1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 27 February 2014 – L 7 AS 642/12 – The appeal is granted
Guiding principles (Thomé):
Transitional allowance paid upon release from prison constitutes income for the first 28 days; thereafter, it becomes assets. The authority, as part of its duty to advise, must inform the applicant of the possibility of withdrawing an application. Due to a failure to provide such advice, the withdrawal is deemed to have occurred one day earlier (under the old law) within the framework of the social security restitution claim.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – LSG NRW, decision of March 4, 2014 – L 19 AS 2157/13 B – Appeal to the Federal Social Court (BSG) is granted.
Ban from the Job Center premises.
Guiding principles (author):
For disputes concerning a ban on entering the premises of a Jobcenter against a person entitled to benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II), the administrative courts, not the social courts, are the appropriate legal recourse (contra BSG decision of 01.04.09 – B 14 SF 1/08 R -).
Note:
See also Higher Administrative Court of Bremen, decision of 25 March 2013 – 1 B 33/13 and Higher Administrative Court of Hamburg, decision of 17 October 2013, 3 So 119/13, Higher Social Court of Hamburg, decisions of 8 July 2013 – L 4 AS 214/13 B and 31 July 2012 – L 4 AS 246/12 B ER, pending before the Federal Social Court under file numbers B 14 SF 1/13 R and B 14 SF 3/13 R.
Source: s14.directupload.net
1.3 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 24 February 2014 – L 19 AS 36/14 B ER – and – L 19 AS 37/14 B – legally binding
rejection of the assumption of accommodation costs pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 5 SGB II – drug use
Guiding principles (author):
The mere fact that conflicts have arisen at home due to the drug use of a person under 25 does not, at least in the summary examination required in preliminary legal protection proceedings, justify an obligation to grant consent pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 5 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
It was taken into account that the youth welfare office, which has been supporting the applicant's family for years, has opposed the applicant's relocation. The applicant's statements during the initial consultation make it clear that the domestic conflicts are primarily due to drug use. However, the social welfare agency under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is not obligated to guarantee the rental of an apartment to enable the young person in need of assistance to use drugs undisturbed.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.4 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 11.03.2014 – L 2 AS 276/14 B ER – legally binding.
No assumption of rent arrears if the currently occupied apartment is not appropriate within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II.
Guiding principles (author):
A debt assumption is only justified if the costs of the accommodation to be secured are within the limits of reasonableness stipulated in Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). The long-term preservation of the apartment, which is the purpose of the debt assumption, can only be justified if the (future) ongoing costs correspond to what the basic income support provider is still required to cover as reasonable accommodation costs (cf. Federal Social Court, judgment of June 17, 2010 – B 14 AS 58/09 R, regarding the identical predecessor provision of Section 22 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)).
The concept developed by the city of Bonn is sound. It does not follow the decision of the Mainz Social Court of June 8, 2012 (S 17 AS 1452/09), according to which the rent payable by the person in need is always reasonable and therefore must be covered by the job center. This is clearly an isolated decision, which is also not shared by the Federal Social Court (see, e.g., Federal Social Court, judgment of April 16, 2013 – B 14 AS 28/12 R; Federal Social Court, judgment of September 10, 2013 – B 4 AS 4/13 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.5 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 16.12.2013 – L 5 AS 723/13 B ER – legally binding.
electricity costs (partially consisting of heating costs) is to be covered pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Guiding principles (author):
Moving to a different residence as a cost-saving measure due to excessive heating costs is only reasonable if the total costs in the alternative residence are no higher than those currently incurred. A move that results in lower heating costs but not lower overall costs would itself be uneconomical and therefore unreasonable (Federal Social Court, judgment of June 12, 2013, B 14 AS 60/12 R).
