1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of December 22, 2013 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of December 12, 2013 – B 14 AS 83/12 R
Guiding principle:
Operating cost credits within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 SGB 2 aF reduce the “actual expenses” for accommodation and heating of the benefit recipient and not the expenses for accommodation and heating recognized as appropriate by the basic social security provider.
Source: BSG appointment report from December 12, 2013, can be read here: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
Same opinion - SG Dresden, judgment of January 16, 2012 - S 36 AS 7571/10 and SG Kiel, judgment of February 7, 2012 - S 38 AS 218/10.
1.2 – BSG, judgment of December 12, 2013 – B 14 AS 90/12 R
Guiding principles: Asset protection of the “family home” as a “multi-generational house” is possible in SGB II as a special hardship within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 6 Alt 2 SGB II.
Inappropriate sole-owned, self-used house property owned by the benefit recipient, in which family members who do not belong to the need or household community live in a second apartment in the house, can be used due to a special hardship within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 6 Alt 2 SGB II must be exempt from exploitation.
A particular hardship within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence. 1 No. 6 Alt 2 SGB II comes into consideration if a house property according to Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence. 1 No. 4 SGB II is not protected, which would be protected according to Section 90 Paragraph 2 No. 8 SGB and household community).
Source: BSG appointment report from December 12, 2013, can be read here: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
1.3 – BSG, judgment of December 12, 2013 – B 14 AS 76/12 R
Guiding principles:
Even wasteful heirs are entitled to Hartz IV benefits.
If the long-term unemployed spend an inheritance lavishly, they can still claim Hartz IV again if they are destitute. The job center is obliged to provide benefits even in such a case. The entitlement to benefits can only be denied in the event of socially unfavorable behavior.
He spent his inheritance on, among other things, food and replacing old furniture and clothing. But there was also money left over for a digital camera and a trip to Turkey.
According to the consistent case law of the BSG senates responsible for basic security for job seekers (judgments of November 29th, 2012 - B 14 AS 33/12 R and of September 10th, 2013 - B 4 AS 89/12 R), a one-off income may be considered income in one Distribution period can only be taken into account if it is a suitable means of covering the specific needs in the respective month. If the one-time intake is no longer available, Alg II must be approved (again) upon appropriate application. The extent to which a claim for compensation according to Section 34 SGB II or a reduction of the claim due to a breach of duty is possible (Sections 32, 31 Paragraph 2 SGB II) cannot be examined in this case.
Source: BSG appointment report from December 12, 2013, can be read here: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
1.4 – BSG, from December 12, 2013 – B 4 AS 9/13 R
Preliminary ruling procedure on the requirement of equal treatment for EU citizens
The Senate has suspended the proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling:
1. Does the equal treatment requirement of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 – with the exception of the export exclusion of Article 70 Para. 4 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 – also apply to the special non-contributory cash benefits within the meaning of Article 70 Para. 1, 2 of the Regulation (EC) 883/2004?
2. If 1) is answered in the affirmative: Are restrictions on the equal treatment requirement of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 possible - if necessary to what extent - through provisions in national legislation implementing Article 24 (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC? according to which access to these benefits does not exist without exception if the Union citizen's right of residence in the other Member State arises solely for the purpose of looking for work?
3. Does Article 45(2) TFEU in conjunction with Article 18 TFEU preclude a national provision which provides Union citizens who, as job seekers, can invoke their right to freedom of movement to exercise their right to freedom of movement, a social benefit that serves to secure their livelihood and at the same time facilitates access to the labor market , denied without exception for the period of a right of residence only to look for work and regardless of the connection with the host country?
Source: BSG appointment report from December 12, 2013, can be read here: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
See also: Submission to the ECJ regarding the exclusion of benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Nos. 1 and 2 SGB II for EU citizens, a contribution by the lawyers Fritz and colleagues, can be read here: www.socialrecht- in -freiburg.de
1.5 – BSG, judgment of December 12, 2013 – B 4 AS 6/13 R
Guiding principles:
No hardship benefit within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II for orthodontic treatment, because there was no unavoidable need.
