1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, judgment of April 25, 2013 - L 36 AS 2095/12 NK, the appeal is allowed
Berlin Housing Expenses Ordinance (WAV) ineffective.
www.lifepr.de
Note:
Likewise – Berlin Social Court, judgment of February 22, 2013 – S 37 AS 30006/12
1.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of March 19, 2013 – L 16 AS 61/13 B ER
A reason for an order - i.e. urgency - exists even before the landlord files the eviction action.
It is generally unreasonable to create grounds for termination under civil law.
Note:
Different opinion: LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of January 17, 2013 - L 19 AS 2449/12 B ER
According to consistent case law, establishing a credible reason for the granting of accommodation and heating benefits in accordance with Section 22 SGB II does not simply require the risk that debts will arise.
Rather, what is required is an acute threat to the accommodation, which can only be assumed from the time an eviction notice is served.
1.3 - Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of March 27, 2013 - L 11 AS 810/11, appeal is permitted
Multiple consideration of the basic allowance of 100 euros within a month and a deviation from the accrual principle are not necessary if two wages are accrued within a calendar month .
The basic allowance according to Section 11 Paragraph 2 Sentence SGB II old version (now Section 11b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 SGB II) is to be viewed as a monthly expense that is to be deducted from the total income (from employment) in the month for which the expense is taken into account is received, regardless of the sources of income from which the actual inflow comes and under what actual or legal conditions this inflow of income came about.
Note:
Different opinion: LSG NRW, North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of December 18, 2012 - L 7 AS 652/12, appeal pending at the BSG under the case number B 14 AS 13/13 R; SG Berlin, judgment of January 18, 2012, Ref.: S 55 AS 30011/10).
If two monthly wages are received from the same employment relationship within a calendar month, the allowances must be deducted for each monthly wage.
1.4 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of April 19, 2013 - L 2 AS 99/13 B legally binding,
taking into account Section 10 Para. 5 BEEG, which was newly added on January 1, 2011, to fully offset parental allowance against SGB II benefits.
Something different only applies if income was earned from employment until the birth of the child. Section 10 Paragraph 5 BEEG is also constitutional (North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of April 18, 2012 - L 19 AS 2012/11).
Taking into account the wording, legal materials and the principles developed by the Federal Constitutional Court, it can be assumed that the constitutionality of Section 10 Paragraph 5 BEEG has been sufficiently clarified
Note:
This is also the case – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of November 29, 2012 – L 19 AS 1283/12 B; Decision of January 6, 2012 – L 7 AS 1107/11 B; Resolution of January 4, 2012 – L 12 AS 2089/11 B; Hessian State Social Court, decision of February 1, 2013 – L 6 AS 817/12 B; Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of October 22, 2012 - L 14 AS 1607/12 NZB).
1.5 – Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, judgment of March 12, 2013 – L 6 AS 623/11
The consideration of parental allowance since January 1, 2011 as an income that reduces benefits in the basic security for job seekers is legal and not constitutionally objectionable.
Note:
Also: Hessian State Social Court, decision of February 1, 2013 - L 6 AS 817/12 B
The legal question of whether the crediting of accrued parental allowance to benefits under SGB II in accordance with Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II in the version applicable here from January 1, 2011 is constitutional no longer appears to be in view of the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court needs clarification.
1.6 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of March 22, 2013 - L 11 AS 949/10 B
The approval of PKH does not conflict with the fact that the legal prosecution only has a chance of success with regard to small amounts in the “cent range”.
In particular, legal disputes over small amounts are not (solely) wanton because of their low value in dispute. The approval of PKH does not fail simply because of the low amount in dispute, which is in the one-part euro area, due to the need to appoint a lawyer in accordance with Section 121 Paragraph 2 ZPO. A different assessment would contradict the requirements of the BVerfG on the requirement of equal perception of rights in the sense of Art 3 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Art 20 Paragraph 3 GG (cf. BVerG, decision of March 24, 2011 - 1 BvR 1737/10)
Finally, it is inadmissible to reduce the question of whether representation by a lawyer appears necessary to an exclusive assessment of the relationship between the amount in dispute and the cost risk. What is more important is whether a person in the situation of someone without means would reasonably have hired a lawyer to represent his or her interests. This can generally be assumed if there is a clear imbalance in the level of knowledge and skills of those involved in the process.
www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
The same result: Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of September 7, 2012 - L 18 AS 1832/12 B PKH
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Gelsenkirchen Social Court, judgment of March 11, 2013 – S 36 AS 1433/12, appeal permitted
Spanish citizens are not entitled to ALG 2.
The exclusion of benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II is compatible with European Community law.
The exclusion of benefits declared on the basis of Directive 2004/38/EC according to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II does not violate the requirement of equal treatment according to Article 4 of Regulation 883/2004.