The applicant's total expenses for her accommodation in 2012 do not exceed the relevant, provisionally applicable comparative costs according to the Jobcenter's guidelines, so that the actual costs for accommodation and heating are to be covered by the Jobcenter, including the portion of the consumption bill attributable to heating electricity, less the benefits already granted for heating costs in 2012.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.6 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 20 February 2014 – L 4 AS 935/12 NZB – legally binding.
No additional needs allowance for nutrition in cases of relapsing gout and rheumatism – recommendations of the German Association as a guideline.
Guiding principles (author):
The recommendations of the German Association can be used as a guideline (Federal Social Court, judgment of February 14, 2013 – B 14 AS 48/12 R). According to these recommendations, a full diet should be provided for gout patients, which can be covered by the standard allowance under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Similarly, regarding the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII): Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of 29 August 2013 – L 8 SO 157/10; regarding the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II): Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of 5 December 2012 – L 16 AS 483/12 and North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, judgment of 30 March 2009 – L 20 AS 44/08.
1.7 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 19 December 2013 – L 7 AS 1470/12 – The appeal was granted
(Unemployment Benefit II – Additional Needs – Unavoidable ongoing special needs – Costs of exercising the grandparents' right of access to their grandchild – No atypical need – No subjective right of the grandparents under Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law)
Principle (Juris):
Travel expenses incurred by grandparents in connection with exercising their right of access to grandchildren are not to be covered by the basic income support provider pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
The same result was reached by the Social Court of Karlsruhe, judgment of 23.09.2013 – S 11 AS 2299/13
1.8 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 22 January 2014 – L 13 AS 190/12
Demarcation of responsibilities between SGB II providers and social welfare providers in cases of initial benefits under SGB II and subsequent retrospective determination of incapacity for work with regard to additional needs due to severe disability and the "G" marker
Guiding principles (Juris):
A "split" claim for benefits, existing against both the social security agency under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) and the social security agency under Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) for different aspects of need for assistance over the same period, would be inconsistent with the system. However, this does not apply equally to benefit periods for which a final administrative decision has not yet been made. If, only after a subsequent reassessment, it is determined that the social welfare agency, rather than the SGB II basic income support agency, would have been fully responsible for the benefits, then the latter is the actual provider obligated to provide the benefits and thus also the responsible party for any higher claim than that already granted. In these cases, a splitting of a single social benefit claim does not occur.
The provision of Section 16 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) also applies if an application from an applicant in need of assistance is not received by an incompetent authority, but by a provider of basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which is either responsible for granting the benefit on the basis of Section 44a Paragraph 1 Sentence 7 of the SGB II – or Section 44a Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 in the version applicable until December 31, 2010 – or which, at least according to the state of knowledge existing at the time of the application and decision, considered itself responsible for the benefit without any breach of duty of care, but which, due to the fact that the applicant's incapacity for work is subsequently discovered, was actually not materially responsible for the applicant.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
1.9 – Hessian State Social Court, Judgment of November 27, 2013 – L 6 AS 726/12 – The appeal is granted.
Basic income support for job seekers – Exclusion of benefits for foreigners residing for the purpose of job seeking – EU citizens – Non-application in the absence of a substantive right of residence
Principle (Juris):
The exclusion from benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not apply to EU citizens with a presumed legal residence without a substantive right of residence for the purpose of job seeking (following: Higher Social Court Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of March 25, 2013 – L 31 AS 362/13 B ER; Higher Social Court North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of October 10, 2013 – L 19 AS 129/13; Higher Social Court Saxony-Anhalt, decision of November 1, 2013 – L 2 AS 841/13 B ER).
The systematic structure of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU and Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC also preclude a corresponding application of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), or an application by way of an "a fortiori" argument to Union citizens from other Member States whose right of residence is presumed because the competent immigration authority has not yet made a determination regarding the cessation of the substantive legal requirements for the right of residence.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Dresden Social Court, Judgment of January 27, 2014 – S 7 AS 2328/13 – The appeal is granted.
Even those serving juvenile detention under the Juvenile Courts Act are entitled to benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II).
