1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 30 January 2013 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of January 30, 2013 – B 4 AS 54/12 R:
No exclusion from benefits due to residence for job seeking for a pregnant EU citizen from Bulgaria and imminent birth of a child and family formation.
juris.bundessozialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Basic Income Support for Job Seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Saxony State Social Court, Decision of 15 May 2013 – L 3 AS 391/13 B PKH
No legal aid despite constitutional review of the standard rates for children and young people
According to the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, the plaintiffs could be advised to await the outcome of an already pending so-called "pseudo-model case," i.e., another case concerning the same legal question. Until its conclusion, the appointment of a lawyer is not required.
Press release from the Saxon State Social Court dated June 6, 2013
2.2 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 07.05.2013 – L 3 AS 534/12 B PKH
The divorced wife of a benefit recipient under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), must provide information about her income and assets to the job center.
Section 60, paragraph 2, sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not differentiate between types of benefit or maintenance obligations.
Such a distinction does not arise from Section 60 Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Rather, by referring to Section 1605 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the legislator alluded to "the duty to provide information under maintenance law." Duty to provide information under maintenance law, to which Section 1605 BGB applies, exists, among other things, in the case of separated spouses (see Section 1361 Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 BGB) and divorced spouses (see Section 1580 Sentence 2 BGB). In both cases, the spouse concerned is obligated to provide information.
The mere possibility of a maintenance claim is sufficient to establish an obligation to provide information.
sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
See also Saxon State Social Court, judgment of 28 February 2013 – L 7 AS 745/11
The right to information under Section 60 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) also exists in the case of a conceivable claim by a benefit recipient for post-marital maintenance against a former spouse
2.3 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 06.12.2012 – L 3 AS 720/10
The fact that the upkeep of the house is shared does not constitute a community of need – an economic community.
Otherwise, every "shared apartment" where accommodation costs are shared would be an economic community
Note:
For the assumption of a community of responsibility and mutual support within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 3 Letter c SGB II – Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of August 23, 2012 – B 4 AS 34/12 R
2.4 – Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, Judgment of 12 March 2013 – L 6 AS 291/10
A recipient of unemployment benefit II with lactose intolerance is not entitled to additional support due to a costly diet if, due to his vegetarian lifestyle, he actually incurs no additional costs compared to a healthy person.
2.5 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 16 April 2013 – L 9 AS 4755/12
Reinstatement of the missed deadline for filing a lawsuit can also be granted without an application if the missed legal act is performed within the application period. The appellate court can also rule on this (following BSGE 71, 17).
2.6 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 28.05.2013 – L 9 AS 541/13 B – legally binding
grant of legal aid, because it is quite possible, if not even predominantly probable, that the person in need of assistance is entitled to higher benefits with regard to the claimed additional needs for decentralized hot water production pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Because the benefit recipient has a technical device that can determine the specific energy consumption for decentralized water heating and the resulting costs, a gas boiler is installed in their apartment that is used exclusively for heating water, and the benefit recipient has concluded a supply contract for the gas supply. It is precisely in such cases that the scope of application of the opening clause is opened.
The operating cost index of the German Tenants' Association for North Rhine-Westphalia for the year 2011, for example, shows hot water costs of €0.25 per m² per month, although it may need to be clarified whether this amount includes only the pure heating costs or also the hot water consumption costs, which are not covered by Section 21 Paragraph 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Based on the abstractly reasonable living space of 50 m² for a single person that has been in effect since 1 January 2010 (see BSG, judgment of 16 May 2012 – B 4 AS 109/11 R – para. 17), this would result in abstractly reasonable hot water costs of -12.50 euros per month.
2.7 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 28.05.2013 – L 9 AS 540/13 B – legally binding.
No entitlement to recognition of a higher additional need for decentralized hot water production pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 7 SGB II, because the benefit recipient did not actually incur any costs for hot water production.
An additional need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) exists only if and to the extent that the person entitled to benefits actually incurred financial expenses for decentralized hot water production during the period in question.
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Bremen Social Court, decision of 27.05.2013 – S 16 AS 786/13 ER
The question of how many persons in a household are to be taken into account when assessing the appropriateness of expenses pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), with regard to the aspect of appropriate living space.
