1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of May 23, 2013 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of May 23, 2013 – B 4 AS 67/11 R
Husband also has to pay for stepchildren - men who live with an unemployed partner also have to pay for their children.
In the case of a minor child who - as here - lives in a stepchild family, the legal bond created by the marriage between the parent and the stepparent is sufficient as a sufficient basis for the legislature's typical assumption that the increased parental responsibility of one spouse towards their minor child and the stepparent's knowledge of this circumstance from the outset will form the basis for the partners' coexistence and the structure of the marriage (e.g. in relation to the distribution of childcare and employment). In order to take the partner's income into account for the child, it is therefore not necessary to determine separately and to determine on a case-by-case basis whether and, if so, to what extent there is a “will to commit” within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 3 Letter c SGB II in the relationship between the spouse and the child.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of June 4, 2013 on employment promotion (SGB III)
2.1 - BSG, judgment of June 4, 2013 - B 11 AL 8/12 R
The provision of a sign language interpreter for a disabled person's vocational school course during training falls under the responsibility of the Federal Employment Agency as other assistance within the scope of benefits for participation in working life.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
3. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - Hessian State Social Court, judgment of September 20, 2013 - L 7 AS 474/13 -, the appeal is permitted.
Greek citizens are entitled to ALG II.
The exclusion of benefits according to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II does not apply to Union citizens because it conflicts with Regulation (EC) 883/2004 (also resolution of February 12, 2013 - L 7 AS 786/ 12 B ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Likewise - LSG Hessen, decision of December 18, 2012 -L 7 AS 624/12 B ER, on the comparable case of a Union citizen with Romanian nationality.
3.2 - LSG NRW, judgment of October 10, 2013 - L 19 AS 129/13 -, the appeal was permitted.
Hartz IV entitlement for Romanian migrants – a long unsuccessful job search justifies the claim
Romanian citizens who continue to reside in the federal territory after a long, objectively hopeless job search are entitled to ALG 2.
Employable EU citizens who have a right of residence for reasons other than looking for work are not covered by the exclusion of benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II. This also applies to EU citizens without a reason for residence within the meaning of Community law on freedom of movement.
Source: Press release from the LSG NRW from October 10, 2013, can be found here: www.justiz.nrw.de
Note:
See resolutions of the 19th Senate of the LSG NRW v. 08/22/2013 – L 19 AS 766/13 B ER legally binding and decision of. from July 19, 2013 – L 19 AS 942/13 B ER, published here: Sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de ; See also: Hartz IV for Romanian families. Interior Minister Friedrich warns of more poverty refugees after court ruling, here: www.spiegel.de
3.3 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of February 28, 2013 - L 7 AS 506/11, appeal pending at the BSG under the reference: B 14 AS 48/13 R
Benefit recipient (LB) is entitled to take over a decision decided by the majority of the homeowners' association Special levy for the renovation of 4 balconies as a one-off expense for the accommodation costs in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 2 SGB II.
1. The fact that the balconies affected by the renovation do not belong to the LB's apartment or cannot be used by him does not prevent them from being considered as accommodation costs. It is recognized in case law that a flat rate repair fee owed in accordance with Section 16 Paragraph 2 of the Condominium Property Act (WEG) counts as accommodation costs in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 2 SGB II old version (LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, judgment of July 23, 2009, Ref.: L 5 AS 111/09, LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of May 9, 2006, Ref.: L 10 AS 102/06, open in BSG, judgment of August 22, 2012, Ref.: B 14 AS 1/12 R).
2. Value-increasing renovation measures (here renovation of the balcony) are generally not covered by Section 22 SGB II because it is not the task of the transfer payments financed from public tax revenues according to SGB II or SGB XII to finance basic renovation and maintenance work and thus to the recipient of the benefit to enable an increase in his assets, which he could realize even after he possibly stops receiving benefits. Neither Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB II nor Article 14 GG provides a claim to benefits for the maintenance of a property or its renovation.
3. However, this principle must be modified if maintenance and renovation work is necessary. The increase in value that is usually associated with a necessary renovation on a larger scale is only a result of the necessary maintenance and does not eliminate the ability to be taken into account.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.4 – Hamburg State Social Court, judgment of September 12, 2013 – L 4 AS 130/13
To take repayment payments into account for home ownership if the loan was not taken out to purchase the property but rather for the purpose of renovating the property.
