1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of December 12, 2013 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of December 12, 2013 – B 4 AS 6/13 R
Additional costs for orthodontic care - additional requirements in the event of unavoidable ongoing special needs - health insurance benefits law - lack of medical necessity for additional treatment
Guiding principles (author)
No hardship benefit within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II for orthodontic treatment, because there was no unavoidable need.
If the health insurance company has refused to grant benefits, it may be possible to cover your needs with subsistence benefits. The conditions under which this must take place have not yet been conclusively clarified. In any case, the granting of benefits is not possible if the beneficiary does not claim costs due to the illness that go beyond what is normally provided for the other costs for health care and if the statutory health insurance covers the costs of medically necessary treatment.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of December 12, 2013 on social assistance (SGB XII)
2.1 – BSG, judgment of December 12, 2013 – B 8 SO 13/12 R
Social assistance - Emergency aid - A hospital provider's claim to reimbursement due to inpatient hospital treatment - Requirement that there is an emergency case - Obligation to inform the social assistance provider in a timely manner and to check the circumstances that are essential for cost security
Guiding principles (author)
No entitlement to reimbursement of expenses as an emergency helper according to § 25 SGB XII.
Emergency assistance not only requires that help must be provided immediately based on the circumstances of the individual case, but also that the emergency worker cannot be accused of not immediately informing the social welfare agency. The applicant failed to do this, even though it was possible and reasonable for her to do so.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
See BSG, judgment of October 30, 2013, B 7 AY 2/12 R - The regulation of social assistance law regarding the right of an emergency worker to reimbursement of his expenses does not apply analogously in asylum seeker benefit law.
3. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, decision of February 24, 2014 - L6 AS 73/14 B ER
Guiding principles (author)
Suspensive effect of the objection to the administrative act replacing an integration agreement, since the SGB II service provider has exercised no discretion with regard to the question of whether an integration agreement should be replaced by an administrative act.
Section 15, Paragraph 1, Sentence 6 of SGB II is a target provision, which means that, as a rule, the SGB II service provider must issue an administrative act replacing the integration agreement if the integration agreement is not concluded. However, a deviation from this is possible in atypical special cases. Accordingly, in such a case, the service provider must exercise discretion as to whether an administrative act should be issued and also justify this accordingly in the administrative act then issued (see also LSG Saxony-Anhalt, judgments of April 16, 2013 - L 5 AS 89/12, L 5 AS 90/12 and L 5 AS 91/12; see also LSG NRW, decision of December 9, 2013 - L 2 AS 1956/13 B ER, which fundamentally limited the issuance of a replacement administrative act to atypical constellations, subsidiary and possible action within the bound discretion of the administration).
In the case of the benefit recipient (LB), an atypical special case must be affirmed because the service provider could not easily conclude from the LB's lack of reaction to the sent draft of an integration agreement that the person in need of help refused to conclude an integration agreement.
For the full text of the resolution here: s7.directupload.net (pdf)
Note:
also in the result SG Detmold, resolution of September 9, 2013 - S 28 AS 1488/13 ER
3.2 - Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of January 30, 2014 - L 7 AS 84/13 and - L 7 AS 85/13 - The appeal is permitted.
Guiding principles (author)
A sanction notice is an isolated subject of dispute, because according to the new version of § 31b and § 39 No. 1 SGB II, the legal situation changed as of April 1, 2011 (according to § 77 Para. 12 SGB II, the time of the breach of duty is decisive). changed. Therefore, only an isolated action for annulment is permitted, in which only the legality of the sanction is examined. Systematically, this presents itself as a special regulation.
To the extent that individual state social courts have adhered to the previous subject matter of the dispute in decision-making procedures, the decisions do not indicate any discussion of the legal change (e.g. LSG NS-Bremen, decision of June 17, 2013, L 7 AS 332/13 B ER and LSG NRW, decision of March 4, 2013, L 19 AS 1688/12 B).
Even to the extent that the previous subject matter of the dispute is retained in the literature (e.g. Knickrehm/Hahn in Eicher, SGB II, 3rd edition 2013, § 31b Rn. 7 and 8 and Valgolio in Hauck/Noftz, § 31b Rn. 2) this cannot be the case convince. The fact that SGB II does not distinguish between entitlement to benefits and claims to payment is no longer true after the change in the law.
