1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of August 22, 2012 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of August 22, 2012 – B 14 AS 103/11 R
However, the privileging of compensation payments only covers the asset base, not the fruits that may be derived from it, for example in the form of interest.
Interest income from compensation for pain and suffering is to be taken into account as income - like all other inflows of money.
juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of November 29, 2012 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - BSG, judgment of November 29, 2012 - B 14 AS 36/12 R
If a Hartz IV recipient lives in a home with his mother who does not need help, the job center may, in exceptional cases, be obliged to cover the full additional costs.
This is the case if the child has received their own home from their parents in advance as an inheritance and in return they have been contractually guaranteed rent-free living. As an exception, when several people lived together in one apartment, the KdU did not have to be divided according to the headboard method.
The determination of the needs for accommodation and heating must be carried out on a monthly basis, although in order to examine the appropriateness of the use of private homes and condominiums, the costs incurred in the calendar year must be taken into account because, in particular, the operating costs for private homes (e.g. property taxes, insurance contributions) are not monthly , but may be incurred annually, semi-annually or quarterly.
3. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of November 15, 2012 on social assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – BSG, judgment of November 15, 2012 – B 8 SO 22/10 R
The right to procure accommodation is provided in SGB
People in special living conditions with social difficulties who are unable to overcome them on their own; Need for general support.
Acts of support under these regulations are not necessarily administrative acts, so preliminary proceedings would not necessarily have been necessary.
3.2 – BSG, judgment of November 15, 2012 – B 8 SO 25/11 R
If inpatient care services are granted and costs directly related to the move arise after moving from one's own home to the nursing home, the social welfare provider must cover these additional needs as a further necessary living expense if the conditions for covering moving costs outside of inpatient services are otherwise met .
The benefits mentioned in Section 27b SGB
4. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 - Bavarian State Social Court, decision of January 11, 2013 - L 7 AS 3/13 B ER
1. Substance of the main matter in the ER
a) If a rejection notice becomes final, an application for interim legal protection becomes inadmissible. There is then no longer any room for a provisional interim regulation by the court (cf. BayLSG, decision of April 12, 2010, L 7 AS 144/10 B ER).
b) If a rejection decision becomes final after the court has issued an interim order, the authority obliged to provide the service can assert this in an application to the court to modify the decision. It is not the authority's responsibility to arbitrarily stop the performance obligation ordered by the court. For this reason, there is no need for the addition “until the substance of the matter is final” in an interim order.
2. Accommodation costs in accordance with Section 22 SGB II
a) Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 SGB II allows the authority to assume slightly higher costs for accommodation and heating for economic reasons (in particular due to moving costs) than the adequacy limit according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II allows . This does not result in a claim to receive a supplement to the adequacy limit even for an apartment that is much too expensive.
b) When determining the appropriateness limit according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, the BSG pointed out that “ghetto formation” should be avoided.
This means that the adequacy limit cannot only be determined from apartments in “ghettos”. However, this does not mean that the appropriateness limit has to be determined separately for particularly expensive and popular city districts.
socialjustice.de
4.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of March 31, 2013 – L 7 AS 883/12 B PKH
1. The provisional nature of a decision must be clearly established in accordance with the case law of the BSG. If a provisional decision is revoked in accordance with Sections 45, 48 SGB
2. In the case of an action for rescission and obligation, the costs of preliminary proceedings are decided according to the principle of unit costs as part of the cost decision in accordance with Section 193 SGG.
3. If a remedial decision also resolves a previous objection decision and the remedial decision does not again decide on the costs of the preliminary proceedings, the type of action with regard to the costs action according to Section 63 SGB is relevant with regard to a cost decision in the remedial decision.
Note:
Regarding the requirements that the BSG sets for the clarity of the provisional order (cf. BSG judgment of April 6, 2011, Ref.: B 4 AS 119/10 R Rz. 18.19).
4.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of January 28, 2013 – L 7 AS 822/12 B PKH
A difficult, as yet unresolved legal question must not be decided in legal aid proceedings.
Whether the rule requirement set by the legislature for the period from 2011 is unconstitutional is not a difficult, yet unresolved legal question. The legislature adhered very closely to the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court. The Federal Constitutional Court emphasized the legislature's scope for action and essentially called for the minimum subsistence level to be determined in a conclusive procedure.
Criticism of the new rule requirement has remained isolated and is not convincing.
Note:
Different opinion - order for reference SG Berlin, decision of April 25, 2012, S 55 AS 29349/12 - for submission to the Federal Constitutional Court - Ref: 1 BvL 12/12
4.4 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of March 31, 2013 – L 7 AS 572/12 NZB
With regard to cancellation and reclaim notices, there is no longer any fundamental significance with regard to the specificity of the notice and the crediting of additional unemployment benefit payments to Alg II.