Guiding principles (author):
The juvenile detention served by the applicant pursuant to Section 16 of the Juvenile Courts Act (JGG) is not a judicially ordered deprivation of liberty pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: s1.directupload.net
Note:
The same result was reached by the Social Court of Gießen, judgment of March 1, 2010, case no. S 29 AS 1053/09.
2.2 – Social Court Dresden, Judgment of February 18, 2014 – S 38 AS 3442/13 – The Social Court Dresden granted leave to appeal to the Higher Social Court Chemnitz against this judgment.
Principle (Author):
Capping of accommodation costs for Hartz IV recipients in Riesa is unlawful
The report by the district of Meißen on the KdU guidelines does not meet the requirements of the BSG's case law regarding a coherent concept.
The determination of the housing market volume was also flawed. It was based on estimates and not on scientifically determined data. Therefore, the Dresden Social Court set the reimbursable housing costs based on the table in Section 12 of the Housing Benefit Act, plus a 10% surcharge.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See also the press release from the Social Court of Dresden dated February 19, 2014, available here: www.justiz.sachsen.de
2.3 – Social Court Dresden, decision of 21.02.2014 – S 28 AS 567/14 ER
The job center's request to apply for an early retirement pension without knowledge of the expected pension amount is unlawful.
Under current law, early retirement, and therefore a reduced pension, would likely result in her receiving lifelong basic income support under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). This could potentially be avoided by waiting until she reaches the standard retirement age, which is approximately two years away. The job center wrongly failed to consider this significant factor in its decision and therefore did not take it into account in its assessment.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
A request to "submit pension information" is not an administrative act (LSG NRW, decision of 10 February 2014 – L 19 AS 54/14 B ER).
III. Practical tip (by attorney Corinna Unger, Gera in Infobrief SGB II – Briefings for practitioners 03/2014)
The request for submission of documents does not yet constitute an administrative act; however, the request to apply for a pension does.
The decision to request a pension application is discretionary and must be justified with the relevant discretionary considerations.
In most cases, this justification is lacking, so it may be advisable to initiate expedited proceedings (see also LSG BB, decision of 27 September 2013 – L 28 AS 2330/13 B ER).
2.4 – Social Court Magdeburg of 11.03.2014 – S 21 AS 2801/09
Credit for electricity purchases that are offset by the energy supplier against outstanding debts (unpaid installments) and are not paid out
Guiding Principles (Attorney Michael Loewy):
An electricity credit balance that has not been paid out to the benefit recipient due to a unilateral offset by the energy supplier against outstanding past payments does not constitute "readily available funds" and, contrary to the wording of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in its former version, does not reduce the benefit recipient's expenses for accommodation and heating incurred after the month of the credit.
Source: anwaltskanzlei-loewy.de
2.5 – SG Aachen, Judgment of 18.02.2014 – S 14 AS 921/13
The Social Court of Aachen has delivered an interesting and important ruling for self-employed people.
The following points are important:
If the two-month deadline stipulated in Section 3 of the ALG II-V (Regulation on Unemployment Benefit II) for submitting the final EKS (Income and Expenditure Statement) is not met, and the Jobcenter (JC) subsequently estimates the profit after a prior hearing, this estimate can no longer be reviewed because the final EKS will be submitted later. Therefore, a review application under Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) is not possible.
When estimating profit, the Jobcenter must adhere as closely as possible to the available information. The Social Court (SG) clearly points out that the Jobcenter must provide precise factual justification if it intends to deviate from the forecasts stated in the preliminary EKS (profit and loss statement) and accepted by the Jobcenter.
This clearly indicates that the preliminary EKS (Economic Cost Estimate) should not be hastily calculated, as is often recommended, but rather estimated carefully, albeit cautiously. The more that can already be substantiated, the more credible the EKS becomes, and the more JC (Jobcenter) should adhere to it when making an estimate.
