1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of April 2, 2014 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of April 2, 2014 – B 4 AS 29/13 R
Basic security for job seekers - top-up - application for unemployment benefit according to SGB III does not include the application for unemployment benefit II
Guiding principles (author)
In any case, an application for unemployment benefit I does not constitute an application for basic security benefits under SGB II - which was also an incidental application - insofar as it concerns benefit claims from other members of the community of need, in particular from family members of the applicant.
Likewise, the submitted application for benefits to secure one's livelihood in accordance with SGB II - as a subsequent application within the meaning of Section 28 SGB X - does not have a retroactive effect on the time of the application. The case constellation here, in which the other social benefit - unemployment benefit according to SGB III - was not denied, but was approved and is “just” not sufficient to ensure the livelihood of the community of needs, is not subject to this regulation.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
This is also the case, for example, with RiSG Berlin Udo Geiger in “Guide to Unemployment Benefit II – The Legal Guide to SGB II”, 10th edition, 2014, page 792. (…) The AA has no authority here to accept the Alg I application to convert it into an application for ALG II and forward it to the job center.(…)
1.2 – BSG, judgment of April 2, 2014 – B 4 AS 26/13 R
No entitlement to benefits to secure a living under an integration agreement
Guiding principles (author)
According to Section 15 Para. 1 SGB II, an integration agreement may only regulate integration services, but not services to secure one's livelihood. If the integration agreement is recognized as an assurance within the meaning of Section 34 SGB X and thus an administrative act, this is also void in this case. It is inadmissible to make the unconditional granting of benefits to secure one's livelihood dependent on the provision of something in return - in this case a course of study and its completion - if the statutory benefit requirements are met.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of December 12, 2013 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - BSG, judgment of December 12, 2013 - B 14 AS 90/12 R
Basic security for job seekers - consideration of assets - property partly used by the owner - inappropriate size - consideration of the total living space - giving an apartment to relatives with separate households - particular hardship
Asset protection of the “family home” as a “multi-generational house” in SGB II is possible as a special hardship within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 6 Old 2 SGB II.
Guiding principles (author)
Asset protection for the house property in accordance with Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4, Sentence 2 SGB II is ruled out because it is of inappropriate size. However, its protection under Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 6 Alt 2 SGB II comes into consideration because particular hardship can result from the fact that the property of the person in need of assistance would be protected from exploitation according to SGB XII.
One such circumstance that comes into consideration here is that a house property is not protected according to Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB II, which would be protected according to Section 90 Paragraph 2 No. 8 SGB XII because there the “under one Relatives living on the roof are included in the adequacy test, but not in SGB II (outside of community of needs and household). As part of the examination of the particular hardship within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 6 Old 2 SGB II, a comparative look at Section 90 Paragraph 2 No. 8 SGB XII can provide guidance.
In cases of living together with other people, the entire living space of a house, even in the case of a rented granny flat, must be taken into account when examining the usable assets, not just the portion occupied by the owner (cf. BSG judgment of March 22, 2012 - B 4 AS 99/11 R).
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2.2 – BSG, judgment of December 12, 2013 – B 4 AS 87/12 R
Unemployment benefit II - Adequacy of accommodation costs - Lack of a coherent concept - Loss of knowledge - Application of the housing benefit table - Security surcharge of 10% appropriate
Guiding principles (author)
In the event of a loss of knowledge, the actual expenses must generally be borne. However, as part of the general adequacy test, these are capped by the table values in the housing benefit table.
According to the case law for the regulation in § 8 WoGG that applies until December 31, 2008, the respective maximum amount in the table must be used and a security surcharge of 10% must be included. This inclusion of the security surcharge must also take place in the event that Section 12 WoGG is invoked (st. case law, cf. most recently BSG judgment of December 11, 2012 - B 4 AS 44/12 R).
