1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - Hamburg State Social Court, judgment of August 9, 2012, - L 4 AS 367/10
Costs of private liability insurance for the tenant are costs of accommodation within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II if the rental agreement requires the tenant to take out such insurance and the costs of accommodation are reasonable.
Note:
BSG, judgment of October 19, 2010, - B 14 AS 2/10 R
KdU are paid in the amount of the actual expenses, provided they are appropriate (see Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II). All payment obligations arising from the rental agreement for the accommodation are covered (cf. most recently BSG SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 20 RdNr 20 on the usage fee for the kitchen furniture mwN).
1.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of October 26, 2012, – L 7 AS 768/11
For a sanction for not applying for placement proposals in accordance with Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1c SGB II, there does not have to be an integration agreement (cf. BSG, judgment of December 15, 2010, - B 14 AS 92/09 R).
Note:
BSG, judgment of December 17, 2009, - B 4 AS 20/09 R, took a different view, according to which the provision of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1c SGB II is only applicable if an integration agreement exists.
1.3 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, judgment of August 15, 2012, – L 18 AS 1432/10
It follows from Section 556 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) that an agreement to allocate costs that do not fall under Section 2 of the Operating Costs Ordinance (BetrKV) as operating costs is ineffective and they therefore cannot be imposed on the basic security provider (see BSG, judgment of 19. February 2009 - B 4 AS 48/08 R = SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 18).
The acquisition costs of the gas heater and the oven are not included in the items mentioned in Section 2 BetrKV.
According to Section 535, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the landlord alone is responsible for maintaining the rental property in a condition suitable for use in accordance with the contract during the rental period, therefore maintenance measures are generally at the expense of the landlord (see BSG, judgment of March 19, 2008 - B 11b AS 31/06 R).
Note:
State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of August 14, 2012, - L 5 AS 454/12 B
The job center does not cover the additional payment of additional costs, because an additional cost statement is only suitable for justifying a claim for additional payment by the landlord against the tenant if it meets the formal requirements of Section 259 of the
German Civil Code (BGB). A formally ineffective billing is not suitable for effectively asserting the additional claim within the statutory deadline of Section 556 (3) of the German Civil Code (BGB) up to the end of the twelfth month of the billing period. After the aforementioned deadline has expired, the assertion of additional payment is completely excluded (cf. Vorst.: Federal Court of Justice, judgment of November 17, 2004, Ref.: VIII ZR 115/04).
1.4 - Hesse State Social Court, judgment of November 6th, 2012, - L 7 AS 409/11
Hartz IV recipients in Hesse receive a maximum of €300 for domestic school trips, as a decree from the Ministry of Culture places a binding limit on school trip costs.
www.lsg-darmstadt.justiz.hessen.de
1.5 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of October 15, 2012, - L 7 AS 1730/12 B ER and - L 7 AS 1731/12 B
Existing power cut since June 2012 and thus the fact that the apartment is actually uninhabitable justifies the assumption of the electricity debt as a loan through the job center.
The applicant cannot be referred to a civil legal dispute with the energy supplier without further assistance from the job center (LSG NRW, decision of April 2, 2008 - L 7 B 251/07 AS ER; Hammel, info also 6/2011, 251 ff.) .
Note:
Likewise: LSG NRW, decision of April 2, 2008 – L 7 B 251/07 AS ER; Hammel, info also 6/2011, 251 ff.; Berlit in LPK-SGB II, 4th edition 2011, § 22 Rn. 194, LSG Saxony - Anhalt, decision of March 13, 2012, - L 2 AS 477/11 B ER; different opinion: LSG NRW, decision of August 20, 2012 - L 2 AS 1415/12 B ER; LSG Berlin-Brandenburg Resolution of August 5, 2011 – L 5 AS 1097/11 B ER
1.6 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of October 25, 2012, - L 6 AS 1054/12 B
There is no need for legal protection if the applicant does not require legal assistance in order to achieve the granting of SGB II benefits that she is seeking.
As long as it has not exhausted its reasonable options to achieve the desired goal without involving the court, there is no need for judicial intervention (cf. resolutions of the adjudicating Senate of March 31, 2011 - L 6 B 86/09 AS - and from April 19, 2011 - L 6 AS 399/11 B ER and LSG NRW resolution of February 24, 2012 - L 12 AS 161/12 B ER -).
Note:
Likewise: State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of April 20, 2011, – L 6 AS 227/11 B ER
1.7 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of October 29, 2012, - L 2 AS 1671/12 B ER
Need is not credibly demonstrated even if the applicant is accepted to be living separately if the applicant receives monthly benefits in the form of a loan from his wife, because he earns income with them Within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 SGB II.
This income would only not be taken into account if the grant were based on a loan agreement valid under private law with a repayment obligation (cf. BSG, judgment of December 20, 2011 - B 4 AS 200/10 R; judgment of June 17, 2010 - B 14 AS 46 /09 R) or is provided by the applicant's wife only because the SGB II service provider did not provide the service on time or refused help (see BSG, judgment of December 20, 2011 - B 4 AS 46/11 R) .
1.8 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of October 26, 2012, - L 12 AS 1689/12 B -
Granting legal aid and appointing a lawyer for standard rate claims.
The questions of the constitutionality of the standard rates are so complex that even a sensible person seeking legal advice would regularly hire a lawyer in a legal dispute with the authority granting the benefits, which conducts a large number of such proceedings with legal representation.
Note:
Different opinion - Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of July 9, 2012, - L 6 AS 12/12 B
No approval from PKH for standard rate lawsuits if the legal prosecution is wanton.
