1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of November 29, 2012 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - BSG, judgment of November 29, 2012 - B 14 AS 6/12 R
Only Section 45 and not Section 48 SGB
This applies if, at the time of the announcement of the authorizing administrative act, there are already objective circumstances that suggest a future changing income inflow (e.g. because an employment relationship exists), then the service provider must only make a provisional regulation in accordance with Section 328 SGB III.
If he fails to do this - for whatever reason - a final approval of benefits is unlawful from the outset and Section 45 SGB
juris.bundessocialgericht.de
1.2 – BSG, judgment of November 29, 2012 – B 14 AS 36/12 R –
If a Hartz IV recipient lives in a home with his mother who does not need help, the job center may, in exceptional cases, be obliged to cover the full additional costs.
This is the case if the child has received their own home from their parents in advance as an inheritance and in return they have been contractually guaranteed rent-free living.
As an exception, when several people lived together in one apartment, the KdU did not have to be divided according to the headboard method.
juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
The headboard principle only applies if there is no effective contractual agreement (BSG, June 18, 2008, B 14/11b AS 61/06 R).
1.3 – BSG, judgment of November 29, 2012 – B 14 AS 161/11 R
Unpaid subrent to the Hartz IV recipient does not constitute income to be taken into account.
The consideration of fictitious income as need-reducing is excluded according to SGB II. According to the established jurisprudence of the BSG, only income that has actually been received is suitable as a ready means of covering the specific needs in the respective month.
Note:
Likewise BSG, judgment of July 2, 2009 – B 14 AS 75/08 R
1.4 – BSG, judgment of November 29, 2012 – B 14 AS 33/12 R
If a one-off payment (tax refund) has been issued immediately, the job center cannot simply reduce the assistance in the event of a follow-up application.
The basic security provider is always obliged to ensure the minimum subsistence level, even if the one-off payment should actually be credited against income reduction.
The basic security provider can only demand back benefits that have been paid in excess in the event of socially unfavorable behavior.
Note:
Regarding inheritance - also LSG NRW, judgment of July 19, 2012, - L 7 AS 1155/10, appeal pending at the BSG under the reference: B 14 AS 76/12 R
2. Decision of the Federal Social Court of November 2nd, 2012 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - BSG, judgment of November 2nd, 2012 - B 14 AS 97/11 R
In the event of a successful objection to the reminder fee (which is an administrative act within the meaning of § 31 SGB
juris.bundessocialgericht.de
3. Decision of the Federal Social Court of November 15, 2012 on social assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – BSG, judgment of November 15, 2012 – B 8 SO 6/11 R
Regularly no three-month contraceptive injections at the expense of the social welfare provider
The regulation of the statutory health insurance that contraceptives prescribed by the office are only financed up to the age of 20 (Section 24a SGB V), similarly limits health assistance in social welfare law (SGB XII); The costs for this are recorded in the standard rate as living assistance benefits.
4. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of September 20, 2012 on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – BSG, judgment of September 20, 2012, – B 8 SO 15/11 R
No installation of an elevator in the house of the parents of a severely disabled child at the expense of the social welfare provider if assets are available - No applicability of Section 92 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 and 2 SGB 12
juris.bundessocialgericht.de
4.2 – BSG, judgment of September 20, 2012 – B 8 SO 4/11 R
No different determination of the standard requirements with the deduction of a flat rate for furnishing.
Whether or not a need is covered is subject to the individual decision of the recipient of the service, but a different determination of the standard rate is not possible for legal reasons (Gutzler in jurisPK-SGB XII, § 27a SGB XII RdNr 98; Wahrendorf in Grube/Wahrendorf, SGB XII , 4th edition 2012, § 27a SGB XII RdNo 31). The flat rate of the standard rate is intended to take such imponderables into account (as already stated in BSGE 99, 252 ff RdNr 28 = SozR 4-3500 § 28 No. 3).
5. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
5.1 - Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision of October 1, 2012 - L 7 AS 3836/12 ER-B
The benefits of SGB 2 - including unemployment benefit II, which secures a living - do not constitute a pure social assistance benefit within the meaning of Art. 24 Para. 2 Directive 2004/38/EC. The admissibility of the exclusion of benefits according to Section 7 Para Community law requirements for equal treatment in access to financial benefits for job seekers.
There is much to suggest that the exclusion norm of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II does not apply without restriction to Union citizens who move freely. There is much to suggest that the indefinite exclusion of benefits for the entire period of the Union citizen's job search, as provided for in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II, is incompatible with Community law.