The decisive factor here is the number of members of the household receiving benefits, not the number of residents, even if all residents belong to the same family.
In principle, a special space requirement is possible for specific situations, for example the care of a child who is not only temporarily housed away from home, but stays with the parents on weekends and during holidays (cf. SG Berlin, decision of 3 September 2007 — S 37 AS 19604/07 ER).
Source: Beier & Beier law firm
3.2 – Social Court Mainz, Judgment of 19.04.2013 – S 17 AS 518/12 – The appeal is admitted.
Only costs of accommodation that are significantly higher than the usual accommodation costs for households of comparable size and structure in the geographical comparison area are considered unreasonable within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II.
Adequacy of housing costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (Juris guidelines)
1. The Federal Social Court's (BSG) interpretation of the concept of adequacy in Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as defined by the "conclusive concept," is incompatible with the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living under Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with the social welfare principle of Article 20 Paragraph 1 GG, as further specified in the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of February 9, 2010 (Case Nos. 1 BvL 1/09, 1 BvL 3/09, 1 BvL 4/09).
2. There is no parliamentary legal basis sufficient to meet the procedural requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court for determining the accommodation-related subsistence minimum by means of rent ceilings based on basic housing standards.
3. The Chamber therefore specifies the concept of appropriateness in accordance with the principle of constitutionally compliant interpretation in such a way that only costs of accommodation that are significantly higher than the usual accommodation costs for households of comparable size and structure in the geographical comparison area are considered inappropriate within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Note:
See also Social Court Dresden judgment of 25 January 2013 – S 20 AS 4915/11; Social Court Leipzig judgment of 15 February 2013 – S 20 AS 2707/12
The “indeterminate legal concept” of “appropriateness” used in Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which is the sole textual basis for limiting the assumption of housing costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the SGB II, does not meet the requirements set by the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of February 9, 2010.
3.3 – Social Court Kassel, Judgment of 10 April 2013 – S 7 AS 793/10 – subsequently Hessian State Social Court, Case No.: L 6 AS 379/13
Since the introduction of Section 12 of the Housing Benefit Act (WoGG), unlike the predecessor regulation of Section 8 WoGG, which was in effect until December 31, 2008, a safety surcharge is no longer to be added to the values of Section 12 WoGG for assessing the appropriateness of accommodation costs, provided that the basic income support provider lacks a conclusive concept for the appropriateness of these costs.
Note:
The Federal Social Court (BSG) holds a different view in its established case law on the table values for Section 8 of the Housing Benefit Act (WoGG) (valid until December 31, 2008).
See, for example, the Federal Social Court's judgment of December 11, 2012 – B 4 AS 44/12 R.
4. After prior request by the job center, a medical certificate may also be required from the recipient of benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) confirming the inability to attend an appointment.
Source: German Bundestag / Labour and Social Affairs/Answer – 05.06.2013
5. Also current information: The start-up grant between viability and discretion, an article by Claus-Peter Bienert, printed in issue 3/2013
(Also, a note on the judgments of the Social Court of Karlsruhe of 17 January 2013 – S 16 AL 949/12 – and of the Social Court of Berlin of 8 March 2013 – S 58 AL 207/2013 in this issue).
www.info-also.nomos.de (pdf)
6. Current Social Law Issue 03/2013
The assessment of bridging allowance pursuant to Section 51 of the Prison Act as income or assets under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – new developments
An article by Prof. Dr. Corinna Grühn “Bremen” www.sozialrecht-aktuell.nomos.de (pdf)
7. Berlin, June 25, 2013: Sanctions under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – merely problematic or unconstitutional? A debate between Wolfgang Neðkoviã and Prof. Dr. Uwe Berlit
8. Floods: Important information for recipients of Hartz IV benefits.
Press release 033 from June 6, 2013.
Joint press release from the Federal Employment Agency (BA), the German Association of Cities (DST) and the German Association of Counties (DLT)
www.arbeitsagentur.de
(Announcement: Article, Social law claims for flood victims under SGB II/SGB III/SGB XII will soon be published on the Tacheles website)
Author of the legal case ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