The literature therefore speaks in favor of the isolated subject matter of the sanction Groth et al., The New Basic Security Law, 2011, Rn 421; M. Mayer in Oestreicher, SGB II / SGB XII, loose-leaf).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.3 - Saxon State Social Court, judgment of March 14, 2013 - L 3 AS 748/11 - pending at the BSG under the reference: B 4 AS 3/14 R
The “headboard principle” also applies to the approval or cancellation of a loan-based assumption of rental debts according to Section 22 Paragraph 5 SGB 2 aF (now Section 22 Paragraph 8) application
Guiding principle (NWB database)
1. When deciding on the form of rent debt assumption, the effects of the loan on the future willingness and ability to integrate into the labor market or the future prospects of the person concerned can, among other things, be significant.
2. Depending on the extent of the contribution to the cause, it may arise that, in exceptional cases, not only a loan but also a grant must be granted to repay the rental debts. However, this is not an option if the benefits were approved in the correct amount and only the payment practice was incorrect, because otherwise the employable person in need of assistance would receive benefits for accommodation and heating, at least in part, twice.
3. Incorrect behavior on the part of a service provider, which has no effect on the accommodation expenses approved and paid out in the correct amount, is not suitable to justify a claim to the assumption of rental debts in the form of a grant/subsidy. Section 22 Paragraph 5 Sentence 4 SGB II a. F. is not a sanction regulation for misconduct by a service provider.
4. a) It is possible to approve the assumption of rent debts as a contribution/subsidy in order to offset the subsequent financial burdens of the person concerned. However, it is questionable whether the legislature intended and is justified on the merits of the regulation in Section 22 Paragraph 5 Sentence 4 SGB II a. F. to be treated as a further basis for compensation for damages alongside other options such as the official liability claim or the social law manufacturing claim.
b) A court of social jurisdiction is prohibited from considering a decision of a civil court in an official liability case, even if it judges it to be incorrect, within the framework of a decision in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 5 Sentence 4 SGB II a. F. to be corrected.
5. The question of a possible announcement of a decision to a member of the community of needs as the presumed representative for the other members must be separated from the question of whether the content of the decision is addressed to the other members of the community of needs and whether it is sufficiently specific in terms of content of Section 33 Paragraph 1 SGB X.
6. There is no legal basis that would authorize a job center to grant a loan to only one member of this community of needs as part of the assumption of rental debts that affect all members of a community of needs.
Source: treffer.nwb.de
3.4 - State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of July 25, 2013 - L 2 AS 470/11
Guiding principles (author)
The claims of the applicant's deceased wife can be inherited.
The relevant general regulations of the First Book of the Social Code - General Part (SGB I) in Sections 58, 59 SGB I also apply to SGB II. The regulation on special legal succession in Section 56 SGB I also applies.
When applying Section 44 SGB an emergency existed, even if the emergency no longer exists. This also means that there is nothing to prevent claims from being inherited.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See LSG Hamburg, judgment of June 14, 2013 - L 4 SO 35/12 - The son, as the legal successor of his deceased mother, can in principle assert a claim to take over rental debts from the social welfare agency, since in the present case this claim is hereditary.
3.5 - LSG NRW, decision of February 24, 2013 - L 12 AS 2319/13 B ER and L 12 AS 2320/13 B - legally binding
principles (author)
The case law on the headboard principle leads in individual cases, but more so the standardization in § 9 para 5 SGB II states that the applicants are dependent on the support of adult daughters living in the household to meet their needs, although they may not have a maintenance obligation to do so. However, the consequence was also consciously accepted by the BSG when developing case law and also by the legislature when standardizing.
According to established case law of the BSG, the expenses for accommodation and heating are generally to be divided proportionally per capita, regardless of age and intensity of use, if those in need of help - as here - use accommodation together with other people (see e.g. BSG of August 22, 2013, B 14 AS 85 /12 R). When it comes to division, it is irrelevant who owes the rent and who actually uses which part of the apartment. In the present case, this means that only a quarter of the total costs for accommodation and heating must be included in the calculation of the applicant's individual needs. In principle, the applicants cannot therefore demand replacement of the shares attributable to the applicant's two remaining daughters; The shares allocated to the adult daughters are not taken into account to increase the needs of the members, even if they are not members of the community of needs.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 - SG Hamburg, decision of December 19, 2013 - S 26 AS 3870/13 ER - legally binding
Guiding principles (RA Matthias Butenob)
A “particular hardship” within the meaning of Section 27 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB II can exist if 3/4 of a school education has already been completed and the school leaving certificate (here: secondary school leaving certificate) is not just that, after assessing the overall circumstances Access to the labor market is made easier, but is necessary to enable the applicant to gain access in the first place.
