1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of December 11, 2012 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - BSG, judgment of December 11, 2012 - B 4 AS 27/12 R
Tax-free expense payments by the employer are to be taken into account as income within the meaning of SGB II.
This is not earmarked income on a private law basis, which, according to the legal situation until March 31, 2011, if a private law purpose was agreed upon, could possibly be disregarded (but see the now amended version of Section 11a Paragraph 3 SGB II as amended from 1.4 .2011; BT-Drucks 17/3404 p 94).
Additional meal expenses can be deducted from income up to the upper limit in accordance with Section 6 BRKG in conjunction with Section 4 Paragraph 5 EStG. For the period from the entry into force of Section 6 Paragraph 3 Alg II-V on January 1, 2008, the upper limits of the BRKG for the sole deductible actual meal expenses for absences of more than twelve hours apply.
No limitation to the flat rate amount of Section 6 AlhiV 2008 due to the lack of an opening clause.
Necessary expenses of a different kind - overnight stays or other incidental travel costs - can also be deducted from income in accordance with Section 11 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 5 SGB II - provided they have been proven.
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of January 30, 2013 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - BSG, judgment of January 30, 2013 - B 4 AS 37/12 R
No exclusion of benefits for foreigners during the first three months of their stay in Germany when joining a German spouse.
3. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - Hessian State Social Court, judgment of April 24, 2013 - L 6 AS 376/11
Child benefit accrued, which was counted as income towards the approval of SGB II benefits, remains income even if the approval of child benefit is retroactively revoked, because the approval of child benefit was made without an express reservation of repayment.
In cases in which the able-bodied child under 25 years of age lives with one of their own children in a household, the able-bodied mother under 25 years of age forms a community of needs with her child (Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 4 SGB II ), but not with her mother or the child's grandmother (as here: LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of March 25, 2011 - L 12 AS 910/10).
Note:
Same opinion - BSG, judgment of August 23, 2011 - B 14 AS 165/10 R ; specifically on the reclaim of child benefit: LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of March 21, 2012 - L 2 AS 5392/11).
3.2 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of
October 11, 2012 – L 6 U 6/10 – legally binding No accident insurance cover if you are looking for a job yourself
A job seeker's independent job search represents an economic activity that is not covered by the insurance coverage of Section 2 Paragraph 1 No. 14 SGB VII. This also applies if there is an integration agreement that stipulates an obligation to apply for jobs. (author's motto)
3.3 - State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, judgment of May 14, 2013 - L 13 AS 1389/11
Re-establishing a “habitual residence” within the meaning of Section 30 Paragraph 1 SGB I in Germany requires more than just staying in the federal territory for days or hours.
The (partial) exception to the reimbursement of accommodation costs according to Section 40 SGB II is not justified if there was no need anyway.
3.4 – LSG Hessen, decision of May 17, 2013, L 9 AS 247/13 B ER
If, due to illness, in an emergency-like conflict situation, the rent payments targeted by the job center were misused to purchase medication, the subsequent application for assumption of rent debts is usually justified, which is why the rent debts must be taken over.
Juri's guiding principle:
1. The requirement that the assumption of rental debts on a loan basis must be “justified” (Section 22 Paragraph 8 SGB II) is an indefinite legal term that must be interpreted in an evaluative manner taking into account the special circumstances of the individual case.
2. In the event of a conflict situation similar to an emergency due to illness, in which a person in need of assistance has used benefits for accommodation costs to purchase medication for a purpose other than that intended, the assumption of rental debts may still be justified. This interpretation of Section 22 Paragraph 8 SGB II requires Art. 2 Paragraph 1 GG in conjunction with. the welfare state principle (Art. 20 Para. 1 GG) and Article 2 Para. 2 Sentence 1 (see BVerfG, decision of December 6, 2005 - 1 BVerfG 347/98).
3. If the material prerequisites for termination of the rental agreement without notice in accordance with Sections 543 and 569 of the German Civil Code (BGB) are lacking, a reason for an order cannot be substantiated.
Source: Juris
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – Frankfurt am Main Social Court dated May 29, 2013
Claims for damages such as loss of use after a traffic accident are generally offset against Hartz IV benefits.
