1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 20 February 2014 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of 20 February 2014 – B 14 AS 53/12 R
Basic income support for job seekers – Consideration of income – Deductibility of maintenance payments against arrears of legally established maintenance claims from the past
Section 11 para. 2 sentence 1 no. 7 SGB 2 aF or Section 11b para. 1 sentence 1 no. 7 SGB 2 nF does not cover payments on maintenance arrears.
Guiding principles (author):
Payments made by the person in need of assistance towards maintenance arrears should not be considered as a deduction from their earned income.
The payment of 150 euros towards the maintenance arrears does not lead to a corresponding reduction in the income to be taken into account, even based on the case law regarding income as "available funds".
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of December 12, 2013, on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Federal Social Court, Judgment of December 12, 2013 – B 14 AS 76/12 R
Basic income support for job seekers – Consideration of income – Inheritance – Division of the one-time income over a reasonable period – Premature consumption – Even a wasteful heir is entitled to Hartz IV benefits.
Key principles (author)
: In the event of a need for assistance caused by "incorrect spending behavior" (possibly culpably) on the part of the benefit recipient, the SGB II does not provide for the granting of subsistence-level benefits for standard needs and additional needs solely as a loan.
The established case law is upheld that subsistence-level benefits may not be denied solely because the need for assistance could have been avoided with appropriate behavior (such as spending the one-time income in specific monthly installments). If one-off payments are not used to secure one's livelihood, the job center may, under certain circumstances, assert a claim for reimbursement pursuant to Section 34 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: juris.bundessozialgericht.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – State Social Court Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 15 May 2015 – L 31 AS 762/14 B ER – legally binding
"Reichsdeutsche" – Proof of identity required when applying for ALG 2 (unemployment benefit II)
Guiding principles (author):
Before granting benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the competent authority is entitled to request the submission of identity documents or identity cards.
Due to the cooperation obligations applicable under SGB II pursuant to § 60 ff. SGB I, applicants are required to actually present an identity card, a passport or a similar valid identity document.
This obligation is not explicitly stipulated in either the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) or Book I (SGB I). However, the requirement to prove the identity of a claimant is a condition for entitlement implicitly assumed by the legislator, which, due to its self-evident nature, has not been codified.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
Copies of identity cards are inadmissible: www.arbeitsagentur.de – Page 9
3.2 – LSG Bayern, Judgment of April 23, 2014 (Case No.: L 11 AS 410/13):
Guiding principles of Dr. Manfred Hammel:
All sanction provisions mentioned in § 31 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB II require that the respective person in need of assistance has been informed about the legal consequences of a breach of duty.
Taking into account the content of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), it is necessary for a Job Center to accurately and factually extend its legal consequences information to the situation of preventing the initiation of an employment relationship it has proposed. In particular, timely notification of the legal consequences is always required in this regard.
Furthermore, the potential employer must be clearly named within the job center's placement proposal, as the specific work offered must be reasonable (§ 31 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 2 SGB II).
If the temporary employment agency designated by the SGB II provider does not provide any further details regarding the type of work to be carried out on its behalf, there is no sufficiently specific job offer.
This applies even if the employer does not specifically mention the aspect of temporary agency work.
Note:
The Bavarian State Social Court (LSG Bayern) reached the same conclusion in its judgment of April 23, 2014 – L 11 AS 512/13.
3.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 10 April 2014 – L 7 AS 777/13
A person in need of assistance feels mistreated because he did not receive a promised callback from an employee. He wants an investigation into whether an employee acted unfairly.
Guiding Principles (Author):
For the assessment of the conduct of a public employee, a declaratory judgment action before the Social Court is not appropriate; rather, a supervisory complaint should be filed with the head of the authority (regarding the legal recourse for a supervisory complaint, see the decision of the Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg of December 6, 2011, L 5 AS 2040/11 B). The Social Court is not tasked with reviewing the courtesy of public officials.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
Bay LSG, decision of 09.08.2013 – L 7 AS 472/13 B ER – Recipients of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) have no legal right to a telephone callback.
3.4 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 26 March 2014 – L 2 AS 3878/11 – Constitutional complaint pending before the Federal Constitutional Court under file number 1 BvR 944/14
Headnotes (Juris):
A survey covering less than 4% of the housing stock is not a sufficient data basis for a conclusive concept.
