1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 09.04.2014 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 09.04.2014 – B 14 AS 23/13 R
The limitation rule of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not continue to apply after the need for assistance has been overcome and the receipt of benefits has been interrupted for at least one month – the job center must approve a more expensive apartment after a short-term job
Guiding principles (author):
No limitation to the previous accommodation costs for an unnecessary move, because Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is no longer applicable if the person in need of assistance had overcome their previous need for assistance for at least one calendar month through income sufficient to cover their needs and had ceased receiving benefits.
With the onset of the new need for assistance, a new case for benefits existed, in which the expenses for accommodation and heating are to be covered in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
See also: Job center must pay for more expensive apartment during a one-month interruption of Hartz IV benefits: www.juraforum.de
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 17 October 2013 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – BSG, Judgment of 17 October 2013 – B 14 AS 70/12 R
Social court proceedings – Decision on the validity of statutes pursuant to Section 22a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – Standing to sue – Inapplicability of the WAufwV BE (Administrative Regulation on the Implementation of the Social Code, Book II (SGB II)) to beneficiaries under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) – No consideration of the needs of elderly people
Legal principles (Juris):
In the regulation for determining the amount of reasonable expenses for accommodation and heating according to the Second and Twelfth Books of the Social Code (Housing Expenses Regulation – WAV) of the State of Berlin of April 3, 2012 (GVBl 2012, 99), the words “and Twelfth” in the heading and Section 6 Paragraph 2 Letter d are declared invalid.
It is hereby determined that the regulation for determining the amount of reasonable expenses for accommodation and heating under the Second and Twelfth Books of the Social Code (Housing Expenses Regulation – WAV) of the State of Berlin of April 3, 2012 (GVBl 2012, 99) does not apply to recipients of benefits under the Twelfth Book of the Social Code.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Basic Income Support for Job Seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 17 October 2013 – L 2 AS 11/11 – Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number B 4 AS 12/14 R
Liability of minors – application of Section 1629a of the German Civil Code (BGB) also when the reimbursement order is issued after the minor has reached the age of majority
Guiding principle (author):
The application of § 1629a BGB is not precluded by the fact that the claim for reimbursement and thus the liability against the applicant was only specified after the applicant reached the age of majority.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See BSG, judgment of July 7, 2011 – B 14 AS 153/10 R – The decision concerned a case in which the person reached the age of majority after the reimbursement order had been issued.
3.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, judgment of 29 May 2013 – L 12 AS 2465/12 – appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number B 14 AS 17/14 R. Subsequent
payments of social benefits (of so-called analogous benefits pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act) are not excluded from income assessment pursuant to Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) as amended (now: Section 11a Paragraph 1 SGB II).
Guiding principles (author):
Back payments under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) must be taken into account as income under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
A back payment under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is clearly not a benefit under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), according to its wording. The prerequisites for an analogous application of this provision are also not met. There is no unintended regulatory gap. The Federal Social Court (BSG) has ruled regarding back payments of unemployment benefits that these must be considered income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the SGB II and that the requirement of effective legal protection does not take precedence (see BSG judgment of December 21, 2009, B 14 AS 46/08 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note 1:
The Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court (LSG Schleswig-Holstein), judgment of April 15, 2008, L 11 AS 10/07 R (back payment of unemployment benefits); Hamburg Higher Social Court (LSG Hamburg), decision of July 17, 2006, L 5 B 71/06 AS ER (back payment of injury pension); Koblenz Social Court (SG Koblenz), judgment of January 22, 2013, S 14 AS 798/11 (back payment of asylum seeker benefits); Speyer Social Court (SG Speyer), judgment of March 5, 2013, S 20 AS 1119/10 (back payment of asylum seeker benefits); Trier Social Court (SG Trier), judgment of March 29, 2012, S 1 AS 275/11 (back payment of asylum seeker benefits), held a different view – back payments of social benefits obtained through legal remedies are not to be considered as income/assets when assessing need. In this respect, the principle of the effectiveness of legal protection takes precedence over the principles of meeting needs and being indigent.
Note 2 (Thomé):
If these payments are to be taken into account, then they are back payments of social benefits arising from an ongoing entitlement, which, according to the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG), must be treated like regular income. This means they may only be considered as income in the month they are received (BSG judgment of December 21, 2009 – B 14 AS 46/08 R, Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia judgment of July 22, 2013 – L 2 AS 738/13 B). Treating them as a one-time income spread over six months is unlawful.
3.3 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 27 March 2014 – L 19 AS 332/14 B – legally binding
Constitutionality of offsetting against a loan for the acquisition of cooperative shares – granting of legal aid
Guiding principles (author):
It can remain open whether § 42a para. 2 SGB II is applicable to so-called old loans, i.e. loans granted before 01.04.2011.