This applies all the more if the applicant has received benefits under SGB II since the start of the training, even though she had informed the respondent about the start of the training.
The entire resolution and other details can be found at: www.butenob.de
4.2 - Aachen Social Court, judgment of May 7, 2012 - S 8 AS 399/12 ER - legally binding
Guiding principles (author)
The request to apply for a priority old-age pension, which is contested in the lawsuit, is unlawful because the job center does not exercise the necessary discretion.
According to Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II, submitting an application for benefits is at the dutiful discretion of a job center.
The basic security provider according to SGB II must therefore always explain its reasons for “excluding” a person in need of help in accordance with Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II in its letter of request. Simply determining that an exception to the Unfairness Ordinance has not been met does not release the SGB II provider from exercising its due discretion in assessing whether an invitation to apply for a pension is made. For example, the SGB II provider did not address the applicant's claim that claiming the reduced old-age pension would prevent him from continuing his self-employment and would lead to him remaining permanently in basic security.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
See SG Neubrandenburg, decision of December 29, 2013 (ref.: S 13 AS 1751/13 ER): According to Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II, submitting an application for benefits is at the dutiful discretion of a job center.
The SGB II provider must therefore always explain its reasons for “controlling” a person in need of help in accordance with Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II in its letter of request. Aspects such as the expected duration or amount of benefit receipt, a foreseeable inflow of income or the existence of a chronic illness must be taken into special consideration by the authorities at this point.
4.3 - Halle (Saale) Social Court, decision of February 19, 2014 - S 7 AS 486/14 ER
Guiding principles (author)
Exclusion of benefits for Bulgarian citizens who are in the Federal Republic of Germany exclusively to look for work.
The Chamber has no conclusive evidence that this exclusion of benefits violates European law and therefore does not appear to be applicable.
In particular, the exclusions from benefits violate neither the general prohibition of discrimination (Article 18 TFEU) nor the right to move and reside freely in the Member States (Article 21 TFEU).
It is controversial whether the exclusion of benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II is applicable to Union citizens or whether the secondary law requirement of equal treatment in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 also applies to special non-contributory cash benefits (see only BSG, B 4 AS 9/13 R, decision of December 12, 2013 on the submission to the ECJ; LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of November 1, 2013, L 2 AS 889/13 B ER - and therefore there is a fundamental right to claim. This opinion is not shared.
Likewise, a claim to benefits according to SGB II based on the European Welfare Agreement (EFA) of December 11, 1953 (cf. BSG, judgment of October 19, 2010, B 14 AS 23/10 R, juris) is excluded, because Bulgaria belongs - so far evident – not among the signatories of this agreement.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
See LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, decision of January 30, 2014, L 13 AS 266/13 B ER - The exclusion of benefits from SGB II for job-seeking Bulgarians must be observed in an expedited procedure and is not contrary to European law.
4.4 - SG Cologne, judgment of March 11, 2013 - S 36 AS 303/11
Guiding principle (author)
SGB II benefit for Iraqi citizens
Source: www.fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de (pdf)
4.5 - Darmstadt Social Court, judgment of December 16, 2013 - S 1 AS 467/12 - The appeal is permitted.
On the question of which standard should be used to assess the need for additional learning support, in particular whether support should only be considered if there is a specific risk of being transferred.
Guiding principles (author)
The (risk of) transfer cannot be the only, although an important, criterion for assessing the need for additional learning support.
Rather, the reference to the school regulations requires an answer to the question of whether the additional learning support is necessary and suitable to enable the student to achieve the learning time-related competence expectations at the given time. This makes it necessary to assess the specific learning situation and the academic development of the individual student as well as the possible effects of learning support on further development.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Raising the KUU in Hamburg
From March 1, 2014, the new KDU technical instructions for Hamburg can be found here: www.hamburg.de
6. No claim for reimbursement by the job center against the pension insurance provider if a pension has been retroactively approved due to total incapacity?
At the same time, a discussion of the BSG judgments of October 31, 2012, B 13 R 11/11 R and B 13 R 9/12 R printed in this issue p. 108 ff. An essay by Dr. Jens Blüggel, printed in issue 02/2014 of the magazine “Social Justice”.
