1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 22.08.2012 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 22.08.2012 – B 14 AS 197/11 R
A student is not excluded from receiving benefits to secure their livelihood under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) during a leave of absence semester if, for organizational reasons, they are no longer affiliated with the university during this time, or if, although their organizational affiliation still exists, they are not actually pursuing their studies (see already BSG judgment of 22 March 2012 – B 4 AS 102/11 R – SozR 4-4200 § 7 No. 27 with concurring commentary by Reichel jurisPR-SozR 12/2012 Note 2).
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 22.08.2012, – B 14 AS 13/12 R
Single parents are not entitled to an additional ten square meters of living space, because the appropriate living space for Hartz IV recipients is generally based on the number of residents.
The provisions in housing subsidy regulations that further differentiate based on the number of rooms are irrelevant for the interpretation of Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). However, special housing subsidy regulations that refer to personal living circumstances (in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 Paragraph 1 Number 2 of the German Housing Subsidy Act (WoFG)) are also not to be considered when determining living space for the abstract assessment of appropriateness under Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the SGB II.
Personal circumstances such as the (immediate) social and school environment of minor children of compulsory school age, single parents, or disabled or dependent persons or their family members caring for them can constitute reasons that lead to restrictions on the obligation to reduce unreasonable accommodation costs in the sense of subjective unreasonableness.
However, a different determination of the relevant comparison area should not be made when determining the abstractly reasonable costs.
juris.bundessozialgericht.de
Note:
Likewise – Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of 11 December 2012 – B 4 AS 44/12 R
The increases in apartment size provided for in the housing promotion regulations of the Länder due to personal characteristics are not included in the determination of the abstractly appropriate rent (here single parent supplement; continuation of the decision of the 14th Senate of the BSG of 22.8.2012 – B 14 AS 13/12 R).
Such characteristics are to be taken into account only in the context of specific appropriateness – within the framework of the obligation to reduce costs.
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of 18 December 2012 – L 7 AS 1416/10 –
The food/drink allowance of 50.00 euros per month, initially paid by the father directly to the daycare center as child support based on a fee notice addressed to him, does not constitute income for the child.
2.2 – Hamburg State Social Court, Judgment of 24 September 2012 – L 4 AS 110/09
He is only entitled to ALG II as a loan, since he has assets in the form of his condominium that exclude him from receiving benefits.
A 105 sq m condominium is not appropriate for a single person within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II, because when examining whether an apartment is appropriate within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB II, the number of residents must also be taken into account.
Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) protects accommodation only in the sense of fulfilling the basic need for "housing" and as the spatial center of life, but not as part of the assets of the benefit recipient.
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
Social Court Aurich, judgment of January 11, 2012, S 15 AS 63/10, appeal is pending at the LSG NSB under L 13 AS 34/12.
A property that has once been granted privileged status does not lose this privileged status simply because the number of residents decreases.
No reduction in the appropriate living space when children move out.
Guiding principle: A self-occupied residential property is appropriate within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 Number 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if the living space is within the framework specified in Section 39 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Second Housing Construction Act (II. WoBauG) in conjunction with Section 39 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 and Section 82 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the Second Housing Construction Act (II. WoBauG).
This assessment remains unchanged even if the number of residents decreases due to the later departure of adult children.
2.3 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 18 October 2012 – L 7 AS 998/11
The basic income support provider must simultaneously decide, along with the sanction decision, whether supplementary benefits in kind or benefits of monetary value are to be provided in the specific case. (§ 31 para. 5 sentence 1 SGB II aF)
This requirement of a simultaneous decision also applies to other cases of the complete cessation of unemployment benefit II, and thus also to adults who have reached the age of 25. No sufficient reason for different treatment is apparent.
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
Likewise – adjudicating Senate, decision of 09.09.2009, file no.: L 7 B 211/09 AS ER, LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 05.01.2011, file no.: L 2 AS 428/10 B ER and LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 21.04.2010, file no.: L 13 AS 100/10 B ER.
2.4 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 18 December 2012 – L 5 AS 645/12 B ER
The training of the disabled applicant as an automotive specialist is not eligible for funding under Sections 57 and 58 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), so that the exclusion of benefits stipulated in Section 7 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not apply.
The exception in Section 7 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is limited to the types of support expressly mentioned therein, because the exclusion of benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 5 of the SGB II is based on the abstract eligibility for support of certain training courses in principle (see Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of February 16, 2012 (Case No. B 4 AS 94/11 R, paragraphs 15 et seq.)).
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 14 June 2012 – L 8 SO 161/09
Unemployment benefit II is not considered partner income when granting social assistance.
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
Likewise – Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of June 9, 2011, B 8 SO 20/09 R
3.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 04.12.2012 – L 9 SO 383/12 B
No loan-based assumption of the administrative fee for leaving the church pursuant to Section 37 Paragraph 1 SGB XII.
There is no indication that the plaintiff could not reasonably be expected to remain a member of the church chosen by him or his parents until he has saved the fee of 30 EUR required for leaving the church.
3.3 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, Judgment of 16 July 2012 – L 20 SO 40/12
Travel expenses incurred for attending the funeral of a relative must be saved from the standard allowance.
For covering atypical one-off or short-term peak demands (such as travel expenses for a funeral), the Federal Constitutional Court expressly deemed a loan pursuant to Section 24 Paragraph 1 of the amended Social Code, Book II (SGB II) to be sufficient in its decision of February 9, 2010 (1 BvL 1/09, 3/09 and 4/09, para. 208).
4. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Social Court Berlin, Judgment of 04.12.2012 – S 51 SO 2013/11, appeal is admitted
1. The assessment and determination of the need on which the standard benefit level 3 is based meets the requirements set out by the Federal Constitutional Court in its decision of February 9, 2010 (Case No. 1 BvL 1/09 et al.).
2. There are systemic differences between SGB 2 and SGB 12 that affect the actual living situation of benefit recipients under SGB 2 and SGB 12 in such a way that the regulations on standard benefit level 3 (Annex to § 28 SGB 12) cannot be considered unconstitutional, even in light of the principle of equal treatment under Article 3 of the Basic Law.
Note:
Similarly, LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of 10 June 2011, L 12 AS 1077/11; LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 24 October 2011, L 8 SO 275/11 B ER.
5. Decisions on asylum law
5.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 25 October 2012 – L 8 AY 7/10
No higher benefits under Section 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) before January 1, 2011
Until December 31, 2010, there is no entitlement to higher benefits under Section 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), even for decisions that have not yet become legally binding. According to the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 18, 2012 (1 BvL 10/10 and 1 BvL 2/11), a higher entitlement to benefits exists only for the period from January 1, 2011 onwards (paragraph 139).
6. Commentary by Judge Uwe Söhngen at juris on BSG – B 4 AS 163/11 R: Consideration of work-
related expenses when receiving unemployment benefit II
Guiding principle
: Consideration of work-related expenses beyond the tax law perspective when taking income into account is only required if this is necessary due to the objective of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which is to integrate benefit recipients into working life.
7. Attorney Stephan Felsmann, Kiel: Hartz IV recipients don't have to freeze – refueling with oil in winter – preliminary legal protection
The Social Court of Kiel has ruled in an expedited proceeding (S 30 AS 7/13 ER) that a family receiving benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is entitled to provisional heating costs for refueling with 500 liters of heating oil if the tank is almost empty.
Author of the legal case ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