Due to the subordinate status of this benefit system compared to other social benefit systems, a medical need can only be irrefutable within the meaning of basic security law if the statutory health insurance is not obliged to provide the service, i.e. to cover the need. To do this, the beneficiary must first of all assert their need to the health insurance company. Only if the health insurance company refuses to grant benefits and it is nevertheless a medically necessary treatment measure, which the statutory health insurance only provides under certain restrictions, can a hardship benefit to secure one's existence be considered. In the area of orthodontic care, statutory health insurance law provides for restrictions with regard to the health insurance companies' obligation to provide benefits. However, if - as here - orthodontic care is provided by statutory health insurance, this provides the legally necessary medical care. For this reason alone, there was no medical necessity for the orthodontist's additional treatment measures.
Source: BSG appointment report from December 12, 2013, can be read here: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of August 22, 2013 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - BSG, judgment of August 22, 2013 - B 14 AS 85/12 R
Guiding principles:
A deviation from the headboard principle when calculating the relevant costs of accommodation is also possible based on a civil law agreement. Because in constellations in which people live in one apartment - without forming a community of needs - effective contractual agreements take precedence.
In constellations in which several people use an apartment without forming a community of needs, e.g. in shared apartments, the decisive factor for dividing the accommodation costs - contrary to the headboard principle - is the share that falls to the respective roommate according to the internal agreements. What is relevant in this respect is whether there is an effective contractual agreement. If such an agreement has been validly concluded, it will take precedence over the division into headboards based on the practical considerations outlined. In the case of shared apartments, the intensity of use is likely to be the basis of the internal contractual agreements as to the extent to which the members of the community have to contribute to the total costs of accommodation and heating.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
3. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of December 12, 2013 on social assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – BSG, judgment of December 12, 2013 – B 8 SO 24/12 R
Guiding principles:
Imminent homelessness after release from prison in connection with the applicant's personality structure, special living conditions with social difficulties can justify a claim to help to overcome special social difficulties in accordance with §§ 67 f SGB XII. This also includes (preventive) measures to maintain the apartment.
For reasons of administrative practicality, it is advisable to generally only approve benefits for a period of up to one year; However, this should not be based on the total duration of imprisonment, but rather on the (expected) benefit period until release from prison, for which benefits are claimed.
Source: BSG appointment report from December 12, 2013, can be read here: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
4. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of November 25, 2013 – L 19 AS 578/13 B ER legally binding
Guiding principles:
Greek citizens are entitled to assistance with living expenses in the amount of the standard needs for single adults according to SGB XII.
If the applicant has a right of residence for the purpose of looking for work, the reason for exclusion from benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II applies according to its wording.
Greek citizens are not excluded from receiving benefits under SGB XII either according to Section 21 SGB XII or Section 23 Paragraph 3 SGB
In such a case, a decision must be made based on a consideration of the consequences (BVerfG decision of May 12, 2005 - 1 BvR 569/05).
The Federal Republic has not declared a reservation according to Art. 16b EFA with regard to subsistence benefits according to Chapter 3 of SGB XII. The Federal Republic's reservation regarding benefits under SGB This means that the EFA applies to the applicant and the guarantee of equal treatment for nationals applies (cf. the Senate's resolution of June 29, 2012 - L 19 AS 973/12 B ER).
Benefits for accommodation and heating could not be awarded because there was no credible reason for the order. A reason for ordering services for accommodation and heating is only made credible if there is a current threat to the accommodation, which can usually only be assumed from the time an eviction notice is served (from the case law of the LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, e.g. decisions of July 8, 2013 - L 2 AS 1116/13 B ER, September 10, 2013 – L 2 AS 1541/13 B ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
5.1 - SG Nordhausen, judgment of December 12, 2013 - S 17 AS 8973/10
Guiding principles:
If there are different assessments of earning capacity by the pension insurance provider on the one hand and the employment agency's medical service on the other, the job center may not refer those seeking help to benefits from the social welfare office.