It must be taken into account that the constitutional concerns raised against the provision of Section 42a Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (see Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of November 18, 2013 – L 10 AS 1793/13 B; Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of February 7, 2013 – L 7 AS 448/13 B with further references) are countered by the argument that in atypical cases, a rental deposit should be granted as a subsidy (Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of February 3, 2014 – L 2 AS 2280/13 B) or that a waiver of the repayment obligation pursuant to Section 44 SGB II may be considered. When examining whether an atypical case exists, different aspects will play a role since April 1, 2011, in light of the statutory repayment conditions that have been in effect since that date.
It is also not to be conclusively examined within the scope of the application for legal aid whether a constitutionally compliant interpretation of Section 42a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is required with regard to the duration of offsetting for loan repayments (cf. in this regard the decision of the Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg of November 18, 2013 – L 10 AS 1793/13 B). In the present case, the repayment process is intended to last more than three years, longer than the offsetting period stipulated in Section 43 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the SGB II. The same applies to the question of whether offsetting a loan pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 6 of the SGB II in the amount of 10% of the applicable standard benefit is permissible in addition to other offsetting – in this case, €10.00 per month.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Regarding the question of whether offsetting a loan under Section 22 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in the amount of 10% of the relevant standard benefit is permissible alongside other offsets – Thuringian State Social Court, decision of January 2, 2014 – L 9 AS 1089/13 B
3.4 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of March 20, 2014 – L 19 AS 373/14 B ER – legally
binding. Preliminary legal protection – order suspending the effect of the objection – legitimate interest in legal protection – integration agreement – replacement decision – applicant's signature on the draft contract with the addition "subject to legal reservation" – job application efforts – application costs – the integration administrative act does not unlawfully restrict the applicant's free choice and exercise of their profession (Article 12 of the Basic Law).
Guiding principles (author):
An administrative act within the meaning of Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) can be issued if, after a negotiation phase, no agreement has been reached on the conclusion or content of an integration agreement, whereby the reason for the failure of the contract negotiations is irrelevant (cf. regarding the existence of an atypical case in the event of persistent refusal to conclude an integration agreement and subsequent lack of negotiations, the Senate's judgment of February 17, 2014 – L 19 AS 749/13).
The applicant's signature on the draft contract, with the addition "signed subject to legal reservation," is to be interpreted as acceptance of a contractual offer subject to a restriction within the meaning of Section 61 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), in conjunction with Section 150 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB). Such a declaration of acceptance is considered a rejection combined with a new application. The job center did not accept this new application.
There is no obvious illegality in the administrative act replacing an integration agreement if the reimbursement of application costs is not specifically regulated in terms of amount and the frequency of the required application efforts – at least five applications per month – is also not objectionable (Judgment of the Senate of 17.02.2014 – L 19 AS 749/13 with further references, LSG Bavaria Decision of 22.01.2013 – L 16 AS 381/11).
It is not objectionable that the job center's obligations are formulated less specifically than those of the applicant. While the services that the person in need is to receive from the agency for integration purposes under Section 16 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), should be described as bindingly and specifically as possible, it must be borne in mind that at the time of conclusion of the agreement, the further developments for the next six months cannot yet be fully foreseen. Therefore, there is a need to formulate the support measures more generally at first. This is also provided for in the legal provisions (Section 15, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the SGB II). According to this provision, not only the applicant's own job search efforts must be agreed upon, but also their frequency and the form in which proof is to be provided. The agency's obligation to provide services, on the other hand, is only described in general terms (see the judgment of the Higher Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt of April 18, 2013 – L 5 AS 91/12 with further references).
There are no objections to the regulations concerning absence from the place of residence and incapacity for work contained in the integration administrative act (cf. LSG Bayern decision of 22.01.2013 – L 16 AS 381/11 and LSG Schleswig-Holstein decision of 20.06.2013 – L 6 AS 89/12).
The integration administrative act does not unlawfully restrict the applicant's free choice and pursuit of their profession (Article 12 of the Basic Law). This applies both to the obligation to provide proof of at least five job applications per month and to the further obligation to apply promptly for job placement offers and the associated threat of sanctions in the event of a violation (see Hamburg Higher Social Court judgment of November 15, 2013 – L 4 AS 73/12 and also the Senate judgment of February 17, 2014 – L 19 AS 749/13).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.5 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 24 February 2014 – L 19 AS 2286/13
Subject to differing regulations, child benefit is to be regarded as income of the parent receiving the child benefit within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (established case law, Federal Social Court judgment of 16 April 2013 – B 14 AS 81/12 R).