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
3. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of October 17, 2013 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - BSG, judgment of October 17, 2013 - B 14 AS 38/12 R
Basic security for job seekers - income consideration - severance payment from a labor court settlement - one-off income - no consideration beyond the approval or distribution period in the event of premature use - ready funds - constitutional interpretation - claim for compensation in the event of socially unfriendly behavior
Guiding principles (author)
One-off income may only be taken into account if this income was (still) available in the months in question as a ready means of securing the minimum subsistence level of those in need of help (cf. case law of the BSG of November 29, 2012 - B 14 AS 33/ 12 rows).
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
See LSG NSB, decision of February 3, 2014 - L 15 AS 437/13 B ER - on income consideration - tax refund - distribution of one-off income - early consumption of income - funds not ready - change in law as of April 1, 2011 - no transferability of the previous case law BSG on the new law
Insofar as the Federal Social Court (BSG) has already decided several times for the distribution of one-off income according to previous law (Section 2 Paragraph 4 Unemployment Benefit II/Social Benefit Ordinance - Alg II V - in the version valid until March 31, 2011) that the consideration of a One-off income in a distribution period is no longer possible if it is no longer available as a means of making a living (judgments of November 29, 2012 - B 14 AS 33/12 R and of December 12, 2013 - B 14 AS 76/12 R, this case law cannot be transferred to the current legal situation, since the distribution of a one-off income over a period of six months and the monthly consideration with a partial amount are now legally regulated in SGB II (Section 11 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3). This is applicable law, which is to be applied as long as it is not corrected by the legislature or declared invalid by the Federal Constitutional Court - for example as part of a specific regulatory review according to Article 100 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.
4. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of March 19, 2013 – L 31 AS 3018/13 B
Additional demand for hot water - evidence collection procedure - electricity consumption of the instantaneous water heater in the event of additional demand due to decentralized hot water supply
Guiding principles (author)
The question of the adequacy of the hot water supply is a legal question on which an expert does not have to contribute. If the claim of different needs remains only a guess, no official investigation needs to be initiated.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.2 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, judgment of March 6, 2014 – L 31 AS 1348/13 – The appeal is permitted.
Exclusion of benefits – job search – EU foreigners – right of freedom of movement to search for work – abuse of social benefits – habitual residence
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. In cases of structural abuse of social benefits - here residence of EU foreigners without the right of freedom of movement to claim social benefits - there is a claim to unemployment benefit II until measures to end the stay have been implemented. This politically undesirable consequence is due, on the one hand, to the legal regulation in SGB II, which, according to the case law of the Federal Social Court, does not require legal residence, and, on the other hand, to insufficient cooperation between the job center and the immigration authorities in enforcing the law.
2. Following the case law of the 4th Senate (judgment of January 30, 2013, Ref.: B 4 AS 54/12 R) of the Federal Social Court, according to which the habitual residence within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB II is to be determined purely in fact, the obvious lack of a right of freedom of movement for an EU foreigner does not prevent the affirmation of habitual residence.
3. EU foreign nationals who have neither entered the country to look for work nor can claim a derived right of freedom of movement from a working relative, but who want to take advantage of social benefits for integration, fulfill the legal requirements for one until the immigration authorities take measures to end their stay, provided that the other requirements are met Entitlement to benefits to help with living expenses.
4. The exclusion of job-seeking EU foreigners from SGB II benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II, which is controversial under European law, does not actually apply if the foreigner declares that he does not want to work and the integration agreement contains a corresponding obligation not signed.
5. An expanded interpretation of this exclusion norm, according to which the exclusion of benefits already applies if the legal residence could fictitiously be justified solely by looking for a job, is hardly compatible with the wording and meaning and purpose of the norm, is not systematically necessary and in view of the concerns under European law not justifiable against the norm.
6. SGB II does not (any longer) contain grounds for exclusion relating to the legality of the stay, at least according to the case law of the BSG cited above.
7. The lack of subjective availability in the sense of willingness to work has no significance for the eligibility requirements for unemployment benefit II (following the BSG judgment of March 29, 2007, AZ.: B 7b AS 4/06 R).
8. However, there is no gap in the law or regulations, as the structural abuse of social benefits in this case must be countered by measures under immigration law. If these do not take effect immediately due to the use of legal protection, this must be accepted for constitutional reasons.
