1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 13 February 2014 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 13.02.2014 – B 4 AS 22/13
Specificity of a review request – Initial specification of a review request pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book Ten (SGB X) in the legal proceedings – Failure to name specific administrative acts with dates – Failure to state the grounds for illegality
Guiding principles (author):
A globally submitted review request pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) does not have to be decided upon by the job center.
According to the wording of Section 44 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), the revocation of a decision that is unlawful for factual or legal reasons should only occur "in individual cases." Therefore, a substantive review obligation on the part of the social security agency is not regularly triggered if the entire course of action—as in this case—is submitted for review without any differentiation or justification, and the social security agency cannot objectively determine "the individual case.".
A “case in question” exists if either a specific question of a factual or legal nature or a concrete administrative decision is identified.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 10 September 2013 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – BSG, judgments of 10 September 2013 - B 4 AS 3/13 R, B 4 AS 4/13 R and – B 4 AS 3/13 R
Guiding Principles (Author):
The two senates of the Federal Social Court (BSG) responsible for basic income support for jobseekers have already ruled that, for the purpose of determining reasonable housing costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), recourse to the table values of the housing benefit table is only permissible if, according to the findings of the lower courts, the means and methods for determining reasonable housing costs according to a coherent concept are no longer available, i.e., if there is a "lack of knowledge."
The Senate adheres to this ruling.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
similarly, Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of 11 December 2012 – B 4 AS 44/12 R
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Basic Income Support for Job Seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, Decision of 29 January 2014 – L 7 AS 25/14 B ER
Assumption of unreasonable heating costs (electricity for heating) pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II – On the structures for determining reasonable heating costs and the reduction procedure based on the judgment of the Federal Social Court of 12 June 2013, B 14 AS 60/12
Guiding principles (author):
Job center must cover back payments for unreasonable heating costs, because the move was unreasonable for the applicants (BSG, judgment of 12.06.2013 – B 14 AS 60/12).
Because proof of comparable housing cannot be provided in expedited proceedings, it must be provisionally assumed in these proceedings that cost reduction through relocation was unreasonable. Consequently, the actual accommodation costs must be covered in these expedited proceedings.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See BSG, judgment of 12.06.2013, – B 14 AS 60/12 – A change of residence as a cost-cutting measure due to unreasonably high heating expenses is only reasonable if the overall gross heating costs are lower in an alternative residence.
3.2 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Decision of 30 January 2014 – L 13 AS 266/13 B ER
Headnotes (Juris):
The exclusion of Bulgarian job seekers from benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) must be observed in expedited proceedings and is not contrary to European law.
The service provider against whom a preliminary injunction has been issued has a legitimate interest in filing a complaint.
In expedited proceedings, the court must adhere to the wording of a law, even if doubts are expressed in legal literature and case law regarding the conformity of a provision with European law.
Section 7 paragraph 1 sentence 2 no. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not raise any fundamental concerns under European law.
The element of entry solely for the purpose of seeking employment does not cease to apply simply due to the passage of time (contrary to the judgment of the Higher Social Court of Essen of October 10, 2013 – L 19 AS 129/13).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Court's note:
Insofar as the Federal Social Court (BSG) requested a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the scope of the equal treatment requirement of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 and other provisions by decision of December 12, 2013 – B 4 AS 9/13 R – this procedure does not substantively call into question the legal opinion of the Senate represented here.
3.3 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 22 January 2014 – L 13 AS 267/11
Guiding principles (Juris):
The proof of deviating higher costs pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 No. 3 b of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) requires a case-specific breakdown of costs along with a concrete presentation including corresponding evidence, not merely a general presentation of usual operating costs of a vehicle type, combined with the assertion that the flat rate stipulated in the regulation is insufficient.
The provision of Section 6 Paragraph 1 No. 3b of the German Social Code, Book II (Senate, Decision of October 12, 2009 – L 13 AS 242/09 B ER) uses the legal concept of the distance kilometer, thus referring only to the one-way journey (Senate, Decision of October 12, 2009 – L 13 AS 242/09 B ER).