Guiding principles (author):
Both Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Section 1612b of the German Civil Code (BGB) stipulate – deviating from the general allocation under child benefit law – that the child benefit allocated to the child is to be used to cover the child's social security or maintenance needs (Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of January 22, 2014 – L 12 AS 888/13 NZB, Higher Social Court of Thuringia, decision of July 4, 2013 – L 9 AS 395/10), whereby the concepts of social security and maintenance needs are not identical.
The question of which income is to be considered as income for a parent under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is regulated in Section 11 Paragraph 1 of the SGB II, the wording of which is unambiguous (see Bavarian Higher Social Court judgment of November 15, 2007 – L 7 AS 320/06 regarding Section 1612b of the German Civil Code (BGB) in its former version). A restrictive interpretation of the provision to the effect that child benefit is generally not to be considered income of the person entitled to it, but rather, in light of the provision in Section 1612b of the German Civil Code (BGB), as income of the child, is not warranted due to a regulatory gap (Thuringian Higher Social Court decision of July 4, 2013 – L 9 AS 395/10). Although the legislature, through the provision of Section 1612b of the German Civil Code (BGB), has assigned child benefit to children in a legally binding manner under family law, independent of the external relationship between the beneficiaries and the family benefits office (see Federal Constitutional Court decision of July 14, 2011 – 1 BvR 932/10), this allocation under maintenance law can be enforced by a child in various ways (e.g., by applying for diversion under Section 74 of the Income Tax Act (EStG) or asserting a claim for payment – Federal Court of Justice judgment of October 26, 2005 – XII ZR 34/03). However, in the present case, the child benefit was readily available to the plaintiff, as it was not diverted from her son by the family benefits office but paid directly to her.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Court's note:
The plaintiff cannot successfully rely on the decision of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia of April 27, 2009 – L 20 SO 99/07. This decision concerned the legal situation under Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII). Since Book XII of the German Social Code does not recognize the specific concept of a "community of need," the Federal Social Court (BSG) expressly left open the question of whether the legal situation under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) regarding the consideration of child benefit for adult children living in the household of the person entitled to child benefit is transferable to Book XII of the German Social Code (BSG judgment of December 11, 2007 – B 8/9b SO 23/06 R).
3.6 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, 15th Senate, Decision of March 26, 2014 - L 15 AS 16/14 B ER
Headnotes (Juris)
1. The Senate adheres to its view (cf. already decision of November 15, 2013 – L 15 AS 365/13 B ER) that Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) always excludes benefits under the SGB II if no purpose of residence other than job seeking can establish a right of residence, so that foreigners who do not have a substantive right of residence in Germany because they are economically inactive, lack sufficient health insurance coverage and sufficient means of subsistence, or do not have a permanent right of residence are also excluded from benefits under the SGB II (Section 2 Paragraph 2 Nos. 5 and 7 in conjunction with Section 4 Sentence 1 and Section 4a of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU).
2. The mere fact of requesting a preliminary ruling from the ECJ on the compatibility of a national legal provision with Community law (cf. BSG decision of 12 December 2013 – B 4 AS 9/13 R) does not automatically lead to the granting of interim legal protection; rather, in such proceedings, only the possibility that the Court will find the incompatibility must be taken into account.
3. There is little to suggest that the preliminary ruling of the ECJ will have any impact on the benefit entitlements of EU citizens who, as job seekers, have not established any actual connection to the labour market of the Federal Republic of Germany.
4. A provisional grant of benefits pursuant to Section 40 Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in conjunction with Section 328 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) constitutes a benefit sui generis and is different from the final benefit. The basic income support provider must first be notified of such a benefit request before preliminary legal protection can be sought.
5. Section 328 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) grants the benefit provider discretion in making decisions and selecting the appropriate benefits. It cannot be assumed that the basic income support provider's discretion in making decisions will be reduced to zero in the cases of job-seeking EU citizens who have not established any actual connection to the labor market of the Federal Republic of Germany, because a substantive entitlement to benefits as a result of the preliminary ruling procedure initiated by the Federal Social Court (BSG) is unlikely, and their fundamental right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living can be adequately satisfied by emergency assistance provided by the social welfare provider.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
3.7 – LSG NSB, Judgment of 03.04.2014 – L 7 AS 786/11
Rent limits for recipients of social assistance (SGB II) in the Heidekreis district are unlawful
Guiding principles (author):
In the absence of a conclusive concept for determining appropriate accommodation costs, and based on the table values of the Housing Benefit Act, rent expenses excluding heating should be covered up to a maximum amount of €575.30 per month for a four-person household (rent level 2 + surcharge of 10%).