1. No assumption of repayment payments from an apartment owner, because the repayment of the loan taken out by the benefit recipients will take a longer period of time; The debts have not yet been largely paid off. The aspect of capital formation concerns the repayment payments in full, because the LB benefit from any repayment through the acquisition of unencumbered property (BSG, judgment of June 18, 2008, B 14/11b AS 67/06 R).
2. The benefits according to SGB II are limited to current livelihood security and should not serve to build wealth. With regard to the protection of the basic need “housing” under SGB II, exceptions to this principle are only indicated in special exceptional cases when it comes to maintaining home ownership, the financing of which has already been largely completed at the time basic security benefits are received (see judgments of the BSG of July 7, 2011, B 14 AS 79/10 R, and of February 16, 2012, B 14 AS 14/11 R; judgment of the LSG Hamburg of September 8, 2011, L 5 AS 4/09).
3. It is also irrelevant that the loan was not taken out to purchase the property, but rather for the purpose of renovating the property. Not only did this situation - apart from the fact that the amount of the loan taken out indicates major renovation work - go back many years and therefore has nothing to do with maintenance while the basic security benefits are being received, but the corresponding expenses would also have to be taken into account In any case, this would only have been possible if this did not lead to an improvement in the standard of owner-occupied homes (BSG, judgment of March 3, 2009, B 4 AS 38/08 R). But that's how it is here, because there is talk of a basic renovation of the heating system, a new, thermally insulated roof covering, the installation of thermally insulating windows and doors, etc. (see also BSG, judgment of August 22, 2012, B 14 AS 1/12 R) .
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.5 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of September 26, 2013 – L 7 AS 1121/13
No reimbursement of the costs for replacing the heating system if there are functional individual oil stoves, because these are not unavoidable expenses for maintenance and repairs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 2 SGB II.
1. The need for maintenance and repair measures within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 2 SGB II is triggered by the fact that structural or other defects exist or are imminently imminent, which currently impair the substance or habitability of the property (negated here).
2. It was left open whether the paid-out building savings balance significantly exceeded the asset exemption limit relevant for the person in need of help (Section 12 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 Nos. 1 and 4 SGB II) and assets to be taken into account (Sections 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence. 1 No. 3, 9 Paragraph 1, 12 Paragraph 1 SGB II) or assets that are protected but can be used - appropriately - to maintain their residential property (Section 12 Paragraph 3 No. 5 SGB II).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.6 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony - Bremen, judgment of May 29, 2013 - L 13 AS 268/11
On the term partner within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 3 c) SGB II
1. According to common usage, a partnership is characterized by the fact that its members confess to each other in the sense that the other is “the partner” or “the girlfriend or the boyfriend”, that they are “together” or live in a relationship or something similar; What is essential is the commitment to one another that underlies all of these designations, although it is of course not crucial what those involved say to third parties or even authorities when asked, but rather how their relationship to one another is actually structured in the sense of an objective element of the crime.
2. The existence of a “willingness to take responsibility and accept responsibility” within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 3c SGB II and the presumption regulation of Section 7 Paragraph 3a SGB II is an element that only needs to be checked in established partnerships.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.7 - Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court 13th Senate, judgment of August 28, 2013, L 13 AS 301/11
Reimbursement of expenses in accordance with Section 63 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB X
If the objection is successful, you are entitled to reimbursement of costs. It arises not only if the objection is completely successful, but - as can be seen from the introductory word "insofar as" in Section 63 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB X - also if it is partially successful.
To determine the proportion of success, the goal sought by the objection must be compared and put in relation to the extent of the success. This ratio of success and failure must then be translated into a cost ratio (cf. BSG judgment of June 12, 2013 - B 14 AS 68/12 R -).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – Braunschweig Social Court, judgment of August 8, 2013 – S 17 AS 4125/12
Job center must cover the costs of tutoring in English for dyslexia.
§ 28 Paragraph 5 SGB II applies to students who need learning support as a result of dyslexia (LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, resolution of February 28, 2012, L 7 AS 43/12 B ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.2 – Kassel Social Court, judgment of August 28, 2013 – S 6 AS 711/12
1. Special living circumstances which, according to the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG, judgment of March 3, 2009, B 4 AS 50/07 R; judgment of July 2, 2009, B 14 AS 54/08 R), require the award of half of the additional need Justification for single parenting occurs when divorced parents who live separately take turns caring for and raising their minor child at large intervals of at least a week and share the costs incurred roughly equally.