9. Insufficiently institutionalized cooperation between the immigration authority and the job center in law enforcement does not constitute a regulatory gap in the laws, which are perfectly interlinked in terms of the legal system, and certainly does not create the need for an extensive interpretation of an exceptional provision that raises significant concerns under European law.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.3 - Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of February 28, 2014 - L 32 AS 2279/13 B PKH - legally binding
offsetting of cost claims - PKH - discretion in the case of simply sovereign actions
Guiding principles (author)
The offsetting of a claim for cost reimbursement in accordance with Section 63 SGB X represents an administrative act.
In this respect, it is still unclear whether these claims are subject to the regime of §§ 38 ff, in particular 51 SGB I, with regard to offsetting. This is represented from the point of view that these are annex services (Diering in LPK-SGBX, 2nd ed., § 63 SGB X, RdNo. 42).
If it was an administrative act according to or in accordance with Section 51 SGB I, there would probably be a sufficient chance of success because it is not even remotely apparent that the necessary exercise of discretion could have been carried out.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.4 - Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of February 21, 2014 - L 32 AS 2471/13 B PKH - legally binding
legal aid - justifiability of constitutional concerns - standard requirements § 20 SGB 2 - granting of legal aid
Guiding principles (author)
The problems arising in the constitutional discussion do not make it appear unreasonable to criticize the challenged legal regulations as unconstitutional. In this respect, the court follows the opinion of the LSG NRW, decision of April 23, 2012, L 7 AS 1059/11 B.
The decisions of the Federal Social Court have not changed this. In the area of transport needs, the Federal Social Court has expressly admitted “an uncertainty in consumption determinations in the order of around 5.50 euros per month” (BSG; judgment of July 12, 2012, B 14 AS 153/11 R, RdNo 73) and this only considered “acceptable” with regard to the legislature’s scope for needs beyond the physical subsistence level (ibid.). In such an assessment, a final clarification that would appear to be unreasonable cannot be recognized by other opinions.
Finally, the general reference to the fact that the ruling body follows the jurisprudence of the BSG cannot invalidate an assessment of the justifiability of the constitutional counterarguments, at least as long as the BVerfG has not decided on the cases before it and the justifiability of the plaintiff's arguments is not examined in more detail . In any case, the BVerfG itself considers the constitutional complaint against the judgment of the BSG of March 28, 2013, March 28, 2013, B 4 AS 12/12 R in view of the approval of legal aid (BVerfG, decision of September 10, 2013, 1 BvR 1691/13) sufficient chances of success.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.5 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen 13th Senate, judgment of March 19, 2014 - L 13 AS 233/12
Social court procedure - action for failure to act - failure to decide on an objection to a provisional approval of benefits within three months - lack of sufficient reason - final decision not possible due to lack of cooperation – Notification of the objection is still possible – decision on costs
Guiding Principles (Juris)
The service provider may not justify inaction by saying that the applicant may be failing to fulfill his obligation to cooperate.
S. has not complied with Sections 60 ff. SGB I. If necessary, the service provider must proceed in accordance with Section 66 SGB I. Even in the case of initially provisional approval of benefits, nothing different ultimately applies. There is the possibility here of rejecting the objection on the grounds that a final decision is still not possible due to insufficient evidence. The fact that, according to the Senate's case law, a failure to provide reasons for the objection makes a lawsuit appear wanton can only be seen against the background of the decision on the burden of costs. This, or the fact of inadequate cooperation, does not mean that the action for failure to act is inadmissible or unfounded; However, these considerations have a significant influence on the cost decision according to Section 193 SGG.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
4.6 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court 13th Senate, decision of March 19, 2014 - L 13 AS 45/14 B
Lack of jurisdiction of the social justice system – rejecting legal aid decision
Guiding principles (Juris)
To the extent that Section 44 of the SGB
The social justice system is not responsible for a claim for damages, even if it is referred to as remedying the consequences.
A claim for damages cannot be a legal consequence of the social law production claim.
Legal aid cannot be granted for legal aid proceedings.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
See BSG, judgment of June 19, 2012 - B 4 AS 142/11 R - A claim for damages cannot, however, be a legal consequence of the social law production claim.