Press release from the Lower Saxony State Social Court (LSG NSB) dated April 8, 2014: www.landessozialgericht.niedersachsen.de
3.8 – Mecklenburg-Vorpommern State Social Court, Decision of 11 March 2014 – L 8 AS 176/13 NZB
Headnotes (Juris):
In the present case, there is no procedural defect because the Social Court did not obtain an expert opinion pursuant to Section 106 of the Social Courts Act (SGG) on the questions of whether a diet reducing the proportion of cholesterol-containing foods is more expensive and whether the plaintiff's illness is comparable to diabetes mellitus in this respect.
A violation of the duty to investigate ex officio pursuant to Section 103 of the Social Court Act (SGG) is only a procedural defect within the meaning of Section 144 of the Social Court Act (SGG) if the court should have felt compelled to conduct further investigations from its legal perspective; in the present case, a violation of the duty to investigate ex officio must already be denied.
Abstaining from certain foods, in this case fatty meat, butter, lard, many eggs, etc., does not lead to additional expenses; the social court did not need to obtain an expert opinion, because omitting or reducing the consumption of cholesterol-containing products cannot directly result in additional expenses.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
Note:
See LSG NRW, decision of 10.09.2013 – L 19 AS 1844/12 NZB
3.9 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 24 March 2014 – L 7 AS 217/14 B ER
Preliminary legal protection – order suspending the effect of the objection – legitimate interest in legal protection – integration agreement – replacement decision with threat of sanctions in case of breaches of duty – assumption of application costs – incorrect information on legal consequences
Guiding principles (author):
In principle, preliminary legal protection is not intended to answer legal questions that have nothing to do with a present emergency (BayLSG, decision of 20.12.2012, file no.: L 7 AS 862/12 B ER).
There is no obvious illegality in the administrative act replacing an integration agreement if the reimbursement of application costs is not specifically regulated in terms of amount and an obligation to submit seven job applications per month with proof at certain times is stipulated.
An incorrect statement of legal consequences does not render an administrative act replacing an integration agreement unlawful. This is only relevant for any potential sanction (BayLSG, decision of June 5, 2013, file no.: L 11 AS 272/13 B ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Regarding existing concerns when the reimbursement of application costs is not specifically regulated in terms of amount – BayLSG, decision of 16 April 2013 – L 11 AS 74/13 B ER and decision of 5 June 2013 – L 11 AS 272/13 B ER
3.10 – Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of 26.03.2014 – L 6 AS 31/14 B – legally binding.
Dyslexia or dyscalculia – Expenses for the therapy of a reading and spelling weakness can be benefits under Section 28 Paragraph 5 SGB II – The law does not provide for a maximum time limit for the funding.
Guiding principles (author):
Not only is promotion to the next grade level an essential learning objective, but also achieving a sufficient level of performance (cf. LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of February 28, 2012, L 7 AS 47/12; SG Marburg, decision of November 1, 2012, S 5 AS 213/12 ER).
If the transfer of a student in need of assistance is not jeopardized solely because automatic promotion from the 5th to the 6th grade is provided for in the orientation phase, this does not preclude learning support by the job center in accordance with Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
For the treatment of specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia or dyscalculia, learning support can also be granted if its use is expected to be necessary over a longer period (see SG Marburg, decision of 1 November 2012, S 5 AS 213/12 ER; SG Braunschweig, judgment of 8 August 2013, S 17 AS 4125/12; SG Oldenburg, decision of 11 April 2011, S 49 AS 611/11 ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
In cases of dyslexia, learning support can be provided in accordance with Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of December 20, 2013 – L 19 AS 2015/13 B ER
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – Social Court Stade, Judgment of 27 March 2014 – S 18 AS 937/12 – The appeal is admitted
Regarding the question of whether warning costs due to an alleged trademark infringement constitute a business expense within the meaning of Section 3 Paragraph 2 of the Unemployment Benefit II Ordinance (ALG-II-V) and thus have a corresponding income-reducing effect in the context of the benefit calculation under the SGB II.
Guiding principles (author):
Warning letter costs constitute operating expenses of the service recipient.
Source: https://socialcourtsability.de
4.2 – Social Court Aachen, Judgment of 24.09.2013 – S 14 AS 130/13 – Appeal pending before the Higher Social Court under file number L 7 AS 2046/13.
The Job Center's (comparison area Düren district), which is otherwise conclusive, needs to be supplemented and completed by a maximum value for the appropriateness of cold operating costs.
