
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
