1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - Hessian State Social Court, decision of September 24, 2013 - L 6 AS 597/13 B ER
Guiding principles (author)
No assumption of outstanding electricity debts if a recipient of assistance has to accept socially uneconomical behavior that ignores the possibility of self-help.
In this case, there is not even a remotely recognizable desire for self-help. After she has now been granted four loans due to accrued far too high arrears of electricity costs, the applicant has not only not reduced her electricity requirements since December 12, 2012, but has actually increased them by around 52 percent.
The overall circumstances of the present case only allow the conclusion that the applicant's exorbitant electricity consumption can be attributed either to her culpably perpetuating uneconomical behavior or to a fundamentally unsuitable apartment because of the drastically excessive electricity and heating requirements.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Likewise – LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, decision of September 4, 2009 – L 13 AS 252/09
1.2 - Hessian State Social Court, decision of June 21, 2013 - L 9 AS 103/13 B ER legally binding
Guiding principles (Juris)
Objections and legal challenges to a refusal notice in accordance with Section 66 SGB I are not covered by Section 39 SGB II and have a suspensive effect.
“Living together in a common household” i. S. of Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 3c SGB II requires the existence of a “residential and economic community”. For the latter, an implicit agreement between the partners on how they will divide up household management for the benefit of the partnership's coexistence is sufficient.
There is no obstacle to a business community if the partners do not have co-ownership of any item in the apartment. A sublease agreement does not exclude this either when independent or dependent shared use is granted. Merely handing over part of the apartment for independent use with the agreement of a sublease would under certain circumstances be likely to have an indicative effect against the existence of an economic community.
The obligation to cooperate includes providing information about his partner's income and assets, provided that it is certain that he is at least roughly aware of them.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of November 26, 2013 – L 11 AS 655/13 NZB
Guiding principles (author)
Jobcenter does not have to reimburse the costs for the presentation of bank statements required by the benefit recipient.
Section 65a SGB I does not apply analogously to the fulfillment of submission obligations in accordance with Section 60 Paragraph 1 No. 3 SGB I. There is no (unconscious) loophole in the law.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Same opinion: Bavarian LSG, decision of February 7, 2011 - L 11 AS 960/10 NZB
1.4 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of November 6th, 2013 – L 7 AS 639/13 B ER
Guiding principles (Juris)
According to the judgment of the ECJ of September 19, 2013, C 140/12 (Brey), special non-contributory cash benefits within the meaning of Art. 3 Para. 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 can be social assistance benefits within the meaning of Art. 7 Para 1 letter b, Article 24 paragraph 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC. These terms are not mutually exclusive.
According to the definition of the ECJ, social assistance benefits are assistance systems that are used by an individual who does not have sufficient means of subsistence to meet their basic needs and thus puts a strain on public finances.
There is therefore some evidence to suggest that benefits to secure one's livelihood under SGB II social assistance benefits within the meaning of Directive 2004/38/EC and therefore in principle in accordance with Article 24 Paragraph 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC can also be excluded.
This exclusion must be limited under EU law to the extent that social assistance benefits are available if they are not used unreasonably. However, people with no actual connection to the labor market are excluded. Simply registering as unemployed is not enough.
Selling a homeless newspaper is not an independent activity, but a form of fundraising.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.5 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of September 13, 2013 - L 19 AS 662/13
Guiding principles (author)
The legally mandated level of offsetting of 30% of the relevant standard requirement is not considered unconstitutional.
The reduction of the benefit entitlement when offsetting is based on constitutionally permissible reasons.
The duration and amount of the reimbursement claims pursuant to Section 43 Paragraph 1 No. 1, Paragraph 2, 4 SGB II in the case of reimbursement claims that are based on the cancellation or withdrawal of approvals in accordance with Sections 45, 48 SGB X correspond to the principle of proportionality. The amount of offsetting does not violate the prohibition of excessive amounts at 30% of the applicable standard requirement.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - Detmold Social Court, judgment of November 28, 2013 - S 23 AS 1295/11 The appeal is permitted
Guiding principles (author)
People in need of help cannot claim higher benefits for the costs of accommodation, because the concept of the Minden-Lübbecke district represents a coherent concept in the sense of the established case law of the BSG.
It essentially follows the methodology that is also used to create a qualified rent index within the meaning of Section 558 d of the Civil Code (BGB), but adapts it in a comprehensible manner to the requirements of determining upper limits for the costs of accommodation in basic security law .
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 - Neubrandenburg Social Court, decision of December 29, 2013 - S 13 AS 1751/13 ER
Guidelines (Tacheles readers)
1. The request to the recipient of assistance to apply for an old-age pension represents an administrative act that represents an exercise of discretion by the SGB II service provider makes necessary.
2. The request in accordance with Section 5 Para. 3 Sentence 1 SGB II is an administrative act against which objection and legal action for rescission in accordance with Section 39 No. 3 SGB II have no suspensive effect.
Before the notice of request to apply for a pension is issued in accordance with Section 12a SGB II, the reasons given by the applicant during the discussion must be examined as part of the exercise of discretion.
The job center does not adequately fulfill its obligation to exercise discretion when requesting to apply for a pension if it only refers to the legal situation in the requesting notice, so that the suspensive effect of the benefit recipient's objection had to be ordered, because the written requesting notice must be followed by the exercise of discretion under dispute with the reasons given by the applicant.