2. No claim can be derived from the general principle of equality in Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law to extend additional requirements for single parents to other constellations of a so-called alternating model with shorter intervals.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of September 18, 2013 – L 2 SO 404/13
Social welfare providers do not have to grant additional requirements for the mark G, because it is not sufficient if only an application has been submitted but no decision or ID card has yet been received. Retroactive granting is not possible in these cases either.
1. Even after the amendment of Section 30 Paragraph 1 No. 2 SGB that the determination effect of the disadvantage compensation G or the existence of its prerequisites for claiming the additional requirement must now be taken into account.
2. The legal situation has only changed since December 7, 2006, in that now not only an ID card, but also the decision from the responsible authority - which was regularly issued earlier - is sufficient to prove that the mark G has been identified.
3. According to the clear wording of the law, a corresponding decision must have been issued by the responsible body in accordance with Section 69 Paragraph 4 SGB IX or the ID must be available to justify the additional requirement.
4. It is still not sufficient if only an application has been made for the award of the G mark, but no notice or ID card has yet been received. In these cases, retroactive granting of the additional requirement is not possible.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See BSG, judgment of November 10, 2011, B 8 SO 12/10 R
Until December 7, 2006, there was no entitlement to a flat-rate additional requirement due to disability as long as the recipient of assistance did not have a severely disabled person's card with the symbol “G”.
6. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
6.1 – Dortmund Social Court, judgment of September 20, 2013 – S 41 SO 132/12
§ 30 Para. 7 SGB
1. In the case of central hot water supply, it is generally accepted that actual one-off and ongoing financial expenses for heating and hot water preparation - monthly advance payments / advance payments or an additional payment calculated after the end of the heating period - are due in the month in which they are due on the basis of Section 35 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB
2. For the additional requirement according to Section 30 Paragraph 7 SGB XII - which, in the case of decentralized hot water supply alone, replaces Section 35 Paragraph 4 SGB Central and decentralized hot water preparation (Art. 3 Para. 1 Basic Law –GG–) nothing else applies (cf. LSG NRW, resolution of May 28, 2013, Ref. L 9 AS 540/13 B on the relationship between § 21 Para. 7 and § 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II).
3. However, a need that deviated in individual cases within the meaning of Section 30 Paragraph 7 Sentence 2 No. 5 SGB A “requirement that deviates in individual cases” within the meaning of the standard can only mean an (upwardly deviating) need for hot water or costs for hot water preparation that cannot be covered by the flat rate provided for in Sentence 2 No. 1. Because of the extremely economical consumption behavior described by the HB, the existence of such a different need at the HB appears doubtful.
4. In addition, the amount of the additional requirement is based on the case law of the BSG on the law applicable until December 31, 2010 (see, for example, judgment of February 27, 2008, Ref. B 14/11b AS 15/07 R), according to which the For accommodation and heating costs, a deduction of 30% of the consumption expenditure for household electricity included in the applicable standard rate had to be made for those entitled to benefits who receive their hot water from a central hot water supply (cf. LSG NRW, decision of May 28, 2013, Ref. L 9 AS 540/13 B). Even today it can still be proven that with decentralized hot water generation, a proportion of around 30% of the electricity used is used for hot water preparation (explanation of the mediation exclusion for the proposed regulation on the draft law for the determination of standard requirements and for the amendment of the Second and Twelfth Books of the Social Security Code, quoted from Unemployment project TuWas (ed.), Accommodation and heating costs according to SGB II, p. 70 f.).
5. Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 2nd Alternative SGB XII can be considered as a further basis for the asserted claim. Because there is no measuring device, it cannot be determined whether the costs arose from the consumption of electricity for hot water preparation or from the consumption of household energy. If there is an additional need for household electricity to be financed from the standard rate, a different determination of needs is generally possible under the conditions of Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 2nd Alternative SGB XII. According to this, the individual need is determined in individual cases in a way that deviates from the standard rate if a need (...) inevitably deviates significantly from an average need in terms of level. However, there are no indications of circumstances that could lead to HB's need for electricity that inevitably deviate significantly from the average electricity requirement - such as the use of electricity-intensive medical equipment - nor are they apparent.
7. SG Munich, judgment of August 14, 2013 - S 32 AS 3673/10 (Baumann Rechtsanwälte law firm: Court decisions): Munich Social Court lifts the Freising district's denial of funding for debt counseling and fundamentally recognizes the claim to funding.