With two judgments dated October 31, 2012 (B 13 R 11/11 R and B 13 R 9/12 R), the Federal Social Court (BSG) had to decide on reimbursement claims by job centers against pension insurance providers. In both cases, the recipient received unemployment benefit II from the job center in addition to unemployment benefit from the Federal Employment Agency (BA). The pension insurance provider then retroactively granted a pension due to total incapacity. The BSG has decided that the BA's claim for reimbursement takes precedence over any claims for reimbursement by the job center. These two rulings by the BSG have given pension insurance providers the opportunity to no longer fulfill reimbursement claims from job centers, contrary to previous practice. If this new practice continues, reimbursement disputes before the social courts are to be expected in large numbers and sometimes involving significant amounts.
Source: Issue 02/2014 of the magazine “Social Justice”: www.diesocialgerichtsabilities.de
7. Case law with comments - Judgment of the 4th Senate of the BSG dated March 28, 2013 - B 4 AS 42/12 R - Comment by Dr.
Markus Sichert, Bonn, printed in issue 02/2014 of the magazine “The Social Courts”. When applying for benefits under SGB II, a self-employed applicant is required, as part of their obligation to cooperate, to provide information on their expected income from self-employment, business or agriculture during the approval period (“Annex EKS”).
Source: Issue 02/2014 of the magazine “Social Justice”: www.diesocialgerichtsabilities.de
8. SG Berlin, negotiated in January 2014 - S 18 AS 33122/12
Guiding principle (author)
Job-related bicycle costs must be taken into account as a business expense for a self-employed person in accordance with SGB II.
read more and source: www.alg-ratgeber.de
9. Freedom of movement and “Hartz IV”
Can the exclusion of Union citizens from benefits in SGB II still be justified? A contribution by Eva Steffen, Cologne
Source: www.einwanderer.net (pdf)
10. Guide through the official jungle - 5th edition February 2014 - Opposition e. V. – Social advice
HOW DO I SECURE MY LIVING?
– UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT II – SOCIAL ASSISTANCE – BASIC SECURITY
This guide is not a complicated commentary on the complicated social laws, but rather provides information in simple and understandable language about rights and the most important questions surrounding social benefits - both for those entitled to benefits and for “professionals”.
Here: Widerscheid eV – Social Counseling – Bielefeld: widerstimm-socialberatung.de
Reading samples: Chapter “Educational Package” and Chapter “Compulsory Retirement”
contradiction-social advice.de – old-age pension-compulsory retirement (pdf)
widerstimm-social advice.de – educational package (pdf)
11. The myth of social tourism
An EU study refutes the image of Eastern Europeans flocking to undermine the Western social system. The debate is “polemical and superficial,” says EU Commission representative Richard Kühnel, thereby supporting Caritas’ position.
Next: The fairy tale of social tourism – Society – derStandard.at › Panorama: derstandard.at
12. BGH: Child support – basic security and ability to pay – BGH, decision of. 01/22/2014 – XII ZB 185/12
The fact that social law obligations are taken into account when the person obligated to pay maintenance applies for basic security benefits for job seekers does not increase his or her ability to pay maintenance payments.
Next: HartzBote: www.hartzbote.de
13. Dr.
Johann Schmidt: Legal aspects of the debate about “poverty immigration” and Hartz IV for Bulgarians and Romanians The debate about poverty migration that is taking place in public, in the media, but also among experts prompts the following attempt at objectification. The facts: Since January 1, 2014, Bulgarians and Romanians have been able to work without the previously required work permit, e.g. B. take up employment in Germany. This leads to questions (and obviously discussions) about the nature and scope of social demands.
Next:
SbZ - Legal aspects of the debate about “poverty immigration” and Hartz IV for Bulgarians and Romanians - Information on Transylvania and Romania: www.siebenbuerger.de
14. Authorities posse – She should go to the job center unwashed
Brigitte W. (46) refused to go to the job center unwashed. Now her unemployment benefit II is being reduced. Read more here: www.bz-berlin.de
15. In overcrowded homes – the state must pay for private housing for asylum seekers
If asylum seekers' homes are overcrowded, the state must provide alternative accommodation - if necessary also on the private housing market. The European Court of Justice decided this in a judgment on Thursday (Case C-79/13). If asylum seekers in this case receive money from the social welfare office for accommodation, this amount must be sufficient to be able to rent an apartment privately. The judges did not name a sum. However, they restrict that the recipients cannot choose the apartment according to their personal preferences.
Source: www.focus.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
