1. Decision of the Federal Social Court of 22 March 2012 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 22 March 2012, – B 4 AS 16/11 R –
Housing costs under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), can only be determined according to the housing benefit table, taking into account a 10% supplement, if it has been established that there are no other means of determining the abstractly reasonable housing costs for the specifically defined comparison area.
(juris.bundessozialgericht.de
2. Decision of the Federal Social Court of 14 March 2012 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – BSG, Judgment of 14 March 2012, – B 14 AS 18/11 R –
Short-time work compensation is income from employment and must therefore be taken into account when calculating tax allowances for gross earnings.
juris.bundessozialgericht.de
Note:
BSG, Judgment of 13.5.2009, – B 4 AS 29/08 R
The allowances applicable to employed persons must be deducted from the insolvency payment before it is taken into account as income.
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 06.09.2012, – L 11 AS 242/12 B ER –
1. If a person receiving benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) uses their own car to exercise their right of access to a child living with the other parent, a flat-rate allowance of €0.10 per kilometer can be applied, at least in preliminary injunction proceedings, in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 7 of the Regulation on Benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II-V). The decision as to whether, in the event of higher costs being proven, higher necessary expenses should be considered instead of the flat-rate allowance, pursuant to Section 3 Paragraph 7 Sentence 5 of the Regulation on Benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II-V), remains reserved for the main proceedings.
2. Travel expenses incurred in connection with a mediation procedure (here: court-related mediation) are not eligible for additional needs benefits under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
www.rechtsprechung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
Social Court Stade, judgment of 11 April 2012, – S 28 AS 762/10
Travel expenses in connection with the exercise of parental visitation rights for journeys by car are generally to be reimbursed on the basis of EUR 0.10 per kilometer driven (§ 3 para. 7 sentence 5 Alg II-VO).
2.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 24.09.2012, – L 7 AS 660/12 ER –
The job center may also request the submission of bank statements for the past six months due to the applicant's irregular income.
Note:
Federal Social Court (BSG), decision of 15 July 2010, – B 14 AS 45/10 B
A requirement to submit bank statements for the past six months is not objectionable.
2.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 04.09.2012, – L 11 AS 614/12 B PKH –
No entitlement to ALG II (unemployment benefit II) when starting a training course that is eligible for funding in principle.
2.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 11 July 2012, - L 16 AS 127/10 -, Appeal allowed
Reasonable rent limit (reference rent) according to § 22 SGB II for single-person households in Munich 2007 and 2008 – calculation based on the processed data of the rent index with the assistance of a statistics expert
1. The rent ceiling set by the basic income support provider to limit the reasonable costs of accommodation within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is sufficient at least if it can be determined from the representative data of a qualified rent index obtained using recognized statistical methods
– can be calculated at a sufficiently high confidence level that at least one fifth of the apartments in the range of apartment size relevant for household size according to the product theory do not exceed the rent ceiling, and
– further data and evaluations ensure that the apartments covered by the rent cap are distributed in a reasonable manner across the entire comparison area.
2. The Munich Job Center (formerly: ARGE Munich) was entitled to cover the reasonable costs for accommodation for a one-person household in the area of the state capital Munich in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
– in 2007 to a gross rent of EUR 496.45 (net rent of EUR 441.45 + operating costs of EUR 55) and
– to limit the gross rent in 2008 to EUR 504.21 (net rent of EUR 449.21 + operating costs of EUR 55)
2.4 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 07.09.2012, – L 19 AS 1479/12 B –
The credit balance from a heating bill constitutes income within the meaning of Section 11 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which, in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 3 of the SGB II, reduces the expenses for accommodation and heating (see also Federal Social Court judgment of 22.03.2012 – B 4 AS 139/11 R – with further references)
2.5 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 03.09.2012, – L 12 AS 847/12 B ER –
A Greek citizen is entitled to ALG II (unemployment benefit II) as part of the balancing of interests.
Note:
Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 10 August 2012, - L 19 AS 1751/12 B ER –
A Greek national is entitled to ALG II (unemployment benefit II).
