1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 14 February 2013 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 14.02.2013 – B 14 AS 62/12 R
Legal services for an application submitted to the authority for a stay of execution are not to be remunerated.
A settlement fee for participating in the resolution of an isolated preliminary proceeding by means of a remedial decision is only applicable if the lawyer has performed a special activity beyond simply filing and substantiating the objection. This is not the case here.
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 14.02.2013 – B 14 AS 51/12 R
If the salary payment is credited to the account on the same day that the applicant submits their application for benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), it is considered income.
The time of the credit to the account and the time of the application to the social security agency are irrelevant.
Note:
Since January 1, 2011, Section 37 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (new version) stipulates that the application has retroactive effect to the first of the month.
1.3 – Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of 14 February 2013 – B 14 AS 48/12 R
Even for an illness that is not included in the catalog of additional needs for a costly diet, there may be an entitlement to additional needs.
Even in cases of "lactose intolerance", additional costs can arise, which justify the additional needs for nutrition according to § 21 para. 5 SGB II.
1.4 – BSG, Judgment of 14.02.2013 – B 14 AS 198/11 R
The fundamental legislative decision not to exempt an injury pension from statutory accident insurance from consideration, even partially, as income within the meaning of Section 11 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is not objectionable under constitutional law.
Insofar as the ALG II-VO (Regulation on Unemployment Benefit II) stipulates as of July 1, 2011, that in cases such as the present one, an injury pension is to be partially disregarded as income, this constitutes the elimination of a result perceived as unfair for the future.
juris.bundessozialgericht.de
Note:
Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of 17 March 2009, B 14 AS 15/08 R
The disability pension due to a service-related injury as a conscript in the National People's Army must be fully taken into account as income when granting basic income support benefits for job seekers.
1.5 – BSG, Judgment of 14.02.2013 – B 14 AS 195/11 R
An administrative act replacing the integration agreement is unlawful because the job center, contrary to the legal requirement, ordered a validity period of ten months without exercising discretion.
However, the illegality does not arise simply from a claim to the conclusion of an integration agreement as the primary course of action for integration into employment.
The job center was entitled to replace the originally planned integration agreement with an administrative act containing the corresponding regulatory content, after the plaintiff had refused to conclude an agreement.
Note:
See also BSG: Integration agreement must first be rejected.
The 14th Senate thus partially contradicted an earlier decision of the 4th Senate of the BSG. On September 22, 2009, the latter had ruled that recipients of Hartz IV benefits have no right to conclude an individual integration agreement (Case No.: B 4 AS 13/09 R). There is no right to negotiate with the job center regarding integration and the assignment of a personal contact person.
However, according to the new ruling by the 14th Senate of the Federal Social Court (BSG), at least discussions must take place. Only if the Hartz IV recipient rejects an integration agreement can they be compelled to participate in integration measures by administrative act.
Source: www.juraforum.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – State Social Court Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 23 January 2013 – L 25 AS 1146/11 B PKH
Pursuant to Section 13 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), the authorized representative must provide written proof of their power of attorney upon request. If the power of attorney is not submitted within the specified deadline following such an official request, the procedural actions taken up to that point are invalid.
The lack of a power of attorney cannot be remedied by submitting the power of attorney in court proceedings.
Note:
Similarly – Chemnitz Social Court, judgment of 07.11.2012 – S 14 AS 2285/12
2.2 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of 22.11.2012 – L 5 AS 140/10, appeal was admitted.
Since the benefit recipient was receiving benefits at the time of his mother's death, the inheritance constitutes income pursuant to § 1922 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
The inheritance received was to be credited over a period of 6 months, as the person in need of assistance was able to fully cover their need for assistance during this time from the inheritance received.
Note:
The question of whether one-off income exceeding the need for assistance during the assessment period should be spread over several months with a remaining entitlement to benefits, if the income to be assessed exceeds the need for assistance in the accounting period, has not been clarified by a higher court.
2.3 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 13 February 2013 – L 2 AS 42/13 B
1. Even a reimbursement of operating costs that has not been paid out to the person in need of assistance, but has been offset against a future rent claim, results in an economic increase because it reduces the corresponding liability (cf. BSG, judgment of 16.05.2012 – B 4 AS 132/11 R).
2. According to the special regulation on the income crediting of repayments and credits in Section 22 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the relevant month for income crediting is, however, the month following the repayment or credit, deviating from the actual receipt of the income. Only the expenses incurred in this month are reduced.
(sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2.4 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 28 November 2012 – L 7 AS 244/12 B ER
Accommodation in a prison on the one hand and in a facility for medical rehabilitation within the meaning of Section 107 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) on the other hand, within the framework of Section 7 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), are subject to different regimes, which preclude an aggregation of the respective periods of stay.
Note:
The same result was reached by the Higher Social Court of Rhineland-Palatinate (LSG Rhld.-Pf.), decision of 19 June 2007 – L 3 ER 144/07 AS – and the Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg (LSG Bad.-Württ.), decision of 21 March 2006 – L 7 AS 1128/06 ER-B.
