1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 16 October 2012 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 16.10.2012, – B 14 AS 11/12 R –
A privately insured recipient of ALG II benefits can claim reimbursement from the SGB II provider for their private health insurance contributions that are below half the maximum amount for statutory health insurance, by means of an analogous application of the regulation applicable to persons voluntarily insured in statutory health insurance.
No deduction of contributions to private health insurance exceeding the subsidy from income according to § 11 para. 2 sentence 1 no. 3 SGB II aF. The premium for private long-term care insurance must be covered in full.
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 15 November 2012 on social assistance (SGB XII)
2.1 – BSG, Judgment of 15 November 2012 – B 8 SO 5/11 R
If a social assistance recipient lives in a residence that does not offer internet access, he is entitled to have reasonable internet costs covered as a benefit towards his further necessary living expenses – not as an increased cash allowance or as integration assistance – in addition to the living expenses actually provided in the facility.
The use of the internet has been taken into account by the legislator in the standard rate outside of inpatient services at least since January 1, 2007 (based on the 2003 income and expenditure survey), and this must also be considered within the framework of inpatient measures.
2.2 – BSG, Judgment of 15 November 2012 – B 8 SO 25/11 R –
The costs for clearing out an apartment are costs directly related to a move when the social assistance recipient moves into a nursing home.
The additional need arising only during the receipt of inpatient care is then to be covered as a benefit for further necessary living expenses (§ 35 para. 2 SGB XII aF) if the conditions of § 29 SGB XII aF are met. It is irrelevant to what extent furniture is taken along; disposal costs can also be considered moving expenses.
juris.bundessozialgericht.de
Note:
Baden-Württemberg State Social Court judgment of 22 December 2010 – L 2 SO 2078/10
The overlapping costs incurred on the premises of an apartment after a premature move to a residential care facility, prior to the termination of the tenancy agreement, are not considered costs of necessary living expenses in a facility according to § 35 SGB XII aF. However, they must be covered by the social welfare provider as necessary accommodation costs according to § 42 para. 1 no. 2 SGB XII in conjunction with § 29 SGB XII aF.
3. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 20 September 2012 on social assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – BSG, Judgment of 20.09.2012 – B 8 SO 13/11 R
If social assistance recipients and someone receiving unemployment benefit II form a so-called mixed household, they are not solely limited to the low asset allowances applicable to social assistance. This is because a single, shared asset allowance applies to such a mixed household
juris.bundessozialgericht.de
Note:
Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of June 9, 2011 – B 8 SO 20/09 R
Within the framework of mixed benefit units, the calculation of the benefit for each individual person must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the law applicable to him/her; special features of the mixed benefit unit that arise from the regulatory concept of the SGB II are to be taken into account with the help of the hardship clause.
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 29 November 2012 – L 19 AS 2092/12 NZB
A pilgrimage undertaken on a spontaneous invitation does not constitute a valid reason to miss an appointment at the job center.
The general requirements for the existence of an important reason, especially in cases of failure to report under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), have been clarified by the highest court rulings (BSG judgment of 09.11.2010 – B 4 AS 27/10 R).
4.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 22 October 2012 – L 19 AS 1412/12, Appeal allowed.
The provision of Section 28 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is a cut-off date provision.
The provision of Section 28 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is linked to the predecessor regulation of Sections 24a and 41 Paragraph 1 Sentence 5 of the SGB II (see BT Drs 17/3404 p. 104) and is designed as a benefit at the beginning of the school year and school semester (see BT-Drs 17/3404 p. 105).
With regard to the nature of the provision in Section 28 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) as a cut-off date regulation, the emergence of a need for a child's personal school supplies only after August 1st or February 1st – e.g., through the onset of a child's need for assistance, the commencement of compulsory schooling, or the commencement of school attendance – does not establish an entitlement to benefits under Section 28 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Section 28 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not to be interpreted expansively to mean that benefits must be granted even if a need arises within the meaning of Section 28 Paragraph 3 SGB II after August 1st or February 1st. There is neither an unintended gap in the law (cf. Federal Social Court judgment of March 22, 2012 – B 4 AS 26/10 R, paragraph 15 with further references) nor is an analogous application of the provision required
4.3 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 26 October 2012 – L 6 AS 1229/12 B
Neither postal usage nor a completed change of address can be used to determine whether an apartment has actually been used in a way that justifies deducting a per capita share of the housing costs from the other members of the household/community of need.
