1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of August 23, 2012 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - BSG, judgment of August 23, 2012 - B 4 AS 32/12 R
After apartment modernization, the job centers also have to cover the increased rental costs, this applies even if the Hartz IV recipient requested the modernization.
According to the systematic connection between Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II and Section 22 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II old version, only in the case of a rent increase due to a move is a preliminary clarification by the beneficiary and the corresponding assurance obligation of the SGB II provider legally required.
In this respect, the far-reaching consequence of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II, which is used analogously here, with a cost limitation to the previous accommodation costs without any (temporary) protection, can only apply in the event of an unauthorized move with increased rental costs.
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of August 9, 2012 - L 6 AS 139/12 ZVW, appeal permitted
There is no legal basis for covering the costs of additional treatment measures for children beyond the orthodontic treatment covered by statutory health insurance.
The need is also not special within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II. It does not arise from an atypical life situation.
2.2 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of December 3, 2012 - L 6 AS 1448/12 B
If a participant is a member of the VDK, he is obliged to exhaust his statutory rights to free legal representation, which are to be viewed as assets. He can only acquire a claim to PKH if the association refuses legal protection (BSG, decision of October 8, 2009, B 8 SO 35/09 B).
2.3 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of November 30, 2012 - L 2 AS 2150/12 B ER -
A shortfall in needs of 109 euros per month is reasonable for a temporary period and requires, in particular, against the background that the main thing is with a provisional regulation should not actually or factually be anticipated, not the issuance of an interim injunction.
The standard requirement according to SGB II basically serves to ensure the socio-cultural subsistence minimum, but this does not exclude a temporary reduction because the standard benefit also includes savings amounts for one-off needs and therefore, according to the legal requirements, not the entire standard benefit for current consumption is determined. In addition, the receipt of a standard benefit reduced by 30% within a limited period of time is also to be viewed as reasonable because a reduction of this amount can have a legal consequence in the event of breaches of duty (see Section 31a Paragraph 1 SGB II), although according to the provisions of the law only at In the event of a reduction of more than 30%, an appropriate amount of additional benefits in kind or monetary benefits must be provided upon request (see Section 31a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II).
2.4 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of December 3, 2012 - L 6 AS 1004/12 B
It is questionable and cannot be clarified in the PKH procedure whether costs for renovation work within a residential complex also (only) under the conditions of Section 22 Para 2 SGB II can be reimbursed, or whether it concerns accommodation needs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II, which are to be recognized in the amount of the actual expenses if they are appropriate.
2.5 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of December 21, 2012 - L 2 AS 1773/12 B -
No entitlement to meal costs according to Section 79 Paragraph 1 No. 3 SGB III old version if there is the possibility of having meals yourself in the accommodation at the place of action to prepare.
2.6 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of January 7th, 2013 - L 19 AS 2281/12 B ER and - L 19 AS 2282/12
Granting of the standard benefit as part of the assessment of the consequences, because the job center and social court have obviously assumed that the presumption rule living together for more than a year per se and makes determinations regarding the existence of a community of responsibility and responsibility unnecessary.
This is wrong and ignores the systematic position of the presumption rule.
A community of responsibility and responsibility within the meaning of SGB II only exists if the following cumulative conditions are met:
They must 1. be partners who 2. live in a residential and economic community (objective requirements) and 3. in such a way that, after reasonable assessment, it can be assumed that there is a mutual willingness to bear responsibility for one another and stand up for one another (subjective prerequisites) .
2.7 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of December 21, 2012 - L 12 AS 2232/12 B
In the provisions of Section 31a Paragraph 2 Sentence 1, 31 SGB II, neither a violation of Article 3 GG nor age discrimination can be seen.
2.8 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of December 14, 2012 - L 19 AS 2210/12 NZB
An analogous application of the provision of Section 1 Paragraph 4 Alg II-V to income from employment between the end of school training and the start of studies is ruled out .
In this respect, pursuing employment after completing school education is not comparable to the situation regulated by Section 1 Paragraph 4 AlgII-V. Section 1 Paragraph 4 AlgII-V is also not intended to financially support the start of a course of study by privileging earned income.
2.9 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of December 20, 2012 - L 19 AS 1809/12 B ER -
Polish citizen is entitled to ALG II within the scope of the assessment of the consequences.
As part of an assessment of the consequences that is largely aimed at securing livelihoods, an obligation to pay the additional requirements in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 3 No. 1 SGB II is generally not necessary (cf. LSG Dinge-Anhalt resolution of May 23, 2012 - L 5 AS 456/11 B ER, Rn 24; VG Munich decision of November 29th, 2004 - M 15 E 04.4738, Rn 16; aA probably LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen decision of May 13th, 2008 - L 9 AS 119/08, Rn 14; LSG NRW decision of May 23rd. 2012 – L 7 AS 2252/11 B ER, Rn 11).