2.6 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 30 August 2012, – L 12 AS 1044/12 B ER –
The existence of employability cannot be a permissible subject of an integration agreement or an integration administrative act, as it is already a prerequisite for its conclusion or issuance
(sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de).
Note:
See also LSG Rheinland-Pfalz, decision of 05.07.2007 – L 3 ER 175/07 AS Rn 19 f.; LSG Hessen, decision of 17.10.2008 – L 7 AS 251/08 B ER, Rn 58).
2.7 – Hamburg State Social Court, Judgment of 09.08.2012. – L 4 AS 126/10 –
The obligation to provide information pursuant to Section 60 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in conjunction with Section 1605 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) does not require the existence, but merely the possibility of a maintenance claim.
Anyone who could potentially be liable for maintenance payments is obligated to provide information (North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Social Court, judgment of April 16, 2008, L 12 SO 4/07). An obligation to provide information is only excluded if the maintenance claim obviously does not exist (so-called negative evidence).
Section 60, paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) merely requires an examination of negative evidence (Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court, decision of May 19, 2008, L 29 B 214/08 AS ER).
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
Baden-Württemberg Higher Social Court, judgment of 27 September 2011, – L 13 AS 4950/10
The basic income support provider is not entitled to establish an obligation to provide information to a third party pursuant to Section 60 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) or Section 60 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the SGB II, if the third party is indeed providing benefits or is obligated to provide benefits, but the recipient or person entitled to benefits neither actually receives any benefits from the basic income support provider, nor is a member of a household receiving benefits, and their application for benefits under the SGB II has already been definitively rejected by the basic income support provider.
2.8 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 27 June 2012, – L 3 AS 148/10 NZB –
For the purpose of determining the value of the subject matter of the appeal in proceedings in which initial furnishing of an apartment is sought, recourse cannot be made to the lump sums in the guideline of a municipal authority (cf. LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 21 January 2009 – L 5 B 345/07 AS, para. 16).
A lump sum for initial apartment furnishings is at best suitable to provide a rough indication of the value of the subject of the complaint.
2.9 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision of 17 September 2012, – L 13 AS 3565/12 NZB –
For the purpose of distinguishing between income and assets, the date of application constitutes the decisive turning point. A daily approach is required, without further subdivision according to the actual sequence of receipt and application within the relevant day (daily principle).
2.10 – State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, decision of 10 September 2012, – L 13 AS 2976/12 ER-B –
1) The subject matter of an expedited proceeding in matters of performance relates to the right to be secured, i.e. the securing of the main claim, and therefore may not permissibly extend beyond the claim to be asserted in a lawsuit with regard to the period of time.
2) A further, new approval period in matters of basic income support for job seekers will not be the subject of legal proceedings and therefore also not the subject of expedited proceedings (following the Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 16 July 2012, L 11 AS 323/12 B ER).
2.11 – State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, decision of 27.08.2012, – L 13 AS 2750/12 ER-B –
The decisive factor for assessing employee status within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 2 No. 1 Alternative 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU is the EU law definition of employee. The term "employee" used in Article 45 TFEU does not depend on the definition of employee in the respective national law, but is defined uniformly for all Member States by EU law and is to be interpreted broadly.
An employee is defined as anyone who performs actual and genuine work, excluding activities of such a minor scope that they are entirely subordinate and insignificant. The latter is not the case for work requiring approximately 5 to 10 hours per day and yielding monthly earnings of €121 to €242, unless, in exceptional circumstances, non-economic motives predominate (following the Senate's decision of August 8, 2012 – L 13 AS 2355/12 ER-B, para. 3).
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2.12 – State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, decision of 27.08.2012, – L 13 AS 2352/12 ER-B –
The exclusion of benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not violate European Union law (following the decision of the Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg of 16 May 2012 – L 3 AS 1477/11).
The decisive factor for assessing employee status within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 2 No. 1 Alternative 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU is the EU law definition of employee. The term "employee" used in Article 45 TFEU does not depend on the definition of employee in the respective national law, but is defined uniformly for all Member States by EU law and is to be interpreted broadly.
The Federal Voluntary Service according to the BFDG does not constitute work that is part of the regular labor market, therefore it does not establish employee status within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 2 No. 1 Alternative 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU.
Author of the legal case ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