This is evident from the definition of residence in Section 30 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I). According to this definition, a person has a residence where they maintain a dwelling under circumstances that indicate they intend to retain and use it. Official registration of a residence with the residents' registration office is not relevant in this context (see Schlegel in: jurisPK-SGB I, 2nd edition 2011, Section 30 SGB I, marginal note 44).
4.4 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 26.10.2012 – L 7 AS 999/12 B –
Granting of legal aid, because the applicants have credibly demonstrated that the parental allowance they received had been used up at the time of the application for preliminary legal protection.
A fictitious crediting is not justified in view of the provisions of Sections 31, 31a Paragraph 1, 34 SGB II. The sanction provisions of Sections 31 and 31a Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) stipulate that even a person who spends excessively is to be granted reduced unemployment benefit II (Alg II), subject to the reimbursement claim under Section 34 SGB II. Potential reimbursement claims against the person in need do not preclude the assumption of need (see the relevant Senate rulings of July 19, 2012, Case No.: L 7 AS 1155/10 and April 22, 2010, Case No.: L 7 AS 107/09; see also the Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg rulings of November 19, 2007, Case No.: L 1 B 1845/07 AS ER and November 27, 2007, Case No.: L 14 B 1818/08 AS ER). The legal question is pending before the Federal Social Court under file number B 14 AS 38/12 R.
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
A different view is held by the Bavarian State Social Court (LSG), judgment of April 13, 2007, file number: L 7 AS 309/06; in this direction, see also the Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of September 30, 2008, file number: B 4 AS 29/07 R.
4.5 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 09.11.2012 – L 2 AS 1589/12 NZB –
For a child under 14 years of age, a children's accident insurance policy is, in principle, inappropriate insurance in the absence of a specific health risk, and contributions for such insurance are not to be deducted from child benefit or maintenance payments before they are taken into account as income when calculating social assistance (Federal Social Court), as also ruled in the judgment of 16.02.2012, B 4 AS 89/11 R).
Note:
Chemnitz Social Court, judgment of 24 April 2012 – S 3 AS 3239/11 WA, legally binding
Private accident insurance for children is appropriate in individual cases
Because of the intellectual disability and disturbances of balance and fine motor skills, there is a higher risk of accidents.
5. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Social Court Dortmund, decision of 17 December 2012 – S 41 SO 426/12 ER
Based on Section 117 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), no authorization can be derived to issue a request for information to the partners of persons in need of assistance who receive or claim benefits under Chapter 4 of the SGB XII.
The request for information issued by the social welfare agency lacks a necessary legal basis – in view of the infringement of the applicant's right to privacy protected in Article 2 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) associated with the obligation to provide information (cf. LSG NRW, judgments of 14.09.2009, file no. L 20 SO 96/08 and of 07.05.2012, file no. L 20 SO 32/12).
5.2 – Munich Social Court, Judgment of 11 December 2012 – S 48 SO 548/11
The applicant is entitled to assistance in procuring a vehicle adapted for people with disabilities as part of integration assistance.
The legal requirement of being dependent on one's own motor vehicle is generally already met if the disabled person can only leave the immediate vicinity of their home with the help of a car, i.e., can only move outside the home (over longer distances), provided that the need to leave the home exists precisely for reasons that integration assistance serves and if such a need arises regularly (as correctly stated by the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of May 10, 2007, L 8 SO 20/07 ER).
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 26 September 2012, – L 2 SO 1378/11
A young woman with severe multiple disabilities has a legal right to assistance in procuring a vehicle and the conversion of the vehicle to be suitable for her disability by the social welfare provider within the framework of integration assistance.
6. SG Oldenburg Case No.: S 39 AS 462/12 – Acknowledgement
Unemployed persons do not have to work in agriculture – The agreement concluded in the integration agreement is binding for both the job center and the benefit recipient.
Sanction unlawful – agreement aims for self-employment.
www.nwzonline.de
Note:
Social Court Dresden, decision of June 3, 2008 – S 10 AS 2252/08 ER
An important reason within the meaning of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book 2 (SGB 2) for non-participation in an integration measure exists if the person in need of assistance seriously plans to end their unemployment by taking up self-employment and the measure is of no benefit to them in this regard.
The Tacheles and Willi 2 association wishes all readers a happy new year and a healthy one.
Author of the legal case ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