Same opinion: State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of October 4, 2012, – L 7 AS 1491/12 B; State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of September 28, 2012, - L 6 AS 1895/11 B.
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - Cologne Social Court, judgment of September 28, 2012, - S 33 AS 1310/12
Offsetting of 10% for rental deposit loans is not unconstitutional
Because the repayment rate of a rental deposit loan does not fall below the socio-cultural subsistence level.
Note:
Different opinion: Berlin Social Court, decision of September 30, 2011 - S 37 AS 24431/11 ER
A reduction in benefits over several months is not compatible with the savings concept of SGB II.
Note:
Same opinion: Marburg Social Court, decision of December 8th, 2011, - S 8 AS 349/11 ER
By withholding the repayment rate for a rental deposit amounting to 10% of the standard benefit, the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of Hartz IV recipients is unconstitutional not – circumcised.
2.2 - Marburg Social Court, decision of November 1st, 2012, - 5 AS 213/12 ER
Students in need of help who have reading and writing difficulties can have the costs of appropriate therapy paid for by the job center via the Hartz IV education package.
Note:
State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of February 28, 2012, - L 7 AS 43/12 B ER
Students in need of help are entitled to extracurricular learning support if they have difficulty spelling.
2.3 – Dresden Social Court, judgment of September 18, 2012, – S 38 AS 5649/09, appeal permitted
The concept is not conclusive because, contrary to the requirements of the BSG (judgment of August 20, 2009, Ref. B 14 AS 65/08 R), it does not set different prices for apartments of different sizes, but rather a fixed price per square meter was formed from different values.
The benefit recipient is entitled to additional nutritional requirements for lactose intolerance in the amount of EUR 1.00 per day - EUR 30.00 per month.
2.4 – Dresden Social Court, judgment of September 18, 2012, – S 38 AS 17/11, appeal permitted
The guideline values set by the state capital Dresden on the basis of the IWU report in the city council resolution of November 24th, 2011 for the gross rent from December 1st, 2010 are not based on a conclusive basis, regardless of the fact that according to the city council resolution they should only be applied from December 2010 Concept.
It is incompatible with the meaning and purpose of calculating an adequacy limit, which should apply to the period from December 1, 2010, if older data material from 2009 is used, although more recent data material from 2010 is available (see also BSG, judgment of December 17, 2009 – B 4 AS 27/09 R – Rn 28).
It is objectionable that benefit recipients under the age of 25 were not taken into account at all, but were completely excluded with reference to the shared apartment rooms that, in the opinion of the state capital of Dresden, were reasonable for them.
The benefit recipient is entitled to additional nutritional requirements for lactose intolerance in the amount of EUR 1.00 per day - EUR 30.00 per month.
2.5 – Dresden Social Court, decision of March 28, 2012, S 20 AS 904/12 ER –
The table according to Section 12 Paragraph 1 WoGG shows a maximum amount of EUR 330 for the gross rent for a one-person household in rent level III (Dresden), so that according to the case law of the BSG (see judgment of March 22nd 2012 – B 4 AS 16/11 R), taking into account the surcharge of 10%, this results in an upper limit of EUR 363.
3. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of September 26, 2012, – L 2 SO 1378/11
A young woman with severe multiple disabilities has a legal right to assistance in purchasing a vehicle and having the vehicle converted to make it suitable for disabled people by the social welfare agency as part of integration assistance.
Contrary to the opinion of the social welfare provider, it is indeed the task of social welfare to ensure a minimum social standard (cf. BSG, judgment of February 2, 2012 - B 8 SO 9/10 R).
The caring mother may have an advantage from the car, but that is to be accepted because social assistance is subject to the principle of family-friendly assistance (Voelzke in jurisPK-SGB XII, § 16 RdNo. 8).
4. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 – Berlin Social Court, judgment of July 20, 2012, – S 58 AL 2708/12, appeal permitted
1. SGB 3 does not provide any express regulation for selective deregistration from benefit receipt, which serves to deduct income earned on the deregistration day from being taken into account; However, it cannot be concluded from this that deregistration due to employment - usually an “important reason” within the meaning of Section 128 Paragraph 1 No. 7 SGB 3 aF - is permissible without penalty.
2. The offsetting of additional income against unemployment benefit is always permissible if the deregistration (for a Saturday) was carried out solely for the purpose of deducting the earned income from being counted as additional income (circumvention of legal provisions within the meaning of Section 46 Paragraph 2 SGB 1).
5. Appointment tip from the BSG No. 16/12 from November 8th, 2012
Contraceptives (so-called 3-month injections) for a mentally disabled woman at the expense of the social welfare agency?
The 8th Senate of the Federal Social Court will decide in proceedings B 8 SO 6/11 R on Thursday, November 15, 2012, at 10:45 a.m. in the Jacob Grimm Hall, whether and under what conditions depot contraceptives (hormonal contraceptives in in the form of 3-monthly injections) for a mentally handicapped, needy woman.
1st instance: SG Duisburg, judgment of September 9, 2008, - S 7 SO 10/07
Social welfare providers must cover the costs of medically prescribed contraception for mentally disabled people
2nd instance: LSG NRW, judgment of July 20, 2010, – L 9 SO 39/08
Costs for the contraceptive Noristerat (so-called 3-month injection - 25.24 euros every three months) are covered for a mentally handicapped social welfare recipient at the standard flat rate, because the social welfare provider can only cover costs that exceed a certain reasonable level
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