4.7 - Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court 13th Senate, decision of March 18, 2014 - L 13 AS 363/13 B ER
No Union citizen is entitled to ongoing social benefits when entering the country solely for the purpose of looking for work
Guiding Principles (Juris)
If a legal question that is relevant to the decision has been discussed in the professional public for a long time, a court must not leave it open and decide in the procedure for granting interim legal protection by weighing the consequences.
Section 7 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II is compliant with European law. Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
4.8 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen 13th Senate, decision of March 5, 2014 - L 13 AS 206/13 WA
Basic security for job seekers - community of needs - community of responsibility and commitment - no refutation of the presumption regulation - partnership agreement - consideration of the partner's income in favor of non-biological minor children in the community of need – constitutionality
Guiding principles (Juris)
The refutation of the legal presumption of Section 7 Paragraph 3a No. 1 SGB II and thus the determination of the non-existence of a community of responsibility and responsibility must be based on facts. The mere assertion by the person concerned that the presumption has not been met is just as inadequate as the conclusion of a partnership agreement that states that everyone bears the cost of living for themselves.
By creating settlement structures with which funds are transferred back and forth between the partners (“carousel money”), an economic separation does not become credible.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
4.9 - LSG NRW, decision of March 17, 2014 - L 7 AS 2392/13 B ER - legally binding
Jobcenter must cover travel costs to Indonesia as part of an impact assessment
Guiding principles (author)
The job center is obliged to finance a three-week trip for a Hartz IV recipient to exercise access rights to his underage son.
The applicant's exercise of his right of access to his son is an important support for the son's development, especially in view of the above birthday and against the background that the son lives in a foreign culture.
Contact with his son is of particular importance, with particular regard to family contact, which is protected by fundamental rights. The child's best interests must also be taken into account when weighing up the matter.
Source: Press release from LSG NRW from April 1st, 2014: www.lsg.nrw.de
The full text of the decision can be found here: Sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
4.10 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of November 28, 2013 - L 6 AS 130/13 The appeal was permitted.
Hartz IV – entitlement also for EU citizens from Romania
Guiding principle (author)
An exclusion of benefits without exception for job-seeking EU citizens is contrary to European law.
Source: Press release, Essen, November 29th, 2013: www.lsg.nrw.de
The full text of the judgment is finally available: https://socialgerichtsbaren.de
4.11 - Hessian State Social Court, judgment of March 14, 2014 - L 9 AS 90/11
Transfer of a benefit recipient's claim against her former employer to the basic security provider.
Guiding principle
Both § 33 SGB II in the version valid since August 1, 2006 and § 115 SGB X provide for a transfer of the claim by law (legal assignment) under the conditions there.
If the social service provider has given the impression in a letter that there is a binding regulation of public law, it has, in its external form, used a formal administrative act, which must be repealed if it is contested.
The regulation of Section 33 (5) SGB II, according to which Sections 115 and 116 SGB If a transfer of claims according to § 115 SGB X does not occur, a transfer according to § 33 SGB II remains possible.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
5.1 - Dresden Social Court, judgment of September 27, 2013 - S 21 AS 671/12 - The appeal is permitted.
Student transport costs – own contribution
Guiding principles (author)
A reasonable personal contribution is generally considered to be an amount of 5 euros per month.
Since the legislature is expressly based on the experience from previous administrative practice, it is not clear why a higher personal contribution would have been reasonable in performance periods before August 1, 2013 than under the current legal situation. Section 28 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 SGB II nF merely specifies the previously existing indefinite regulation.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5.2 – Dresden Social Court, judgment of January 6, 2014 – S 48 AS 5789/12 – The appeal is permitted.
Learning support according to Section 28 Paragraph 5 SGB II-
Guiding principles (author)
Applicant is entitled to cover the costs for appropriate learning support in accordance with Section 28 Paragraph 5 SGB II for attending the study meeting.
According to Section 28 Paragraph 5 SGB II, the applicable state regulations must be used to determine the essential learning objectives. Section 5 Saxon is therefore relevant. SchulG. The suitability and necessity of learning support relates to the essential learning goal, which in turn results from the school regulations of the respective country in individual cases, depending on the type of school and grade level. The main learning goal in each grade level is usually transfer to the next grade level or a sufficient level of performance.