5.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of November 7, 2012 – L 3 AS 5600/11
If the basic security provider does not have a coherent concept for determining the appropriate accommodation costs and one cannot be determined, a surcharge of 10% must also be added to the maximum amount of the table values in Section 12 WoGG that has been used since January 1, 2009.
5.3 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of November 7, 2012 – L 3 AS 5162/11
1. A need for the initial furnishing of an apartment can also arise if a move was not initiated by the basic security provider (cf. BSG, judgment of July 1, 2009, B 4 AS 77/08 R, para. 14 f.), However - in this case due to the birth of a child - it was necessary for objective reasons.
2. However, this need only includes those necessary furnishings that were either already missing from the old apartment or that were there but became unusable simply because of the move.
6. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
6.1 – Freiburg Social Court, judgment of September 21, 2012 – S 17 AS 4185/11
Setting the base rent as the upper rent limit by the city of Freiburg is legal
On the determination of the appropriateness limit for the area of the city of Freiburg i. Br. has already been argued all the way to the Federal Social Court. In response to its ruling of April 13, 2011 (ref. B 14 AS 106/10 R), the local council decided on December 13, 2011 to use the average rent according to the Freiburg rent index (referred to there as “base rent”) as the rent upper limit until further notice . According to this, the upper rent limit for a single person is approximately 364.95 euros (8.11 euros x 45 m2).
Note:
BSG, judgment of April 13, 2011 – B 14 AS 106/10 R on the city of “Freiburg”
If a qualified rent index, which was drawn up using a scientifically proven process, is used to determine the appropriate price per square meter for the basic rent and either the average value of this rent index is used or if statements can be made from the rent index regarding the frequency of apartments with the appropriate price per square meter, this can be assumed that there are sufficient apartments at this abstractly reasonable price per square meter in the local comparison area.
6.2 - SG Düsseldorf, judgment of October 18, 2012 - S 10 AS 87/09
Vacation compensation paid out is not creditable income, but rather earmarked income.
The vacation compensation serves a different purpose than unemployment benefit II. While the latter is intended to guarantee the beneficiary's livelihood as a state guarantee of existence, the vacation compensation only serves to compensate the (former) employee for the vacation joys lost for operational reasons. Vacation compensation can therefore be compared to a compensation payment, which is intended to enable the recipient financially to make up for the missed recovery period through other activities (restaurant visits, wellness or similar). In order not to undermine this purpose, the holiday compensation should not be counted towards unemployment benefit II.
6.3 – Mainz Social Court, decision of November 13, 2012 – S 4 AS 466/11
Agreeing on an exclusion of utilization of a life insurance policy is not a breach of duty within the meaning of SGB II.
7. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
7.1 - State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, decision of November 7, 2012 - L 7 SO 4186/12 ER-B
1. According to Section 54 Paragraph 1 SGB Schooling in a regular school arises if educational tasks are taken on that the school authority does not provide. It is crucial that the assistance does not exclusively or predominantly cover the core area of the teacher's pedagogical work.
2. Due to the factuality principle under social welfare law, it is sufficient that it is certain that the school authority does not meet the necessary requirements from its own resources. Whether he is obliged to do so is irrelevant. If necessary, the social welfare provider must take recourse to the school authority by submitting a transfer notification (BSG, judgment of March 22, 2012 - B 8 SO 30/10 R -).
3. The social welfare provider must respect the parents' decision for inclusive schooling based on the right to choose under school law (BVerwGE 130.1). Admission to a special school cannot be demanded from the point of view of necessity, the principle of subordination or the reservation of additional costs, provided that the child is appropriately schooled in a regular school from a school law perspective.
8. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
8.1 – Karlsruhe Social Court, judgment of November 15, 2012 – S 1 SO 2516/12
A credit from a reimbursement of additional costs must be credited in full towards the assistance for living expenses or basic security in old age and in the event of reduced earning capacity in the month in which the benefit is received, provided that the need for assistance does not completely disappear.
9. Decision on asylum law
9.1 – Potsdam Social Court, judgment of October 4th, 2012 – S 20 AY 8/09
Entitlement to additional nutrition requirements for diabetes mellitus II of EUR 45 per month if the benefits according to Section 1a AsylbLG were reduced to EUR 158.50 and the person affected must adhere to a whole food diet because of diabetes mellitus II.
Source: Attorney Volker Gerloff
www.haltundsociales.de
10. Böckler Impuls Issue 19/2012 - Social policy: Community of needs out of date
Social policy: Community of need out of time
The German social model is developing contradictorily: men and women should now be employed. However, the socio-legal construction of the community of needs continues to be based on a traditional family image - to the chagrin of most couples.
Next: Needs community out of time - Hans Böckler Foundation
www.boeckler.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