Source: www.alg-ratgeber.de
Full text of the decision here: s1.directupload.net
Note:
Cf. BSG, judgment of 22.08.2013 – B 14 AS 1/13 R, para. 36: Although future income can be estimated in the case of a provisional approval; however, the provisional approval must primarily cover the current and unavoidable subsistence needs of the beneficiary.
2.6 – SG Ulm, Judgment of 05.03.2014 – S 4 AS 1764/13
No shared responsibility or mutual support
Guiding principles (author):
A prerequisite for the existence of a community of responsibility and support according to § 7 para. 3 SGB II is that partners live together in a shared apartment (for details see BSG, judgment of 23.08.2012 – B 4 AS 34/12).
The job center's view that a single household exists across two separate residences, since the plaintiff and M regularly reside in both, is untenable. This would extend the concept of a community of support and responsibility to every separated partner in a long-term relationship, which was clearly not the legislator's intention when enacting Section 7 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: s7.directupload.net
Note from the court: According to Section 7 Paragraph 3a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), while the willingness to assume responsibility and provide support can be presumed, the existence of a shared household and joint financial management cannot. These prerequisites must be proven and are what establish the legal presumption of the partners' willingness to assume responsibility and provide support.
2.7 – Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of 25 February 2014 – S 4 AS 1/14 ER
Offsetting multiple loans – The applicant aims to reduce the monthly burden by having multiple offsets – Even below the maximum limit for permanent monthly reductions in basic income support, which is likely to be 30%, an examination of the individual reductions must be carried out, since, for example, loan offsets can only lead to a maximum reduction in the standard benefit of 10% in total, according to the law
Guiding principles (author):
The maximum offset amount when multiple loans are involved is limited to 10% of the relevant standard benefit.
Section 43 paragraph 2 sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not provide a basis for expanding or limiting the offsetting possibilities under Section 42a paragraph 2 of the SGB II beyond the limitations set out therein.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.8 – SG Lüneburg, Judgment of 13 November 2013 – S 37 AS 844/10
Sanction unlawful – receipt of application by employer
Guiding principles (author):
A sanction is unlawful because the lack of proven access does not, in the present case, constitute the offense of "refusal".
In particular, no implied refusal can be inferred from the circumstances, as failed delivery can be due to various causes, some of which may be beyond the sender's control. Proof of delivery of a document sent by post can generally only be established if delivery is made by registered mail with return receipt – which is relatively expensive. However, this was not the usual practice for the parties involved in job applications.
According to the principle of objective burden of proof and determination, which applies in all areas of social law, the consequences of a fact not being clarifiable must be borne by the person who wishes to derive a right from that fact. Therefore, for the element of "refusal" within the meaning of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 1 b and c of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the burden of proof lies with the job center.
A shift of the burden of proof to the benefit recipient is expressly stipulated by law only in cases where a refusal has already been positively established, but the benefit recipient cannot present and prove a valid reason for their behavior (§ 31 para. 1 sentence 2 SGB II). Since the imposition of a sanction constitutes an infringement of a protected legal position within the framework of basic subsistence support, there is no legal basis to extend a corresponding reversal of the burden of proof to the element of refusal, especially since the applicant would be placed in a difficult position regarding proof of receipt of the application – without the job center covering the costs of registered mail with return receipt.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
Regarding the concept of "refusal" – Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of 06.02.2014 – L 11 AS 535/12
2.9 – Social Court Lüneburg, decision of 12 December 2013 – S 37 AS 447/13 ER
Driver's license training from the placement budget
Guiding principles (author):
The job center does not have to cover the costs of driver's license training if the training contract has already been concluded and the activity started without funding from the basic income support provider under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
This is also the essential difference to the case decided by the LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen in proceedings L 15 AS 317/11 B ER, since there was only a hiring commitment from the future employer.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
Regarding the provisional approval of benefits for the purchase of a used motor vehicle from the placement budget – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 27 January 2014 – L 7 AS 1807/13 B ER
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 16 January 2014 – L 9 SO 469/13 WA – The appeal is admitted.