Source: dejure.org
3.4 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 14 November 2013 – L 5 AS 175/12 – legally binding
Headnotes (Author)
The German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not provide a legal basis for the applicant's claim for reimbursement of costs for the purchase of a suit and shirt for the youth initiation ceremony.
With regard to the claimed costs for the purchase of a suit and shirt, a benefit under Section 23 Paragraph 3 No. 2 SGB II a. F. within the framework of an initial clothing allowance is not applicable.
It is also not apparent that participation in the youth initiation ceremony in everyday clothing, i.e. without wearing a suit purchased specifically for this purpose, would have constituted a violation of human dignity within the meaning of Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with Article 20 GG.
A claim under Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) against the responsible social welfare agency is also excluded here.
Although participation in a youth initiation ceremony falls within the scope of protection of Article 4 of the Basic Law, the core of the freedom of religion regulated therein is not affected (see also: Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of April 23, 2009, L 11 AS 125/08 concerning the costs of a family celebration in a restaurant on the occasion of First Communion).
The alternative claim that the incurred costs should be offset against the child benefit, which reduces the need for assistance, is also inadmissible, as the benefit serves to secure the child's livelihood. To ensure this purpose is not undermined, a portion of the benefit must not be deducted before it can be used to cover the child's needs (Federal Social Court judgment of May 10, 2011, B 4 AS 11/10 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See also Legal Tribune Online – A young person receiving social assistance does not receive a separate subsidy for their youth initiation ceremony. Link here: www.lto.de
3.5 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 29 January 2014 – L 7 AS 448/13 B – legally binding.
Key principles (author):
Granting of legal aid, because there is no supreme court ruling on the legal question of the (in)admissibility or unconstitutionality of offsetting for the (immediate) settlement of a repayment claim from a rent deposit loan pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 3 and Section 42a SGB II.
Furthermore, it is necessary to examine whether the job center, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case, could assume a standard case according to § 22 para. 6 sentence 3 SGB II or whether an atypical case was present.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
The Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg) held a different view in its decision of November 18, 2013 – L 10 AS 1793/13 B PKH.
3.6 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 27 January 2014 – L 32 AS 3079/13 B legally binding
priority of claims against third parties, here employers' liability insurance association – principle of timeliness
Guiding Principles (Author)
A basic income support need must be met in each case as it arises (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of February 9, 2010, 1 BvL 1/09 et al., para. 140) and in this respect existing priority claims of the person in need of assistance are transferred by operation of law to the basic income support provider to the extent of the basic income support provided, which is necessary due to the non-performance of the third party (§ 33 para. 1 SGB II).
Therefore, if a need for basic social security exists and is not currently being met by a third party with a primary obligation, and this results in a need for assistance under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the entitlement to the satisfaction of this need does not depend on the existence of a legal relationship with the third party. This is made clear by the provisions of Section 33 of the SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – Social Court Frankfurt am Main, decision of 20 January 2014 – S 26 AS 1455/13 ER
Guiding principles (author):
Complete denial of unemployment benefit II according to § 66 SGB I due to lack of cooperation in clarifying employability is unlawful.
If a recipient of benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) refuses to undergo a medical or psychological examination, a sanction may be imposed pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 2 of Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II). The legislator has enacted a specific regulation in Section 59 of Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) in conjunction with Section 309 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of Book III of the German Social Code (SGB III), which excludes the application of Book I of the German Social Code (SGB I) (Hesse Higher Social Court, decision of June 22, 2011 – L 7 AS 700/10 B ER).
Note:
The Bavarian State Social Court (LSG Bayern), in its decision of 31.08.2012 – L 7 AS 601/12 B ER and the North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court (LSG NRW), in its decision of 29.09.2009 – L 19 B 255/09 AS ER, held a different view.