The fact that back-paid unemployment benefit I is to be taken into account as income in the month of inflow has been clarified by the highest court, see only BSG judgment of September 30, 2008, B 4 AS 29/07 R, judgment of July 30, 2008, B 14 AS 26/07 R.
There is also supreme court case law regarding the certainty requirements for cancellation and repayment notices in the area of SGB II, especially with regard to the individual members of the community of needs (cf. BSG judgment of December 15, 2010, B 14 AS 92/09 R, judgment of May 16, 2012, B 4 AS 154/11 R each with further details).
4.5 - Hessian State Social Court, judgment of January 25, 2013 - L 7 AS 697/11, appeal is permitted
1. The granting of benefits by the first provider in accordance with Section 43 SGB I is not excluded within the scope of application of Section 14 SGB IX if - as here – one of the providers involved disregards the regulation of Section 14 SGB IX.
2. A dispute within the meaning of Section 43 SGB I regarding jurisdiction between providers does not finally disappear if the jurisdiction regulation in Section 14 SGB IX comes into play.
3. A claim for reimbursement can then arise from Section 102 SGB X.
4.6 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of January 30, 2013 – L 12 AS 1571/11
A check of 900 euros forwarded from the daughter to the father is income despite the debt being paid off.
Check is creditable income because the check was cashed by the father and at that moment reduced an existing debt obligation of the daughter to her father by this amount.
4.7 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of February 7, 2013 - L 7 AS 1956/12 B
Granting of PKH, because the exclusion of Bulgarian and Romanian citizens from any basic security is both under European law and in accordance with Article 1 of the Basic Law (GG). With regard to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 18, 2012 (1 BvL 10/10, 1 BvL 2/11), this is doubtful and must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Note:
Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of February 29, 2012 - L 20 AS 2347/11 B ER
Romanian citizens are excluded from benefits under SGB II.
Note:
State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of November 28, 2012 - L 7 AS 2109/11 B ER -
Bulgarian citizens are not entitled to ALG II - but to the standard requirements without the costs of accommodation and heating in accordance with Sections 27, 27a SGB XII.
4.8 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of January 21, 2013 – L 19 AS 2101/12
There is no effective challenge to a settlement if, in order to justify the continuation of the proceedings, the plaintiffs state that they arrived at a lower reimbursement amount through later calculations than the amount that was the subject of the agreement at the meeting, then this represents at best an insignificant error of motivation (cf. in this regard Bavarian LSG judgment of September 24, 2012 – L 7 AS 432/12, Rn 28).
4.9 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of February 6, 2013 - L 19 AS 1414/12 B
Rejection of legal aid for a lawsuit regarding integration services for a laptop because there is no previous application.
The application requirement of Section 37 Paragraph 1 SGB in the version valid until December 31, 2010 (from January 1, 2011 Section 37 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II) also applies to integration services that are not already covered by the application for benefits according to SGB II are included.
A retroactive effect of the application according to Section 37 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 SGB II in the version valid until December 31, 2010 is excluded, as is the fiction of a timely application for the right to production under social law (cf. BSG judgment of February 16, 2012 - B 4 AS 77/11 R, Rn 22 ff.). In particular, there is no apparent fault on the part of the job center in providing advice.
Note:
Also in the results of the State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of December 11, 2012 - L 6 AS 466/12 B
Integration services (application costs) must be applied for separately in accordance with Section 37 Paragraph 1 SGB II and in accordance with Section 37 Paragraph 2 SGB II before the need arises.
An application for further approval for unemployment benefit II does not include an application for integration benefits.
4.10 - Saxon State Social Court, decision of December 4, 2012 - L 3 AS 1000/12 B ER
1. An originally admissible application for an interim order cannot be successful if it is certain that the applicant no longer has an enforceable main claim (Sächsisches LSG, decision of February 12, 2008 (ref. L 3 B 595/07 AS-ER)
2. Hartz IV recipients do not have to use their overdraft facility to have a court issue an interim order, because it does not involve the realization of assets.
4.11 - Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of January 18, 2013 - L 34 AS 2968/12 B ER
Recipients of training allowance according to Section 104 SGB III (now Section 122 SGB III) are generally subject to the exclusion of benefits for trainees according to Section 7 Paragraph 5 SGB II .
Note:
Same result - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of July 4, 2012 - L 15 AS 168/12 B ER.
4.12 - Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of November 28, 2012 - L 25 AS 2743/12 B ER
Polish nationals are entitled to ALG II in the preliminary legal protection procedure on the basis of an assessment of the consequences.