If a concept can no longer be made conclusive, the housing benefit table according to § 12 WoGG plus a surcharge of 10% must be used (following BSG judgment of 12.12.2013 – B 4 AS 87/12 R).
Without proof of the actual heating costs, the defendant cannot, as a precaution, rely on the (higher) values resulting from the nationwide heating cost index when calculating a flat rate.
It is the plaintiff's duty during legal proceedings concerning the costs of accommodation and heating to keep the relevant documents and to provide evidence of the actual costs upon request.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note 1:
Rent ceilings soon to be decided by constitutional complaint?? Read more on “radio dreyeckland”: rdl.de
Note 2:
Press release from May 16, 2014, by the law firm “Sozialrecht in Freiburg” on the topic of “rent ceilings” in the Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald district – A constitutional complaint has now been filed against a decision concerning benefit recipients in Gundelfingen near Freiburg. The constitutional complaint is pending before the Federal Constitutional Court under file number 1 BvR 944/14 – read more here: www.sozialrecht-in-freiburg.de (pdf)
3.5 – LSG NSB, Judgment of 03.04.2014 – L 7 AS 786/11
Unemployment Benefit II – Adequacy of accommodation and heating costs – Four-person household in Lower Saxony – Living space limit – Lack of a conclusive concept – Use of the housing benefit table and the nationwide heating cost index
Guiding principles (Juris):
The rental prices collected by the Heidekreis Job Center solely from newspaper advertisements without further qualitative differentiation of the rental data and the resulting cap of 33% do not constitute a conclusive concept for setting an appropriate rent ceiling within the meaning of Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
The Heikos 2.0 calculation portal is not a differentiated determination of reasonable heating costs carried out by the local basic income support provider within its area of responsibility.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
Similarly, the computer program "Heikos" is unsuitable for determining a limit for reasonable heating costs – SG Stuttgart, Judgment of 12.12.2011 – S 18 AS 8899/08 and LSG NSB, Decision of 09.07.2012 – L 7 AS 883/11
3.6 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 16.05.2014 – L 12 AS 416/14 B ER – legally binding.
The bridging allowance pursuant to Section 51 Paragraph 1 of the Prison Act is a privileged income pursuant to Section 11a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Guiding principles (author):
Due to the "consumption" of the bridging allowance, it was only permissible to credit it for the four weeks following release from prison, but not beyond.
The bridging allowance generally serves the same purpose as benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). However, Section 51 of the Prison Act (StVollzG) specifically states: "A bridging allowance shall be established from the payments regulated in this Act and from the payments of prisoners who are in a voluntary employment relationship (Section 39 Paragraph 1) or who are permitted to employ themselves (Section 39 Paragraph 2), which is intended to secure the necessary subsistence of the prisoner and his dependents for the first four weeks after his release."
The purpose of the bridging allowance is therefore to secure subsistence for four weeks and to be fully utilized during this period. If the one-time payment, the consideration of which as income is in question, is in fact no longer fully available, an entitlement to benefits is not precluded. The denial of subsistence-level benefits based on an irrefutable assumption that the need for assistance could have been (partially) averted by certain economic behavior – in this case, the consumption of the one-time payment in specific monthly installments – is incompatible with Article 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with Article 20 GG (Federal Social Court, Judgment of November 29, 2012 – B 14 AS 33/12 R –).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.7 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 04.03.2014 – L 19 AS 1516/13 B – legally binding.
Regarding the assumption of costs under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for bandages and medications for the past – additional needs under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the SGB II do not need to be applied for separately, but are included in an application for unemployment benefit II (ALG II) if there is a need for assistance.
A recipient of unemployment benefit II can claim the costs for bandages and medication as additional needs according to § 21 para. 6 SGB II.
Guiding Principles (Author):
Under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), an application for benefits must be interpreted in such a way as to ensure that the applicant's request is granted as comprehensively as possible. Accordingly, all benefits that are seriously considered appropriate under the circumstances are to be considered as being applied for. In the case of an application for benefits to secure subsistence, this regularly includes all benefits listed in the first and second subsections of the second section of Chapter 3 of the SGB II. The application thus asserts a need for assistance that encompasses all benefits, including those under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the SGB II, which serve to secure subsistence. These benefits therefore do not need to be applied for separately (cf. Federal Social Court judgment of May 6, 2010 – B 14 AS 3/09 R).