Dr. Manfred Hammel:
From § 17 Para. 2 SGB II and § 5 Para. 3 Sentence 2 SGB
A social benefit provider can only be required to make an error-free discretionary decision regarding the entitlement based on the basis and amount.
The assessment of the discretion incumbent on a public provider when allocating funding must be largely based on the principle of equal treatment in Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.
To ensure equal opportunities, a transparent and factually justified selection process must always be carried out.
The rejection decision made by a district to the effect that the need for debt counseling within its area of responsibility (Section 16a No. 2 SGB II) has already been met must be based on a comprehensive needs assessment.
Otherwise, there is an unlawful misuse of discretion. A district can only justify the complete exclusion of an independent provider other than those already commissioned from funding for the provision of services in accordance with Section 16a No. 2 SGB II or Section 11 Paragraph 5 SGB XII from the perspective of meeting needs , that in his area a further offer of debt advice is in every respect superfluous.
When a public provider makes a funding decision, it must always check the professional suitability of the applying independent provider with the aim of long-term professional integration of those seeking help or overcoming the life situation that leads to the expectation of receiving benefits to secure their livelihood (e.g. B. the quantitative number and qualitative staffing of the advice centers, the networking of debt advice with other advice centers).
Source: www.baumann-rechtsanwaelte.de
8. Bavarian.
LSG judgment of June 19, 2013 - L 16 AS 847/12 - Appeal pending at the Federal Social Court, Ref.: B 14 AS 51/13 Union citizens are entitled to Hartz IV
According to SGB II, Union citizens who come to Germany solely to look for work should not be entitled to Hartz IV benefits. The Bavarian State Social Court considered this exclusion to be contrary to European law and awarded unemployment benefit II to an Italian citizen. In order to establish uniform legal practice, the Federal Social Court in Kassel must now decide.
Press release from the Bavarian LSG from October 11th, 2013: https://socialgerichtsbaren.de
Note:
Full text of the decision here: https://socialgerichtsabilities.de ; Note on: LSG Munich 16th Senate, judgment of June 19, 2013 - L 16 AS 847/12
Author: Constanze Rogge, scientific advisor at the German Association for Public and Private Welfare eV, publication date: October 4th, 2013, published in Juris here: www.juris.de
9. SG Kiel, decision of October 10, 2013, S 30 AS 337/13 ER
ALG II instead of BAföG
ALG II for students who are excluded from BAföG - A contribution from RA Helge Hildebrandt
Students who do not live with their parents but could access a reasonable educational institution from their parents and are therefore excluded from BAföG can apply for ALG II. To do this, they do not have to live in their parents' household. The SG Kiel decided this today. More and verdict as a PDF here: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
10. Dorothee Frings: Social benefits for Union citizens according to Regulation (EC) 883/2004 (March 2012)
Frings_Social Services_883-2004.pdf (181 KB) here: www.fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de (pdf)
Fluechtlingsinfo-berlin frings VO 883/2004 here: https://www.google.de
PPV contribution RBK SGB II for Unionsburger RAin Eva Steffen_05.2012.pdf (394 KB) here: auslaender-asyl.dav.de (pdf)
11. KOS: Working aid “Long-term sick people” for BR/PR
The third issue of our newsletter “fairly practical” is a special issue on the topic “How to deal with long-term sick people?”. The work aid aims to support works and staff councils in approaching those with long-term illnesses. It is important that the sick take action themselves to clarify their situation and seek rehabilitation measures. The work aid explains step by step what to do.
Newsletter “quite practical” No. 3 [PDF] can be found here: www.kaufslos.de (pdf)
Source: Coordination office for union unemployed groups, here: www.kaufslos.de
12. Expert opinions from the joint committee to the Federal Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the standard rates.
The Paritätitische made two statements to the Federal Constitutional Court on current pending proceedings regarding the assessment of standard rates and the needs for education and participation.
Here: The Joint Association – we are changing. : Expert opinions from the Paritätisches to the Federal Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the standard rates, can be found here: www.der-paritaetische.de
Sat:
Thomé newsletter from October 6th, 2013 and October 13th, 2013 here: www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
13. Here again for everyone who is just starting to deal with unemployment and Hartz IV (basic security for job seekers SGB II).
ver.di: Social advice, found here: mittelhessen.verdi.de
14. Die five years earlier with Hartz IV - study: Those who are poor die on average five years earlier.
People who are poor apparently die about five years earlier. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute have compared the life expectancy of rich and poor people in Germany. Some significant differences became clear.
Source and full text here: www.heilpraxisnet.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