The court rejected the view that there was no need for legal protection due to receiving social assistance as legally incorrect. The plaintiff's case in particular shows that it makes a difference whether Hartz IV benefits or social assistance benefits are received. Periods of receiving Hartz IV up to the end of 2010 were associated with contributions to the pension insurance and then with credit periods.
Source: Thüringer Allgemeine from December 12, 2013, here for the article: www.thueringer- Allgemeine.de
5.2 - Schleswig Social Court, decision of December 11, 2013 - S 22 AS 177/13 ER
Hartz IV: Entitlement to extracurricular learning therapy for dyscalculia
In its decision of December 11, 2013 (S 22 AS 177/13 ER), the Schleswig Social Court awarded a 9-year-old student with diagnosed dyscalculia benefits for appropriate learning support in accordance with Section 28 Paragraph 5 SGB II. The costs of learning therapy, which is not just temporary, can therefore also be covered under the education and participation package.
Source: Attorney Helge Hildebrandt, Holtenauer Straße 154, 24105 Kiel, click here for the decision: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
6. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of October 16, 2013 - L 2 SO 3798/12
Guiding principle:
Section 24 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB XII is applicable to the granting of social assistance in the form of the assumption of funeral costs in accordance with Section 74 SGB XII. For Germans who have their habitual residence abroad, the assumption of funeral costs in accordance with Section 74 SGB
Source: socialcourtsability.de
7. Decisions on employment promotion law according to SGB III
7.1 - Saxon State Social Court, judgment of July 3, 2013 - L 3 AL 78/12
Important reason for not keeping a reporting appointment
Guiding principles:
The applicant had an important reason for not attending her appointment at the employment agency, namely the private interests of Ast. The exercise and continuation of the employment they had already held for a long time had a clear priority in relation to their obligation to attend a registration appointment with the employment agency.
The important reasons for canceling an appointment can also include a part-time job.
However, the mere reference to an employment relationship is not sufficient for an important reason within the meaning of Section 38 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 SGB III. Rather, the employee is obliged to harmonize his various obligations, here the obligations under labor law and the obligation not to endanger the continuation of the employment relationship, on the one hand, and the obligation to fulfill his obligations to cooperate with the employment agency, on the other hand bring. To the extent possible under labor law, this can be done, for example, by appropriately structuring working hours. If necessary, he may also have to be released from his work obligations or take vacation. This was in the case of the branch. however not possible.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See SGB 2: Kiel Social Court, court decision dated September 12, 2012 - S 40 AS 340/12
Jobcenter is not allowed to impose a sanction against a self-employed replenisher who cancels a reporting appointment because of a customer appointment.
8. Note from RiLSG Dr.
Malte W. Fügemann on BSG, 14th Senate, judgment of April 16th. 2013 – B 14 AS 55/12 R
BSG, judgment of April 16, 2013 – B 14 AS 55/12 R
Standards: § 92a BSHG, § 31 SGB 2, § 7 SGB 2, § 38 SGB 2, § 45 SGB 10, § 48 SGB 10, § 34 SGB 2, § 34a SGB 2
Induced need for help among members of the community of need after imprisonment for drug trafficking
Guiding principle:
The social injustice of a behavior is not based on the criminal liability of an act, but rather on the fact that the person being claimed has put himself or the people living with him in a needy community in a position to claim benefits in accordance with SGB II in a way that is unacceptable having to take.
Source: juris, here for the link: www.juris.de
9. MainArbeit, the famous flagship job center in the independent city of Offenbach, has set a new record: a clerk gave one of her customers a 350% penalty.
Continue to the article here: www.linkezeitung.de
10. Unemployment newspaper quer No. 08 has been published.
In this issue of quer there are articles about, among other things, the level of a living minimum wage and the topic of forced retirement. There are also lots of tips for practical or political resistance. You can read it here: www.also-zentrum.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