This type of compensation, like other compensation payments, is part of the income that Hartz IV recipients have to have taken into account. There is only an exception in the case of claims for pain and suffering, as these are highly personal claims.
4.2 - Speyer Social Court, decisions of October 31, 2012, file number: S 5 AS 1617/12 ER and of May 7, 2013, file number: S 5 AS 649/13 ER
No money from the job center for training eligible for Bafög funding
The exclusion of entitlement to unemployment benefit II depends solely on the eligibility of the training, regardless of whether the trainee is actually supported.
Press release 1/2013 Speyer Social Court
4.3 - Osnabrück Social Court, judgment of September 18, 2012 - S 16 AS 191/11 -, the appeal is pending at the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court under the file number L 15 AS 457/12. It is
possible to credit an inheritance as income despite the execution of the will
Press release from SG Osnabrück
Guiding principles (from juris):
1. If an heir is not exempt from previous inheritance and the execution of the will is ordered, the inheritance does not constitute a one-time income according to Section 11 Paragraph 3 SGB II (distinction from: BSG, judgment of January 25, 2012, B 14 AS 101 /11 R). In this respect, the restrictions on the execution of a will stand in the way of the heir's self-determined utilization of the inheritance. Only the claim against the executor and the benefits actually paid can then be taken into account (according to Section 11 Paragraph 1 SGB II).
2. Does the interpretation of the will (§ 2084 BGB, § 133 BGB) suggest comprehensive provision for the heir through a detailed list of the needs to be covered and is the provision limited to only additional services (in addition to services according to SGB II) in the will If not indicated, it can be assumed that the heir is fully provided for (distinction from and partial deviation from: LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of October 9, 2007, L 7 AS 3528/07 ER-B).
3. The beneficiary must enforce the claim against the executor arising from the will. If he fails to do this, the missing income is fictitiously taken into account (following: BVerwG, judgment of May 5, 1983, 5 C 112/81; see also: SG Dortmund, decision of September 25, 2009, p. 29 AS 309/09 ER).
4.4 – Aachen Social Court, judgment of April 23, 2013 – S 11 AS 323/12
In the case of illnesses where a (normal) complete diet is sufficient, there is no entitlement to additional nutritional requirements.
A diet necessary to reduce body weight does not cause any additional costs (see LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen judgment of February 28, 2012 - L 9 AS 585/08).
With regard to the existing lipid metabolism disorder, a special diet with higher costs than (normal) complete food is not necessary in accordance with the rationalization scheme (cf. also LSG Saxony-Anhalt judgment of July 25, 2012 - L 5 AS 436/10).
With regard to diabetes, whole food is not a costly diet that would trigger an additional requirement in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 5 SGB II. However, this complete diet is not a diet for the sick, but rather a diet that is based on the model of the healthy person (see LSG North Rhine-Westphalia judgment of May 14, 2012 - L 19 AS 1237/11 with reference to BSG judgment of May 10, 2011 – B 4 AS 100/10 R).
Note:
Compare Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of December 5, 2012 - L 16 AS 483/12
1. Whole food is not an expensive diet that would trigger an additional need in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 5 SGB II.
2. The whole diet is the usual diet. Whole food refers to a complete diet that contains all food components in a balanced ratio without restrictions and covers the calorie requirements.
5. Note on: BSG 4th Senate, judgment of August 23, 2012 - B 4 AS 32/12 R
Author: Uwe Söhngen, RiLSG
Release date: May 31, 2013
Higher rental costs due to modernization agreement than accommodation costs according to SGB II
Guiding principle: The actual accommodation costs to be borne also include the appropriate accommodation costs resulting from a modernization agreement after the need for assistance has arisen, without the beneficiary being able to be held against the lack of prior clarification with the SGB II provider.
Source Juris: www.juris.de
6. Attorney Helge Hildebrandt, Kiel social counseling: ALG II despite enrollment
It corresponds to the usual practice of the Kiel Job Center to only approve ALG II from the time of proven exmatriculation and to stop payments of ALG II from the time of enrollment.
This constant administrative practice is unlawful.
Read more: Hartz IV despite enrollment | Social advice Kiel
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