Regarding the constitutionality of standard benefit level 3 – In creating standard benefit level 3, the legislator did not violate its constitutional obligations to provide transparent justification
Guiding principles (author):
The Senate considers the assumption of a power of dismissal by the social courts with regard to the standard benefit levels of the annex to Section 28 SGB XII (as held by the Social Court of Detmold, judgment of 23 May 2013 – S 16 SO 27/13 –) to be a violation of Article 101 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Basic Law, which – after exhaustion of legal remedies – social welfare providers could also assert by means of a constitutional complaint.
There is more evidence to support than to refute the notion that the aforementioned legal regulations concerning standard benefit level 3 are not only compatible with the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living under Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, but also, at least in the applicant's case relevant for a referral under Article 100 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, with Article 3 Paragraph 1 and Article 3 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the Basic Law.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Critical of the introduction of standard benefit level 3, Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 6 February 2012 – L 20 SO 527/11 B
3.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 16 January 2014 – L 9 SO 40/13
On the constitutionality of standard benefit level 3
Guiding principles (author):
There is more evidence for than against the fact that the aforementioned legal regulations concerning standard benefit level 3 are not only compatible with the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living under Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, but, at least in the applicant's case, which is relevant for a referral under Article 100 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, also with Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law and Article 3 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the Basic Law.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Social Court Detmold held a different view, judgment of 23 May 2013 – S 16 SO 27/13, appeal pending under B 8 SO 14/13 R
4. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Duisburg Social Court, Judgment of 16 January 2014 – S 52 SO 504/12 – Appeal pending before the North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Social Court under file number L 20 SO 59/14
Consideration of housing and heating costs to increase need – per capita method
Guiding principles (author):
The mere fact of "living together" in the mother's rented apartment is not sufficient to establish an entitlement to social assistance. Legally speaking, the person in need of assistance is not required to incur any costs for "living together" with their mother.
If a person in need of assistance lives in a shared household with relatives or relatives by marriage who are not in need of assistance, the granting of benefits for accommodation and heating requires actual expenses incurred by the person in need of assistance (principle established by the Federal Social Court, judgment of April 14, 2011, case number B 8 SO 18/09 R). The continued application of the per capita method requested by the person in need of assistance is not justifiable in this case: her mother is not herself in need of assistance within the meaning of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) or Book XII (SGB XII), and the plaintiff simply does not incur any legally binding or legally attributable costs for accommodation and heating (cf. Federal Social Court, judgment of April 14, 2011 – B 8 SO 18/09 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.2 – Social Court Halle (Saale), decision of 06.03.2014 – S 24 SO 223/13 ER
Benefits for long-term care without deduction of the residential group supplement according to § 38a SGB XI
Guiding Principles (Author):
The residential group supplement pursuant to Section 38a of the German Social Code, Book XI (SGB XI), is not to be offset against the in-kind care benefit pursuant to Section 65, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), either under Section 66, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1, or under Section 2, Paragraph 1, of the SGB XII. According to the explanatory memorandum to the law, the cash benefit pursuant to Section 38a of the SGB XI serves to finance a staff member required in the residential group to perform administrative tasks. The supplement can also be used to pay a caregiver for performing administrative tasks in the residential group in addition to the care and support activities already financed through the in-kind benefit (Bundestag Printed Matter 17/9369, p. 41).
The granting of the residential group supplement pursuant to Section 38a SGB XI is not a benefit appropriate to the purpose under other legal provisions that would justify reducing the care benefit in kind pursuant to Section 66 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB XII.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
5.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 28 February 2014 – L 8 AL 1515/13
Granting of a start-up subsidy for commencing self-employment as a lawyer
Guiding principles (Juris):
The rejection of a start-up grant on the grounds that placement in sufficient existing dependent employment relationships was a priority over self-employment is an abuse of discretion if self-employment (here: as a lawyer) was stipulated as the integration goal in an integration agreement and the Federal Employment Agency expressly did not commit itself to placement and demonstrably proceeded accordingly until the commencement of self-employment.
