1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of December 11, 2012 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of December 11, 2012 – B 4 AS 44/12 R
The increases in apartment size due to personal characteristics provided for in the federal states' housing support regulations are not taken into account in determining the abstractly appropriate rent (here single-parent surcharge; continuation of the decision of the 14th Senate of the BSG of August 22, 2012 - B 14 AS 13/12 R).
Such features must only be taken into account in terms of specific appropriateness - within the scope of the cost reduction obligation.
Accommodation costs according to SGB 2 can only be determined according to the housing benefit table, taking into account a surcharge of 10 percent, if a failure of the determination options with regard to the abstractly appropriate accommodation costs for the specifically determined comparison area has been determined (also BSG judgment of March 22, 2012 – B 4 AS 16/11 R).
Note:
BSG; Judgment of August 22, 2012 – B 14 AS 13/12 R
Single parents are not entitled to an additional living space requirement of ten square meters, because the appropriate living space for Hartz IV recipients generally depends on the number of residents.
1.2 – BSG, judgment of December 11, 2012 – B 4 AS 27/12 R
The long-distance driver's expenses are creditable income in SGB II; they are not earmarked income.
Insofar as Section 6 Paragraph 3 Alg II-V (in the version valid from January 1, 2008) excludes the consideration of higher actual additional meal expenses in the event of an absence of at least 12 hours, it exceeds the scope of the power to issue regulations in Section 13 No. 3 SGB II.
There is a lack of an opening clause.
On the other hand, since it is inherent in the concept of necessity that extremely high and therefore unnecessary expenses should not be financed by the taxpayer, Section 6 BRKG in conjunction with Section 4 Paragraph 5 EStG must be used to limit the actual expenses to be borne.
The values there form the upper limit for proven higher meal expenses.
Necessary expenses of a different kind - overnight stays or other incidental travel costs - can also be deducted from income in accordance with Section 11 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 5 SGB II - provided they have been proven.
1.3 – BSG, judgment of December 11, 2012 – B 4 AS 29/12 R –
No entitlement to ALG II if there was usable assets in the form of life insurance without exploitation protection within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraphs 2 and 3 SGB II.
In SGB II, exploitation protection is generally possible in the event of particular hardship in accordance with Section 12 Paragraph 3 S 1 No. 6 Alt 2 SGB II. This also applies in the event that there is no exclusion of exploitation in accordance with Section 165 Paragraph 3 VVG.
The BSG has repeatedly decided that assets within the meaning of Section 12 SGB II are not the balance sheet of active and passive assets, but rather consist of the existing active assets.
juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
The assets only include active assets that can also be used to secure a living (BSG judgment of April 15, 2008 - B 14/7b AS 52/06 Rn 39; Löns in Löns/Herold/Tews SGB II 3rd ed § 12 Rn 6).
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - State Social Court of Hesse, decision of November 6, 2012 - L 6 AS 490/12 B
The mere fact that proceedings are pending before the Federal Constitutional Court with regard to the standard rate according to SGB II is not sufficient to meet the prerequisite for a suspension of proceedings in accordance with Section 114 Paragraph 2 S. 1 SGG (analogous) (also LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of January 29, 2008, L 21 B 1167/07 R; see: Thüringer LSG, decision of July 29, 2004, L 2 RA 461/04).
www.lareda.hessenrecht.hessen.de
2.2 – Thuringian State Social Court, decision of September 20, 2012 – L 4 AS 674/12 B ER
If Section 86a Paragraph 1 SGG stipulates that an action for rescission filed within the deadline generally has a suspensive effect, this also applies to a denial notice according to Section 66 Paragraph 1 SGB I due to benefits according to SGB II.
Note:
Also Hessian LSG, resolutions of January 16, 2012 - L 6 AS 570/11 B ER and June 27, 2011 - L 7 AS 262/10 B ER
An objection to an administrative act by which permanently approved ongoing basic security benefits for jobseekers are withdrawn due to a lack of cooperation has a suspensive effect.
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - Chemnitz Social Court, judgment of April 24, 2012 - S 3 AS 3239/11 WA, legally binding
Private accident insurance for mentally handicapped children and those suffering from balance and fine motor skills is appropriate because there is a higher risk of accidents.
Insurance contributions can generally only be deducted from the income of the recipient of unemployment benefit II if they are appropriate in terms of reason and amount.
However, the 30.00 euro flat rate can also be deducted in full if the monthly contributions are significantly lower, as here at 6.31 euros.
www.justiz.sachsen.de
Note:
BSG, judgment of May 10, 2011 – B 4 AS 139/10 R
In order to determine the adequacy of private accident insurance for children and young people in terms of basic security law, it must be taken into account whether it is usually taken out as a precautionary expense by those receiving income just above the basic security threshold, as well as which individual living conditions shape the situation of the person entitled to benefits (connection to and continuation of BSG from September 29, 2009 - B 8 SO 13/08 R = BSGE 104, 207 = SozR 4-3530 § 6 No. 1).
3.2 - Gelsenkirchen Social Court, judgment of October 23, 2012 - S 27 AS 1879/12
Bulgarians are entitled to ALG II because they can rely on the principle of equal treatment in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation 883/2004.
The exclusion of benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II is not applicable to Bulgarian citizens in accordance with Articles 2, 3, 4 and 70 as well as Annex
The benefits of SGB II should not be split into a part of subsistence security and a part of the benefits intended to facilitate access to the labor market in order to classify the cash benefits under SGB II as social welfare benefits.