Taking into account that the person in need of assistance (HB) was not covered by health insurance during the period in dispute, it appears, according to the decision of the Federal Social Court (BSG) of 12 December 2013 – B 4 AS 6/13 R, that it is at least possible that the HB should be granted benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
BayLSG held a different view, decision of 28.03.2012 – L 7 AS 131/12 B ER
3.8 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 15.08.2013 – L 7 AS 1795/12
Child benefit cannot be considered as maintenance in half according to the crediting provision of § 1612 b BGB, with the consequence that it would not be credited as income for the benefit recipient.
Guiding principles (author):
The portion of child benefit exceeding the need is to be regarded as income of the benefit provider.
The crediting of child benefit, including the portion exceeding the son's needs, in full against the needs of the benefit recipient complies with the legal provision of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Neither tax law provisions nor the provision of Section 1612b of the German Civil Code (BGB) preclude this crediting. The Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept a constitutional complaint against Section 1612b BGB for decision (Federal Constitutional Court decision of July 14, 2011, file number BvR 932/10) and stated in its decision that the crediting rule of Section 1612b BGB is not objectionable in the relationship between parents obligated to provide maintenance, as cash and in-kind maintenance are considered equally valuable in this respect. The Federal Constitutional Court did not establish any connection to the crediting provisions of the SGB II in this context.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See LSG NRW, judgment of 24.02.2014 – L 19 AS 2286/13
3.9 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 08.05.2014 – L 19 AS 678/14 B ER – legally binding.
A Portuguese national is entitled to ALG 2 within the framework of the balancing of interests.
Guiding principles (author):
The basic income support provider under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is obliged, in the event of a rejection of a claim for benefits due to the assumption of an exclusion from benefits, to forward the corresponding applications pursuant to Section 16 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I), immediately to the local social welfare provider for processing.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the Social Courts on Basic Income Support for Job Seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – Social Court Munich, Decision of 19 May 2014 – S 54 AS 1155/14 ER
Replacement of the integration agreement by an administrative act – Suspensive effect of an objection against an administrative act replacing an integration agreement
Guiding Principles (Author):
The integration administrative act is already unlawful for formal reasons, as the unlawfulness stems from the fact that the Job Center (JC) did not properly hear the applicant before issuing the decision. If an integration administrative act contains an obligation for the party involved, as in the present case, a hearing is required pursuant to Section 24 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X). While the hearing can also be conducted orally, the party involved must be given the opportunity to comment on the facts relevant to the decision. The period for submitting comments should generally not be less than two weeks.
The procedural defect of a hearing can be remedied in the objection proceedings (LSG NRW, decision of 16 November 2012 – L 19 AS 2098/12 B ER). However, at the time of the decision on the application for interim relief, the objection proceedings in this case had not yet been concluded, so the procedural defect still exists (BayLSG, decision of 8 May 2013 – L 7 AS 754/12 B PKH).
Furthermore, the administrative act is also unlawful because the obligation to provide reasons was violated. Amending an administrative act replacing an integration agreement during its period of validity by means of a further replacement decision pursuant to Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is only permissible if the requirements of Section 48 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) are met (Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, Decision of August 2, 2011 – L 7 AS 2367/11 ER-B). Such a change in circumstances exists, for example, if a measure cannot be implemented for the person entitled to benefits for organizational reasons. The Job Center has not yet demonstrated such a change in the factual circumstances. Therefore, the integration administrative act does not contain a justification within the meaning of Section 35 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X). If an administrative act is not justified or not sufficiently justified, it is unlawful. The corresponding justification can, however, be given subsequently (see Section 41 Paragraph 1 No. 2 SGB X).
Finally, the integration administrative act does not contain a revocation order regarding the earlier integration administrative act; therefore, both integration administrative acts are valid simultaneously, so to speak, which is not legally permissible.
Note: See, in this regard, Social Court Mannheim, Decision of June 27, 2013 – S 6 AS 1847/13 ER (unpublished); Higher Social Court Saxony-Anhalt, Decision of March 21, 2012, – L 5 AS 509/11 B ER; Higher Social Court Berlin-Brandenburg, Decision of January 12, 2012 – L 5 AS 2097/11 B ER; Bavarian Higher Social Court, Decision of May 25, 2010 – L 11 AS 294/10 B ER and Social Court Dortmund, Proceedings (Note from the Court) of 15.05.2012 – S 62 AS 645/11 – and – S 62 AS 1261/11 (unpublished): The wording of Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) already precludes the basic income support provider under the SGB II from unilaterally replacing an already concluded and still valid integration agreement by an administrative act pursuant to Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 of the SGB II.