Source: will be published here soon - NEWS - Year 2013 - Month of December - to the link to the source: www.richterbank.de
Note:
See the incorrect exercise of discretion by the job center - LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of September 27, 2013 - L 28 AS 2330/13 B ER, Rz. 6.
2.3 - Heilbronn Social Court, decision of June 20, 2012 - S 11 AS 1953/12 ER - (legally binding)
No additional Hartz IV requirement for unnecessary “pick-up service” for children.
Urgent application remains unsuccessful: If the children (who live with their mother) can travel to visit their father without parental accompaniment and their father still picks them up himself, he cannot claim his travel costs as additional Hartz IV requirements. The children's claims to reimbursement of travel expenses remain unaffected.
Source: Press release from SG Heilbronn from June 20, 2012, click here for the press release: www.sg-heilbronn.de
3. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of December 16, 2013 - L 9 SO 485/13 B ER; L 9 SO 486/13 B legally binding
Guiding principles (author)
The need for legal protection for an application for an interim order is missing, among other things, if the applicant has an easier way to achieve his legal protection goal without court assistance. This is the case, for example, if there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can obtain the requested benefits through reasonable cooperation with the competent authority (see, among other things, the Senate's resolution of July 23, 2013 - L 9 SO 225/13 B ER, L 9 SO 226/13 B ; see also BVerfG, decision of the 2nd Chamber of the First Senate of October 30, 2009 - 1 BvR 2442/09).
In accordance with Sections 62 and 65 SGB I, reasonable acts of cooperation also include the willingness to undergo an official medical examination to determine the health requirements for the requested service. It is not apparent that in the applicant's case the limits of cooperation within the meaning of Section 65 SGB I have been exceeded. The applicant has “free choice of doctor” if he wants to be treated by a doctor in the event of an illness, but not if, as here, he wants a tax-financed social benefit, the conditions of which depend on medical circumstances that cannot be determined without an expert opinion can. Ultimately, Section 200 Paragraph 2 SGB VII does not apply here.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 - SG Speyer, judgment of October 16, 2013 - S 1 AL 411/12 - The appeal is permitted.
Guidelines (Juris)
Insolvency money (InsG) Cross-border commuters European law
The provision of Section 167 Paragraph 2 No. 2 SGB III, which is relevant for calculating the amount of the InsG, according to which a fictitious income tax portion calculated in accordance with German tax law is deducted from gross wages, is violated for cross-border commuters who tax their income from work in their country of residence on the basis of an interstate taxation agreement , not against Art 45 TFEU and Art 7 EU Regulation 492/11.
The gross remaining wage claim under tax law is not remuneration within the meaning of the directive on the protection of employees in the event of the employer's insolvency of October 22, 2008 (RL 2008/94/EC).
In any case, for cross-border commuters who are not subject to tax in Germany, the entitlement to the tax gross remaining wage claim is not transferred to the BA when the InsG application is submitted in accordance with Section 169 SGB III.
Source: www.mjv.rlp.de
5. The new application form for advisory assistance – a contribution from Attorney Helge Hildebrandt.
There is a new form for advisory assistance (and unfortunately also a new form for determining costs and the same again for legal aid). Everything has become longer and more complicated - and there are a few things that need to be taken into account. Here are a few initial comments and reference: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
6. Legal Tribune Online - The legal press review from January 3, 2014, including Hartz IV for foreigners.
Are unemployed EU foreigners entitled to Hartz IV, even if they have not previously worked in Germany? This question will soon be before the European Court of Justice. As the FAZ (Corinna Budras) writes, the Federal Social Court has submitted the question to the Luxembourg court as to whether a regulation from Social Security Code II, according to which the entitlement of such EU foreigners is excluded, complies with European law.
The taz (Christian Rath) offers a “fact check.” The social benefits EU foreigners are entitled to in Germany are explained in question and answer form. Zeit.de (Kersten Augustin/Lisa Caspari) reminds in its overview that the coalition agreement recently concluded by the Union and SPD contains a “passus on poverty migration”. In order to strengthen acceptance of freedom of movement within the EU, the grand coalition will “counteract the unjustified use of social benefits by EU citizens.”
Source: Legal Tribune Online - The legal press review from January 3, 2014: Hartz IV for foreigners - here for the article: www.lto.de
7. The KEAs at the “New Year’s reception” in the Cologne-Porz job center – visit without ID
Signs there still illegally point out that it is not possible to “show up without ID”. You can also read the new house rules there. This prohibits, among other things, the distribution of printed matter and photography. It is also pointed out that house rights can be transferred and the security service is entitled to issue a “removal”.
So the KEAs grabbed various publications and cameras and also took a few cookies with them because of the expected “referrals”.
Next: The KEAs at the “New Year’s reception” in the Cologne-Porz job center | The KEAs e. V. – Cologne’s unemployed people in action – here is the article: www.die-keas.org
Note:
Sa social law expert: Note from RiSG Berlin Udo Geiger in info also 260-262 on LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of. July 20, 2011 - L 3 AL 236/11 - No ineffectiveness of the personal unemployment registration if the unemployed person shows up without ID and:
The BA's technical information on SGB II, § 37 SGB II / application requirements:
Identity verification
(37.13)
(…) The check must be carried out using suitable evidence (usually an identity card, passport with confirmation of registration or replacement document). In cases where the proof of identity does not contain a photo, the proof on which the identity check was based must be noted on the application documents.
If the applicant cannot provide relevant evidence, he or she must be asked to do so. (…)
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