2.10 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of December 10, 2012 - L 7 AS 2016/12 B ER
Spanish citizens are entitled to ALG II as part of the assessment of the consequences; they cannot be referred to subsistence benefits according to the third chapter of SGB XII ( aA on this LSG NRW, decision of October 2, 2012, Ref.: L 19 AS 1393/12 B ER).
2.11 - Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, judgment of June 19, 2012 - L 6 AS 48/11, pending at the BSG under the case number B 14 AS 80/12 R
The pure repetition of an administrative act that has already become incontestable or the merely repeated reference to an earlier one The ruling is not a new contestable administrative act.
2.12 – Thuringian State Social Court, judgment of August 16, 2012 – L 9 AS 1380/11 –
No reimbursement of costs according to Section 63 SGB . Coseriu/Jakob in Mutsch-ler et al., SGB III, 3.A., § 331 para. 6).
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - SG Braunschweig, judgment of November 20, 2012 - S 49 AS 1145/11
Entitlement to additional needs for disabled people according to Section 21 Paragraph 4 SGB II if benefits according to Section 16 SGB II in conjunction with Section 77 Paragraph 4 SGB III old version are received in the form of an education voucher. These benefits are to be viewed as “other assistance for obtaining a suitable place in working life” within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 4 SGB II.
www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
Similar to LSG NSB, judgment of November 1, 2011 – L 9 AS 477/10
3.2 – Gießen Social Court, decision of January 10, 2013 – S 25 AS 832/12 ER
Job center has to cover the costs of more expensive accommodation due to the need to move due to health reasons - pain when climbing stairs.
Note:
BSG, judgment of November 24, 2011 - B 14 AS 107/10 R
A reason for moving is also the heavy child burden.
If a single mother cannot carry her one and a half year old toddler to the 4th floor of her apartment for health reasons, this can be an objective reason be for a move.
3.3 – Stade Social Court, decision of November 22, 2012 – S 28 AS 781/12 ER
Section 28 Paragraph 5 SGB II does not provide for long-term individual support during school, although longer-term support measures may also be appropriate if there is a serious prognosis of success (see SG Itzehoe, decision of April 3, 2012 - S 11 AS 50/12 ER).
3.4 - Darmstadt Social Court, judgment of September 26, 2012 - S 17 AS 416/10, appeal pending at the LSG Hessen under the case number L 9 AS 852/12
1. An employable benefit recipient is not entitled to benefits for the integration of self-employed people for the start-up an erotic live TV magazine on the Internet that offers erotic and pornography depictions.
2. When issuing any administrative act, the limit of immorality must always be taken into account.
3. An administrative act violates morality not only if the authorities expressly permit an immoral event, but also if an immoral event is intended to be made possible in the first place through public funds.
4. BSG, judgment of August 22, 2012 – B 14 AS 13/12 R
Standards for the reasonableness of a move for single parents ALG II recipients / costs of accommodation according to § 22 SGB II - comments from attorney Helge Hildebrandt
Sozialberatung-kiel.de
5. VG Leipzig, judgment of January 10, 2013 – 5 K 981/11
Job center must give law firm telephone list of clerks.
6. Decisions on asylum law
6.1 – SG Hildesheim 42nd Chamber, judgment of December 12, 2012, S 42 AY 126/11
Cash instead of vouchers for back payments of benefits according to AsylbLG
1. The division of the calculated and approved basic benefits contained in a benefit notice into a cash amount and a further amount, which is given to the beneficiary in vouchers, is a legally separable subject of dispute that is open to isolated judicial review outside of a so-called amount dispute is.
2. The presentness principle shapes the law on asylum seeker benefits according to the AsylbLG. The existence of a weak entitlement to assistance under the AsylbLG therefore gives priority to the granting of benefits in kind.
3. The subsequent granting of basic benefits in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 2 AsylbLG must always be in the form of cash benefits.
Note:
19 refugees ask the court for help with the issue of vouchers
Press release on urgent proceedings before the SG Hildesheim to grant cash instead of vouchers
6.2 - SG Hildesheim 42nd Chamber, judgment of December 12, 2012, S 42 AY 100/11
Education and participation package for those entitled to benefits in accordance with Section 3 AsylbLG
1. Those entitled to benefits in accordance with Section 3 AsylbLG are entitled to benefits from the so-called education and participation package in accordance with Section 28 SGB II and Section 34 SGB XII via Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 AsylbLG by way of a discretionary reduction to zero.
2. Without the entry into force of a legal regulation modeled on Section 28 Paragraphs 2 to 7 SGB II or Section 34 Paragraphs 2 to 7 SGB Participation benefits for those entitled to basic benefits.
3. The costs for the organized bus transfer from the primary school to the after-school care center billed to a primary school student by the provider of his after-school care center must be borne separately in accordance with Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 AsylbLG.
7. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
7.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of November 21, 2012 – L 2 SF 436/12
No compensation for the duration of the legal proceedings following wrongful receipt of unemployment benefits.
socialcourtsabilty.de
Note:
State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, decision of November 28, 2012 - L 2 SF 1495/12 EK
No entitlement to legal aid for compensation claims due to excessive length of proceedings.
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