In special cases (here: several years of prior work as a student and legal trainee in the same law firm and takeover of the client base), the sufficient social security and means of subsistence deemed to be proven in the period after the establishment of the business can be taken into account in the rejection decision without error of discretion.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. A former recipient of Hartz IV benefits should not have been sanctioned despite failing to apply for jobs, because the job center had overlooked a crucial detail.
This detail concerns the requirement that the job center cover application costs. This must be explicitly stated in writing in the so-called integration agreements that the agency concludes with benefit recipients. Because this clause was missing, the judges ruled that the entire agreement, and therefore also the sanctions stipulated therein for violations, were invalid.
Source: Former welfare recipient defeated the job center: www.hna.de
7. Munich raises rent limits for Hartz IV recipients. The increase is significant, but there's a catch.
While the limit for a single person was previously €449.21 per month, it now stands at €590. However, the figures aren't directly comparable, because whereas the limit previously referred to the basic rent (excluding utilities), it will now include additional costs such as fees for caretakers, garbage collection, and building cleaning. The Social Welfare Department declined to comment on the figure used for these additional costs. The authority is citing the Federal Social Court as justification, stating that the court "expressly" does not provide for a breakdown of the new rent limits into the respective proportions of basic rent and additional costs.
VdW Bayern provides a guideline value
: For orientation purposes: According to the Association of Bavarian Housing Companies (VdW Bayern), tenants of the housing companies organized in the association had to prepay an average of 1.49 euros/m² for cold operating costs in 2012.
Further figures: For two people in a household, the maximum rent increases from €562.59 to €724 per month, and for three people from €667.04 to €849. For households with four people, the limit is €972 per month instead of the previous €789.35.
Source: www.immobilien-zeitung.de
8. Parity: Brochure. “Hartz IV EU citizens: apply for provisional benefits!”
Claudius Voigt (GGUA eV) has prepared guidelines for the Paritätische Gesamtverband (Parity Association) for advisory practice on the topic of “Hartz IV for EU citizens: Apply for provisional benefits now!”.
The practical tips begin with a brief overview of the undisputed and disputed entitlements to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for EU citizens. Due to the contradictions between national and European law (exclusions from benefits vs. the principle of equal treatment) and the pending proceedings before the European Court of Justice and the Federal Social Court, it is argued that when applying for benefits for job seekers or unemployed EU citizens, an application for provisional benefits should always be submitted simultaneously.
Further information on the preliminary benefits and other issues that may be central to the advisory work can be found in the attached document.
For the document: www.ggua.de (pdf)
9. Professor Emeritus Dr. Helga Spindler: Why is immigration directly into a social welfare system in Europe and in Germany so unclearly regulated?
Only politicians – from every direction – and the Commission, especially Social Affairs Commissioner Andor and Justice Commissioner Reding, claim that everything is perfectly clear. The problem isn't the immigrants, but rather problematic EU legislation that aims to promote the free movement of persons but doesn't care about protecting the level of national social security systems, argues Helga Spindler.
Further information: NachDenkSeiten – The critical website: www.nachdenkseiten.de
10. FES brochure: Sanctions under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), March 2014
Constitutional legitimacy, economic impact research and options for action
Oliver Ehrentraut, Anna-Marleen Plume, Sabrina Dirt, Reinhard Schüssler
This report is published by the Department of Economic and Social Policy of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. The authors are solely responsible for the statements and conclusions.
Download: library.fes.de (pdf)
11. Poverty-driven immigration – Unemployed EU citizens should leave after three months
According to information obtained by the FAZ, the German government wants to solve the problem of poverty-driven immigration by more strictly limiting the right of residence in Germany.
Further: Poverty-driven immigration: Unemployed EU citizens should leave after three months – Current events – FAZ: www.faz.net
Author of the legal news ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