2.5 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 15 January 2013 – L 3 AS 1010/12 B PKH
Objections and appeals against a withdrawal or refusal decision pursuant to Section 66 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) are not covered by the exception provision of Section 86a Paragraph 2 No. 4 of the German Social Courts Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 39 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Note:
Likewise – Saxon State Social Court, decision of November 3, 2011 – L 3 AS 268/11 B PKH
2.6 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 27 December 2012 – L 3 AS 943/12 B PKH
Divorce necessitates a move in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), because there is no legal obligation for spouses to continue living in a shared household after separation.
The legislator also does not see an obligation to live together after a separation or divorce, neither when receiving benefits to secure one's livelihood under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), nor when receiving assistance for living expenses under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
2.7 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 21 January 2013 – L 7 AS 413/12 B
Reimbursement notices for benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are not immediately enforceable.
An application for a declaration of the suspensive effect of a legal remedy by analogy to Section 86b Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) is admissible and permissible if the respondent disputes the existence of the suspensive effect or – as in this case – initiates or has already carried out enforcement measures contrary to the existing suspensive effect (cf. Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of March 12, 2012 – L 12 AS 45/10 B).
2.8 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 31 January 2013 – L 7 AS 964/12 B ER
1. Parental contributions are not to be considered as income within the meaning of the regulations when calculating ALG II (see BSG of 6.10.2011 – B 14 AS 66/11 R).
2. An Irish national is entitled to ALG II (unemployment benefit II), an entitlement to social assistance is not possible (cf. LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 28.06.2012 – L 14 AS 933/12 B ER).
3. The exclusion provision of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) violates higher-ranking law, namely Articles 18 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the principle of equal treatment under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 (leaving open: Federal Social Court, Judgment of 30 January 2013 – B 4 AS 54/12 R).
2.9 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 04.02.2013 – L 15 AS 378/12 B ER
1. If the file does not contain a note about the date of posting, the deemed receipt provision of Section 37 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) does not apply (Federal Social Court judgment of 03.03.2009 – B 4 AS 37/08 R – Rn. 17).
2. If a person entitled to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), has committed themselves in an integration agreement to ensure their postal accessibility, and culpably breaches this obligation, they may, under certain circumstances, be treated in good faith as if they had received an administrative act whose receipt they deny. (
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2.10 – LSG Thüringen, Judgment of 06.12.2012 – L 9 AS 430/09
Job center must pay €600 in abuse costs due to a legal dispute over 15 cents.
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Hildesheim Social Court, decision of 19 December 2012 – S 26 AS 1917/12 ER
1. A certificate regarding the amount of the exempt amount within the meaning of Section 850k Paragraph 5 Sentence 2 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) is not an administrative act. A corresponding request must be pursued in the main proceedings as a (genuine) action for performance (Section 54 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Court Act (SGG)).
2. The request for certification of the exempt amount can only be pursued by the holder of the protected account, not by third parties for whose benefit payments are made to the protected account.
3. The holder of a protected bank account (Pfändungsschutzkonto) has no right to a certificate from the social security provider stating the amount exempt from seizure. The provider must, if necessary, have the amounts determined by the enforcement court.
(sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
3.2 – Gießen Social Court, Judgment of 14 January 2013 – S 29 AS 676/11
The sanction must be lifted if the job center cannot prove that the notification of legal consequences was properly issued.
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Hamburg State Social Court, Judgment of 21 January 2013 – L 4 SO 44/11
No entitlement to the assumption of part of his accommodation costs by way of integration assistance.
However, this requires that the accommodation costs do not arise as daily living expenses (as with regular school attendance by a non-disabled person), but are necessarily due to the special circumstances of the disability.
This is the case if appropriate schooling cannot be provided closer to the place of residence and daily commuting (to school) is unreasonable (see LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 8.3.2006, L 23 B 16/06 SO ER).
If a person seeking assistance attends a school from their place of residence, the expenses for accommodation are not caused by the school attendance, but are part of the "general" needs, the coverage of which is not the task of integration assistance.
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
5.1 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of May 24, 2012 – L 2 AL 82/09
No fictitious calculation of unemployment benefits for a legal trainee based on achievable income as a judge.
6. Burial according to § 74 SGB XII (as of 01/13)
Dr. jur. Wigo Müller, Braunfels – Lahn ArbG – Director a. D.
7. Attorney Helge Hildebrandt, Social Welfare Consultant Kiel: Allowances according to § 11b SGB II to be deducted from monthly income.
Confirmed once again in today's hearing by the Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court: Even if two monthly salaries are received in one month, the allowances according to § 11b SGB II must be granted for each month in which work was performed. The Plön Job Center withdrew its appeal.
8. Social Law in Freiburg – Hartz IV – Social Assistance – Health Insurance: New publications in our procedural overview
1. Publication on our website regarding rent deposit loans
2. LSG Essen orders social welfare office to cover the costs of a personal night watchman
3. Federal Social Court opens up possibilities for additional needs allowances for lactose intolerance
www.srif.de
Author of the legal case ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