Note:
LSG Hessen speaks to two families from Romania SGB II – benefits at
www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
3.3 - Düsseldorf Social Court, judgment of June 6, 2011 - S 29 AS 3996/10, pending at the LSG NRW under the AZ.: L 7 AS 1310/11
Jobcenter Wuppertal pays too low accommodation costs for SGB II and SGB XII - benefit recipients.
If the courts determine that the municipality does not meet the requirements for the "coherent concept", they resort to, among other things, the housing benefit table for Section 12 of the Housing Benefit Act (WoGG). This amount is then increased by a surcharge of 10 percent (see decision LSG NRW of July 2, 2010, L 7 AS 204/10).
The concept presented by the job center and the resulting price per square meter of 4.95 euros do not meet the requirements of the BSG.
socialcourtsabilty.de
Note:
See also - Jobcenter Wuppertal pays accommodation costs that are too low - those affected should submit an application for review in December 2012.
www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Karlsruhe Social Court, judgment of October 11, 2012 – S 4 SO 4354/11
Waiver of basic living security benefits (here: social assistance) above the limits for monthly loan offsets is not permitted.
Beneficiaries cannot waive basic social security benefits above the legal limits for monthly offsets and reclaims, even by giving written consent to the basic security provider.
The social welfare office, as an administrative authority bound by law, is required to take this into account ex officio in all administrative procedures and to ensure this in comprehensive administrative practice.
4.2 - SG Karlsruhe, judgment of October 11, 2012 - S 4 SO 4453/11
The monthly care allowance paid under Polish law to all pension recipients aged 75 and over, regardless of individual need for care, does not constitute a non-creditable compensation benefit within the meaning of Section 82 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB XII nor a specific benefit according to Section 83 Paragraph 1 SGB
It must therefore be counted towards social assistance.
socialjustice.de
4.3 - SG Karlsruhe, judgment of October 11, 2012 - S 4 SO 4776/11
A person in need of assistance is not entitled to integration assistance in the form of covering the operating and maintenance costs for a vehicle if, due to their disability, they are not constantly dependent on the use of a vehicle in order to participate in life in society.
4.4 - Gotha Social Court, court decision dated November 12, 2012 - S 14 SO 1019/11
Son does not have to pay for the funeral costs of his deceased mother if this would constitute grossly undue hardship for the son.
There was never a personal relationship between the son and his mother. Family life never took place; his mother was an alcoholic and left him beaten, neglected and neglected.
The consequences for the plaintiff (son), who was a minor at the time, justify the assumption that the inclusion of the funeral costs in this case was grossly unfair.
Note:
Hessisches LSG, judgment of October 6, 2011 - L 9 SO 226/10
Funeral costs must primarily be paid by relatives. This is reasonable even if there is little family contact.
4.5 – Aachen Social Court, judgment of November 13, 2012 – S 20 SO 161/11 –
Social assistance is to be granted as a loan in accordance with Section 91 SGB
If the claim to abolish the co-ownership has not been seriously asserted and pursued, there is no actual obstacle to exploitation for this reason alone; This also applies if the cancellation has not been and is not asserted due to family considerations (cf. BSG, judgments of January 27, 2009 B 14 AS 42/07 R and B 14 AS 52/07 R; Hessisches LSG, judgment of March 23 .2011 L 6 AS 382/07).
There is no objection to the interest rate of 4% per year on the loan granted in accordance with Section 91 SGB XII.
5. Note from Prof. Dr. Uwe Berlit, Chairman RiBVerwG to BVerwG 10th Senate, judgment of September 4th, 2012 - 10 C 12/12 - Language requirement for spouses joining Germans; no reference to marriage abroad Note on: BVerwG 10th Senate, judgment of September 4, 2012 - 10 C 12/12
Author: Prof. Dr. Uwe Berlit, Chairman of the RiBVerwG
Norms: § 30 AufenthG 2004, § 6 AufenthG 2004, § 161 VwGO, Art 6 GG, Art 11 GG, § 28 AufenthG 2004, § 25 AufenthG 2004
Language requirement for spouses joining Germans; no reference to marriage abroad
Guiding principles
1. The regulation on the language requirement set out in Section 30 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the Residence Act is only applicable mutatis mutandis to spouses joining Germans in accordance with Section 28 Paragraph 1 Sentence 5 of the Residence Act.
The constitutional interpretation of Section 28 Paragraph 1 Sentence 5 Residence Act requires this requirement to be waived before entry if efforts to acquire the language are not possible, unreasonable or not successful within one year in individual cases.
This does not remove the need to make efforts to acquire the language after entry.
2. In principle, a German citizen may not be forced to marry abroad. The fundamental right of Article 11 of the Basic Law grants him – unlike a foreigner – the right to reside in Germany.
3. This applies equally to spouse reunification with a German citizen who has another nationality.
Read more: juris – language requirement for spouses joining Germans; no reference to marriage abroad
6. LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, decision of February 23, 2006 - L 4 B 33/06 SB
Person of trust for medical assessments in social court proceedings.
Further information: Report and judgments on taking an accompanying person with you to assessment appointments
www.cfs-aktuell.de
With lawyer Burkhard Tamm: “Taking accompanying persons along to the medical assessment in social court proceedings – a violation of the social law obligation to cooperate?”
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