The decision is available to the author.
4.2 – Social Court Dortmund, decision of 16 May 2014 (file no.: S 32 AS 484/14 ER):
Guiding Principles by Dr. Manfred Hammel:
To substantiate the necessity of a move within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), a general and vague statement by the applicant, lacking any supporting evidence for the alleged defects in the previously occupied apartment, is insufficient. The applicant must specifically demonstrate the failure of sufficient and reasonable efforts to remedy the defects.
However, invoking the legal effects of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is still possible even after a period of several years, due to the lack of a statutory time limit.
The simultaneous execution of two offsets pursuant to Section 42a SGB II in the amount of 10% of the standard benefit each is to be classified as inadmissible.
A reimbursement notice is an administrative act (§ 31 sentence 1 SGB X) issued to determine and enforce the claim of the job center.
This decision suspends the statute of limitations for the set-off claim (§ 52 para. 1 SGB X).
If such an administrative act becomes unappealable, the limitation period is thirty years in accordance with Section 52 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X).
4.3 – Social Court Dortmund, decision of 25 April 2014 – S 35 AS 772/14 ER
Guiding principle (author):
A Polish citizen is entitled to ALG II (unemployment benefit II) within the framework of the balancing of interests.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
The same result was reached by the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (LSG NRW), decision of 14 May 2014 – L 12 AS 2359/13 B ER
4.4 – Berlin Social Court, Judgment of March 26, 2014 – S 205 AS 11970/13 – legally binding – The appeal is granted.
The legal question concerns the conditions under which an additional need for decentralized hot water production exists, deviating from the flat-rate allowances, within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 7 Sentence 2, second half-sentence, first alternative, of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Guiding Principles (Author):
According to Section 21 Paragraph 7 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the flat-rate compensation for the additional needs arising from decentralized hot water generation only applies if no different need exists in the individual case. This need may be higher or lower; the decisive factor is always the actual and measurable costs incurred.
The recognition of a higher demand that deviates from the flat rates legally standardized for decentralized hot water generation requires a concrete determination of the additional demand through separate recording.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See also Saxon State Social Court, decision of 11 September 2013 – L 7 AS 1574/12 NZB; Social Court Berlin, judgment of 27 January 2014 – S 206 AS 20884/11, unpublished – On the legal question of under what conditions a deviating additional need for decentralized hot water production exists within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 7 Sentence 2, second half-sentence, first alternative, of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
4.5 – SG Duisburg, decision of 14.05.2014 – S 27 AS 1041714 ER
Job centers must make an income forecast at their discretion when issuing preliminary decisions.
Attached is an interesting decision (also for lawyers) from the Duisburg Social Court dated May 14, 2014:
Facts:
The benefit recipient took up a part-time job (pizza delivery driver). The employment contract stipulated a monthly income of up to €450. However, it was foreseeable that no more than €200 would be paid. The job center, without consulting the benefit recipient, assessed the income at €450. In the expedited legal proceedings initiated against this, the agency corrected the income assessment but refused to cover the legal fees.
Decision:
In its ruling, the court clarifies that preliminary decisions require an income forecast based on due discretion. As part of its official investigation, the authority may not rely on the maximum amount stated in the written contract but must contact the benefit recipient to determine the actual expected income. If it fails to do so and violates its duty to investigate, it must bear the costs of the expedited proceedings.
Context:
In cases of doubt, the job center decides against the benefit recipient. For marginal employment contracts, it is common practice to specify only a maximum amount (450 euros). Although the primary legal responsibility of the benefit provider is to guarantee basic income support, the goal of "avoiding overpayments" takes precedence over the law in practice. The consequence is a shortfall in the subsistence level, especially for people who take up employment. "Those who work are penalized." Those affected often have to chase after their money for a long time. The social court has commendably clearly stated one consequence for the agency of this behavior: it bears the costs.