4.2 – Social Court Detmold, decision of 03.02.2014 – S 9 AS 2274/13 ER
Guiding principles (author):
Both the condominium located in Greece and the olive grove are realizable assets of the benefit recipient.
Even in preliminary injunction proceedings, the mere assertion that the properties in Greece cannot be sold at all or only far below their value due to the prevailing crisis there is not sufficient.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 20 June 2013 – L 8 SO 365/10
Regarding the consideration of the spouse's income and assets when assuming funeral expenses
Guiding Principles (Juris)
The assumption of funeral costs regulated in Chapter Nine of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) from January 1, 2005, requires, among other things, that the raising of the funds by the person entitled to benefits and his or her spouse who does not live separately from the income and assets to be determined according to Chapter Eleven of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is unreasonable.
Based on this, it is unnecessary to examine in detail whether the social welfare agency's calculation (taking into account the income of the plaintiff's husband) is accurate. In any case, due to the plaintiff's husband's initially undisclosed real estate assets, he could reasonably be expected to bear the costs necessary for the deceased's funeral.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
BSG, Judgment of February 28, 2013 – B 8 SO 19/11 R – There is no apparent reason why the provisions of Section 19 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) should not apply in the cases of Section 74 SGB XII.
6. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
6.1 – Social Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 16.01.2014 – S 30 SO 69/12
Key Principles (Author)
The standard rate to which a social assistance recipient is entitled is to be determined differently as a result of an eight-month hospital stay pursuant to Section 27a Paragraph 4 SGB XII (allowance for food in the amount of EUR 135.00 waived).
Only for a period of approximately one and a half weeks can a need for meals provided in the hospital, which is otherwise ensured, not be counted towards the standard allowance, because the legislator already took this into account when determining the statistical average of the standard allowances. However, no final decision is required on this point.
In the case of a hospital stay that extends over several months and thus across multiple benefit periods, there is no indication of how the legislator could have taken this into account in the statistical calculation of the standard benefit rates. A hospital stay lasting several months therefore constitutes an atypical case which, according to the jurisprudence of the Nuremberg Social Court, no longer qualifies as a temporary hospital stay.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
See SG Nuremberg, judgment of June 30, 2011 – S 20 SO 54/10 – The standard rate to which a social assistance recipient is entitled is generally not to be set differently as a result of a (temporary – 3-week) hospital stay pursuant to Section 28 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB 12 aF.
7. Hartz IV checks – When in doubt, side with the job center
"Self-reporting" protects tax evaders from punishment. For recipients of Hartz IV benefits, even an overpayment of €300 is considered "attempted fraud." An article from taz.de, link here: www.taz.de
8. No forfeiture of the right to parental support in the case of unilateral termination of contact – Federal Court of Justice (BGH) judgment of 12 February 2014, case no. XII ZB 607/12.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled that a unilateral termination of contact with his adult son initiated by the person entitled to support is generally not sufficient grounds for forfeiture of his right to parental support.
Source: juris.bundesgerichtshof.de
Note:
See SGB II- Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of 10.01.2014 – L 34 AS 1036/13 – No elimination of the maintenance obligation in case of gross unfairness – no application of the forfeiture defense within the framework of the right to information.
9. Judge Udo Geiger, Berlin Social Court: New regulation on seamless health insurance coverage (info also 2014, 3)
Here: Article info also 14 01.pdf: www.info-also.nomos.de
10. Andreas Löbner, Hartenstein: Law to Simplify the Implementation of Parental Allowance – A First Observation – Current Social Law, Journal for Social Counseling – Nomos – Issue 1
Article Sra 14 01.pdf: www.sozialrecht-aktuell.nomos.de
11. Hartz IV: Judge verbally abused after Hartz IV ruling for Romanian
The North Rhine-Westphalia Social Court defended its rulings on the entitlement of EU citizens to Hartz IV benefits. It argued that if one affirms freedom of movement within the EU, it is difficult to deny social benefits to families without assets. Following the rulings, the court received a flood of insults and threats.
WAZ.de: www.derwesten.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