Guiding principles (author):
In North Rhine-Westphalia, 65 square meters is considered appropriate for a household with two members (Federal Social Court, judgment of April 16, 2013 – B 14 AS 28/12 R). The relevant comparison area is the entire district of Düren.
The job center's concept is coherent insofar as it only sets limits for the basic rent, but an abstract assessment of reasonable cold ancillary costs was not possible.
The operating costs (excluding utilities) must be added to the net rent (excluding utilities), and the sum of these two amounts constitutes the maximum permissible rent. Due to the lack of a municipal operating cost index, the average value for North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) of €1.94/m² should be used.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
See, in this regard, LSG NRW, judgment of 28 November 2013 – L 7 AS 1121/13 and – L 7 AS 1122/13 – appeal pending before the BSG under file numbers B 4 AS 17/14 B and B 4 AS 18/14 B
4.3 – SG Mainz, Judgment of 20.02.2014 – S 10 AS 1166/13
Filing a lawsuit with the social court via email?
Principle (author):
Filing a lawsuit by email is only permissible if the email is accompanied by a qualified electronic signature. However, the plaintiff's email did not contain such a signature, which is rarely used by private individuals.
Press release 1/2014, Social Court Mainz, April 4, 2014: www.mjv.rlp.de
4.4 – SG Hannover, decision of 03.04.2014 – S 49 AS 1058/14 ER
Accommodation costs with relatives – Job center requires subletting permission from the mother's landlord – No subletting permission from the landlord is required for a sublease agreement
Guiding principles (author):
To receive approval for housing costs, the applicant does not need to submit a subletting permit from the mother's landlord to the job center.
Source: The decision is available to the author.
4.5 – SG Kiel, decision of 09.04.2014 – S 38 AS 88/14 ER
In the case of a so-called temporary community of need, an increased need for living space must be taken into account.
Guiding principle (author):
In the case of a temporary household, if the presence of the two children is significant, the applicant has a reasonable housing requirement of 65 m2.
Source: Lawyer Stephan Felsmann from Kiel: www.anwalt-kiel.com
5. Justification of income- and asset-independent integration assistance based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
An article by Larissa Rickli and Anne Wiegmann, published in the journal for social counselling “Sozialrecht aktuell”, issue 02/2014 (SRa 2014, issue 02): www.sozialrecht-aktuell.nomos.de (pdf)
6. Accessibility and Transparency: Attorney Dirk Feiertag on the Lawsuit Against the Job Center.
The law firm fsn-rechte Rechtsanwälte filed a lawsuit at the Leipzig Regional Court demanding the release of the Leipzig Job Center's official telephone numbers and won in January 2013. The Job Center subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal, which has been pending before the Higher Administrative Court in Bautzen for over a year. We spoke with Dirk Feiertag about the social context of the lawsuit and the consequences should the judgment be upheld.
Further information: Leipzig Internet Newspaper: www.l-iz.de
7. Guidance on healthcare provision under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
The Paritätische Gesamtverband (Parity Association) has published a working aid on the topic of health care under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), with information on the current legal situation and case law.
Here: The Paritätische Gesamtverband – specialist information: www.der-paritaetische.de
8. Test case before the Federal Constitutional Court: DGB insists on recalculation of Hartz IV rates
The German Trade Union Confederation (DGB) believes that Hartz IV benefits for the long-term unemployed must be recalculated because they are too low. "In the DGB's view, the standard rates are unconstitutional," DGB board member Annelie Buntenbach told the German Press Agency (dpa) in Berlin. A test case supported by the DGB is currently before the Federal Constitutional Court for a ruling.
Read more: beck-aktuell news: https://beck-aktuell.beck.de
Hartz IV rate: Calculation method still has glaring weaknesses – researchers criticize “freehand” approach.
Further information: idw – Press release: Hartz IV rate: Calculation method: www.idw-online.de
Irene Becker – How Hartz IV benefits were deliberately underestimated
In the recalculation of standard benefit rates, which had to be carried out following the Federal Constitutional Court's (BVerfG) ruling of February 9, 2010, several deficiencies identified by the BVerfG were not only corrected. At the same time, several questionable methodological changes were also made compared to the previous calculation. These changes had a negative impact on the standard rate. For example, the resulting standard rate for a single adult in 2008 was only €361.81. This was only slightly higher than the rate of €359 that applied from July 2009 to the end of 2010. A significantly higher rate could actually have been expected if only the constitutionally required corrections had been taken into account. This demonstrates how the standard benefit for the socio-cultural subsistence minimum was underestimated. The Federal Constitutional Court is currently reviewing the new standard benefit rates for their constitutionality.
Further information: SoSi 03/2014: www.bund-verlag.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