The court still considers it problematic whether and under what specific conditions the provision of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II may even apply to a Union citizen (cf. fundamental decision of May 23, 2012 - L 25 AS 837/12 B ER).
Note:
State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of December 20, 2012 - L 6 AS 1897/12 B ER -
Granting of ALG II as part of the assessment of the consequences for a Polish citizen.
4.13 - Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of January 30, 2013 - L 34 AS 1030/12 B PKH
No entitlement to PKH for the blanket review application due to the applicant's lack of cooperation and obligation to provide.
There can be no doubt that “such a far-reaching request for review corresponds to the corresponding requirements for cooperation on the part of the entitled person” (cf. the BSG decision of March 14, 2012 – B 4 AS 239/11).
socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note:
Same result - Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, judgment of October 26, 2012 - L 5 AS 949/11
If a blanket request for review is submitted - without specifically naming the notices and legal objections to be reviewed - the authority can reject it without carrying out a substantive review.
5. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
5.1 – Berlin Social Court, decision of February 11, 2013 – S 96 AS 11664/12
In the case of a blanket review request, the basic security provider may refrain from carrying out a substantive review due to a lack of relevant submissions from the applicant, because it is neither clear which notices should be reviewed and to what extent, nor from what perspective “in individual cases” (cf. Section 44 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB X) the applicant could have a claim for redemption.
Note:
Likewise - LSG Berlin-Brandenburg from September 29, 2011, L 29 AS 728/11, - BSG - from March 14, 2012, file number B 4 AS 239/11 B; see also: LSG Berlin-Brandenburg v. November 22, 2011, L 34 AS 2050/11 B, Rn. 3 with further references
6. Decisions of the state social courts on employment promotion (SGB III)
6.1 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of January 17, 2013 - L 9 AL 67/12, appeal was allowed
1. The employment agency was not allowed to reject the application for the granting of wage security benefits for older employees because the late submission of the application was solely due to the violation of the authority's obligation to provide information and advice is due.
2. It is not at the discretion of the employment agency as to which services it is responsible for are included in the integration agreement (see BSG, judgment of December 6, 2012 - B 11 AL 15/11 R).
Note:
According to Section 324 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB III, the employment agency can allow late applications to be submitted in order to avoid undue hardship.
Note: Wage security for older employees - Implementation instructions - 7th supplement - as of April 1, 2012
7. Decisions on asylum law
7.1 – Aachen Social Court, decision of February 21, 2013 – S 20 AY 2/13 ER
Persons entitled to asylum are entitled to the granting of living benefits according to the AsylbLG in the amount as determined by the BVerfG in its decision of July 18, 2012 as part of a transitional regulation until the legal situation that has been determined to be unconstitutional is eliminated.
The above-mentioned transitional regulation provisionally establishes the subsistence minimum with the force of law. This must not be undercut in any case - not even through a restriction of benefits in accordance with Section 1a AsylbLG.
The existence of the factual requirements of § 1a AsylbLG is not important (also: SG Altenburg, decision of October 11, 2012 - S 21 AY 3362/12 ER; SG Düsseldorf, decision of November 19, 2012 - S 17 AY 81/12 ER; SG Lüneburg, resolution of December 13, 2012 - S 26 AY 26/12 ER; SG Leipzig, resolution of December 20, 2012 - S 5 AY 55/12 ER; SG Magdeburg, resolution of January 24, 2013 - S 22 AY 25/ 12 ER; SG Stade, decision of January 28, 2013 - S 19 AY 59/12).
The “indispensable” benefits coincide with the subsistence minimum described in this way (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of February 6, 2013 – L 15 AY 2/13 B ER).
7.2 - Düsseldorf Social Court, decision of November 19, 2012 - S 17 AY 81/12 ER, pending at the LSG NRW under the reference number: L 20 AY 153/12
The judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 18, 2012 - reference number: 1 BvL 10/10, 1 BvL 2/11 provisionally establishes with legal force the subsistence minimum for benefits under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act.
This may not be undercut in any case, not even through a restriction of benefits in accordance with Section 1a AsylbLG.
8. The KEAs e.
V. - Cologne's unemployed people in action - Federal Social Court corrects itself - Integration agreements should be agreed www.die-keas.org
9. Liability of heirs according to § 35 SGB II, an essay by Michael Grosse/Alfons Gunkel, printed in the info issue 01/2013.
www.info-also.nomos.de (pdf)
10. Obligations of job seekers and the practice of employment administration when registering job seekers early in accordance with Section 38 Paragraph 1 SGB III, an article by Samartzis, printed in the magazine Sozialrecht aktuell, issue 01/2013.
www.socialright-aktuell.nomos.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