It does not follow from Section 28 Paragraph 5 SGB II that it was only created for short-term programs. Rather, the focus must be on the specific individual case and in the specific individual case, medium and long-term measures may also be necessary, especially since the explanatory memorandum to the law also separately emphasizes the aspect of sustainability in connection with education and the fight against poverty (BT-Drucks 17/3404, 45).
The fact that the transfer is not the sole learning goal is also supported by the legal justification for Section 28 Paragraph 5 SGB II. It says: “The suitability and necessity of learning support refers to the essential learning goal, which in turn results from the school regulations of the respective country in individual cases, depending on the type of school and grade level. The main learning goal in each grade level is usually the transfer to the next grade level or a sufficient level of performance.” (BT-Drucks 17/3404, 105). Based on the learning goal of imparting a certain level of performance to the applicant, the learning support was also suitable for achieving this goal. This is a prognostic decision that can be fully verified in court.
Source: Sozialgerichtsbaren.de
Note:
See Darmstadt Social Court, judgment of December 16, 2013 - S 1 AS 467/12
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.
5.3 - SG Dresden, decision of March 28, 2014 - S 40 AS 1905/14 ER
No reimbursement of examination costs at private schools within the framework of SGB II
Guiding principles (author)
Students at a private school are not entitled to cover the fees for their final examinations in the form of an increased standard requirement according to SGB II.
The applicant cannot claim that the examination fees are covered as a separate need for education. The catalog of services in Section 28 SGB II conclusively regulates the needs that can be taken into account in this respect. Examination fees are not listed there. For this reason, a claim to reimbursement of the examination fees as a so-called additional requirement according to Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II should be denied.
A complaint can be lodged against the decision with the LSG Chemnitz.
Press release SG Dresden: www.justiz.sachsen.de
Note:
See LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of February 24, 2014 - L 4 AS 638/12 B - No payment of additional requirements within the meaning of Section 27 Paragraph 2 SGB II in conjunction with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II for the applicant's monthly school fees - It is questionable whether the school fees can be included in the regulation of Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II.
5.4 – Kassel Social Court, decision of March 31, 2014 – S 6 AS 46/14 ER
Partial denial of unemployment benefit II according to § 66 SGB I is permitted due to the lack of cooperation of the benefit recipient in clarifying the ability to work
Guiding principles (author)
The obligations to cooperate in Sections 60 ff. SGB I also apply in the area of basic security for job seekers.
Due to the applicant's violation of the obligation to cooperate, the job center may resort to Section 66 SGB I, since the fundamental refusal to be assessed is not regulated in Sections 31 ff. SGB II. The same applies to the non-granted consent for the socio-medical results of the assessment (without anamnetic information and diagnoses) to be passed on to the JC.
A reduction of current SGB II benefits by 30 percent does not violate the socio-cultural subsistence minimum (cf. LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of April 23, 2012 - L 2 AS 5594/11 NZB), although it is in the applicant's hands, to eliminate the partial withdrawal of benefits by rectifying the act of cooperation, at least for the future - depending on the respondent's decision, also retroactively (§ 67 SGB I).
Objections and lawsuits against withdrawal notices within the meaning of Section 66 SGB I in accordance with Section 39 No. 1 SGB II have no suspensive effect.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Similar in result Bavarian LSG, decision v. 08/31/2012 – L 7 AS 601/12 B ER; aA Hessian LSG, decision of. 06/22/2011 – L 7 AS 700/10 B ER
5.5 - Dortmund Social Court, decision of November 30, 2014 - S 40 AS 5019/13 ER
Guiding principle (RAin Helga Wonnemann)
ALG II entitlement for families from Slovakia may be excluded according to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II, but in summary examination the overriding interest of the applicants who have no income or assets can be If the answer is yes, the standard rate and accommodation costs must be paid by the JC for three months with immediate effect.
Source: Judgment is available to Tacheles.
6. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
6.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, judgment of February 20, 2014 – L 15 SO 23/13
Accommodation costs – rental agreement with relatives – care
Guiding principles (author)
Social welfare providers must cover accommodation costs for a disabled brother who lives with the sister and is under care, because according to the case law of the Federal Social Court, the most important thing is the existence of a legally valid rental agreement, which is the case here.
The 8th Senate of the BSG has followed the jurisprudence of the Senate of the BSG responsible for benefits under the Social Code II, according to which agreements between relatives regarding the transfer of living space, regardless of an arm's length comparison, can be the legal basis for the basic security provider to cover actual expenses for accommodation and heating must be taken over if there is a corresponding legal commitment (see decision of the BSG of August 25, 2011, Ref. B 8 SO 1/11 B, with reference to the judgments of the BSG of March 3, 2009, Ref. B 4 AS 37/08 R and from May 7, 2009, Ref. B 14 AS 31/07 R).
However, the fact that no rent was actually paid and that this did not result in any consequences in the form of a termination cannot be taken into account, as this is a typical situation for those in need of help because, even if they had the desire to be legally bound, they lack resources cannot meet the rental payment obligation without services from the provider.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See SG Gelsenkirchen, judgment of February 10, 2014 - S 2 SO 251/12 - Social welfare provider must cover the accommodation costs of the mentally disabled son living with the parents.
7. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
7.1 - SG Gelsenkirchen, judgment of February 10, 2014 - S 2 SO 251/12
Accommodation costs – relatives – care
Guidelines (RA Markus Klinder)
Social welfare providers must cover the accommodation costs of the mentally handicapped son who lives with his parents.
Source: www.ra-klinder.de (there is an incorrect file number there).
Court note:
The court also pointed out that additional conditions, according to which the rental agreement should have been concluded before the need for assistance arose, could in no way be derived from the case law of the Federal Social Court.
8. Decisions on asylum law
8.1 - Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court 8th Senate, resolution of February 18, 2014 - L 8 AY 70/13 B ER
§ 1a AsylbLG requires a case-by-case examination to determine which services are essential under the circumstances
Guiding principles (Juris)
The Senate sticks to its legal opinion that § 1a No. 2 AsylbLG is not unconstitutional and should continue to be applied taking into account the judgment of the BVerfG of July 18, 2012 - 1 BvL 10/10, 1 BvL 2/11 (Decision of March 20, 2013 – L 8 AY 59/12 B ER -, juris).
A reduction in benefits in accordance with Section 1a AsylbLG requires that the responsible benefits authority determines the specific facts and takes into account in the individual case assessment how (cash or benefit in kind), to what extent and for what duration a reduced benefit is to be provided.
In this case-by-case assessment, only the specific needs of the person entitled to benefits for subsistence benefits are relevant, but not the type and severity of the violations in the immigration law procedure.
These have no influence on the services that are inevitably offered in individual cases depending on the circumstances. If the required official investigation of the facts is not carried out or if it is based on irrelevant considerations, the responsible service provider must - at least in proceedings for interim legal protection - provide the subsistence benefits in accordance with Section 3 AsylbLG in full.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
9. Bernd Eckhardt: SGB II - The modified inflow theory, as of: 02/2014
Download here: www.socialpaedagogische-beratung.de
10. Constitutional complaint against the limitation of accommodation benefits regarding the “upper limit of appropriateness”, which is derived from Section 12 WoGG.
The lawyers from the law firm “Social Law in Freiburg” have now filed the second constitutional complaint against the limitation of accommodation benefits.
The question is whether it is permissible to set the 10% increased value from Section 12 WoGG as a “rent ceiling” if there is no “coherent concept”. Our examination based on the Federal Government's latest housing benefit and rent report (Bundestag printed matter 17/6280) shows that the BSG's so-called “appropriateness upper limit” is systematically lower than appropriateness limits that are based on a “coherent concept”.
read more here: April 3, 2014: Second constitutional complaint against the limitation of accommodation benefits, now concerning the “appropriateness upper limit”, which is derived from Section 12 WoGG: www.socialrecht-in-freiburg.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