The EFA does not apply - there are no concerns about the effectiveness of this reservation.
socialjustice.de
Note:
Likewise: Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of November 9, 2012 - L 29 AS 1782/12 B ER
Spanish citizens are not entitled to ALG II
Note:
Different opinion: Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of August 15, 2012, - L 19 AS 1851/12 B ER –
Spanish citizens are entitled to ALG II.
2.2 - SG Berlin, judgment of April 5, 2013 - S 37 AS 13126/12
Benefit recipients are entitled to additional nutritional requirements in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 5 SGB II in the event of lactose intolerance in the amount of EUR 13 per month.
The report should be given preference over the mere recommendations of the DV, especially since it specifically addresses the additional costs associated with lactose intolerance.
Full text of the decision: www.harald-thome.de (pdf)
For the report: www.harald-thome.de (pdf)
Note:
Similar results: Dresden Social Court, judgments of September 18, 2012, - S 38 AS 5649/09 and - S 38 AS 17/11
The benefit recipient is entitled to additional nutritional requirements for lactose intolerance in the amount of EUR 1.00 per day - EUR 30.00 per month.
2.3 – Mainz Social Court, judgment of April 11, 2013 – S 10 AS 1221/11
In order to start work, it may be reasonable for a recipient of unemployment benefit II to travel home from work through an industrial area at night.
2.4 – Bremen Social Court, judgment of April 11, 2013 – S 4 KR 27/11
Ex-freelancer: Fund is allowed to reject Hartz IV recipients - No statutory health insurance for formerly self-employed people
Section 5 Paragraph 5a SGB V is also applicable to formerly self-employed people who were not self-employed immediately before receiving ALG II.
The only decisive factor is that they were most recently self-employed before submitting the application (affiliation with LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, resolution of August 23, 2010, file number L 16 KR 329/10 B ER and resolution of April 30, 2012, file number L 16 KR 134 /12 B ER).
socialjustice.de
Note:
Different opinion: LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of December 23, 2010, Ref. L 1 KR 368/10 B ER, L 1 KR 370/10 B PKH; Resolution of March 11, 2011, Ref. L 1 KR 326/10
3. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 - SG Mainz, judgment of April 9, 2013 - S 4 AL 194/11
The employment agency must also take into account additional costs for condominiums for trainees who no longer live with their parents.
3.2 – Karlsruhe Social Court, judgment of April 22, 2013 – S 11 AL 3545/12
No entitlement to unemployment benefit I due to the seamlessness regulation
The seamlessness regulation according to Section 145 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB III does not apply if both insurance carriers assume that there is an objective ability to perform and only the unemployed person believes that his ability to perform has been eliminated.
The aim of the seamless regulation is not to ensure seamless receipt of benefits until the conclusion of pension proceedings.
4. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia L 20 SO 358/12 B April 5, 2013 legally binding
According to Section 116a SGB up to four years before the withdrawal, for the withdrawal of an illegal non-favoring administrative act in the scope of benefits of SGB XII only with the proviso that the period of four years is replaced by a period of one year.
The requirements of the transitional provision of § 136 SGB XII, according to which § 116a SGB XII does not apply to applications according to § 44 SGB not fulfilled.
In the present case, there is already no application in accordance with Section 44 SGB X, which the transitional regulation of Section 136 SGB
In this case, the social welfare agency did not review the original approval decision on the occasion of a review request submitted by the applicant in accordance with Section 44 SGB
5. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Düsseldorf Social Court, judgment of April 17, 2013 – S 17 SO 483/11
No reimbursement of costs for inpatient hospital treatment as an emergency aid claim in accordance with Section 25 SGB XII if the applicant had significant assets (Section 2 Paragraph 1 SGB XII).
The provision of Section 25 SGB Recourse to general compensation provisions, in particular the rules of public law management without a mandate, is therefore excluded (also State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of February 27, 2012, Ref.: L 20 SO 48/11).
6. Comments on court decisions of SGB 2 and SGB 3
6.1 – Note from RiSG Berlin Udo Geiger to SG Mannheim, judgment of August 23, 2012 - S 14 AL 2139/12 Discretionary reduction to zero when deciding on a start-up grant
See: www.sociales-netzwerk-bgs.de
6.2 – Burden of proof for receipt of application letters
Bavarian State Social Court, decision of May 21, 2012 - L 16 AS 297/12 B ER (www.ra-klose.com/html/bay-lsg-l16as-297-12-b-er.html)
Guiding principle (of the editorial team):
If someone can prove with witnesses that their application letter was sent, which the employer ultimately did not receive, then it cannot be assumed that the initiation of the employment relationship was prevented without taking evidence, because the loss of the letter not only in the mail, but also conceivable in the processing of the case by the potential employer.
Short note from the editors:
Continue here: www.sociales-netzwerk-bgs.de
Thomé “Dossier confirmation of receipt”: www.harald-thome.de (pdf)
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