Lawyer Jan Häußler
4.6 – SG Bremen, Judgment of 09.05.2014 – S 28 AS 1366/13
Regarding the legality of an integration administrative act if it is only intended to be valid for four months – application costs
Guiding principles (author):
The integration administrative act proves to be unlawful because the job center, contrary to the legal requirement, ordered a validity period of only just under four months without exercising the necessary discretion (cf. BSG, judgment of 14.02.2013 - B 14 AS 195/11 R).
The illegality of the decision does not arise solely from the provision regarding reimbursement of costs for the support services to be provided (application expenses). The Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen has repeatedly ruled in expedited proceedings that, in cases of bindingly agreed or stipulated written applications, the integration agreement or a replacement decision must also contain provisions regarding the benefits to be provided for incurred application expenses. These provisions must go beyond the existing statutory regulations and define the benefits individually and unambiguously, specifying the reasons relevant for granting them (see Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, decisions of April 4, 2012 – L 15 AS 77/12 B ER –, of August 1, 2012 – L 15 AS 235/12 B ER – and of March 21, 2013 – L 15 AS 307/12 B ER –).
The cost reimbursement arrangement in this case meets these requirements. The Jobcenter (JC) did not merely offer a general promise to cover necessary application costs in accordance with Section 16 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in conjunction with Section 45 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), but further specified which expenses are, in principle, reimbursable. By explicitly listing postage costs for large letters and expenses for writing paper, envelopes, application folders, and application photos, it included all essential costs of written applications. The fact that it refrained from specifying fixed upper limits, with the exception of the fixed cost of €1.45 for sending large letters, does not render the arrangement unlawful (see Lower Saxony-Bremen Higher Social Court, decision of May 5, 2014 – L 15 AS 144/14 B ER).
Source: Beier & Beier Law Firm, Gröpelinger Heerstraße 387, 28239 Bremen, full text available here: www.kanzleibeier.eu
Note:
The following courts share this view: Chemnitz Social Court, decision of April 29, 2014 – S 29 AS 1636/14 ER (unpublished); Hamburg Social Court, decision of April 28, 2014 – S 58 AS 1238/14 ER (unpublished); and North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Social Court, decision of October 17, 2013 – L 7 AS 836/13 B – It cannot be affirmed that a job center can determine the validity period of an administrative act pursuant to Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) at its own discretion without being bound by the provisions of Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the SGB II.
4.7 – Bremen Social Court, judgment of 12 May 2014 – S 16 AS 2172/13
Principle (Law Firm Beier & Beier):
The mere reproduction of the legal text does not meet the requirements for an effective notification of legal consequences.
Source: Law Firm Beier & Beier, Attorneys at Law, Gröpelinger Heerstraße 387, 28239 Bremen, full text available here: www.kanzleibeier.eu
4.8 – Stuttgart Social Court, decision of 21 May 2014 – S 18 AS 2698/14 ER
Suspensive effect of an objection against an administrative act replacing an integration agreement – replacement of the integration agreement by an administrative act
Guiding Principles (Author):
An integration agreement can only be validly replaced by an administrative act that has been previously negotiated with the beneficiary. Issuing an administrative act replacing an integration agreement with content that deviates from the negotiated integration agreement is unlawful.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.9 – Social Court Konstanz, decision of February 18, 2013 (file no.: S 3 AS 363/13 ER):
Guiding principles of Dr. Manfred Hammel:
If, after release from prison, a move to a new apartment takes place and the payment of the rental deposit is due, an assurance pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) would be a superfluous intermediate step.
The required consent must be given as a constitutive condition for entitlement before the point in time at which costs reimbursable under Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are established in a legally significant manner, i.e., before the conclusion of the corresponding lease agreement.
An exception applies only if the job center, in the case of a clearly urgent need to move and a timely application, has failed to issue a timely decision in breach of its duty.
4.10 – SG Hildesheim, decision of 22.05.2014 – S 43 AS 618/14 ER
Benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for EU citizens within the framework of a balancing of interests – granting of provisional benefits until open questions are clarified
Guiding principles (author):
If the legal situation is to be considered open, benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) should be granted provisionally as part of the balancing of consequences.
Benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), are subsistence-level benefits intended to guarantee the constitutionally protected minimum standard of living. For constitutional reasons, such benefits must, in cases of doubt, be granted provisionally (see, in this regard, the decision of the Lower Saxony State Social Court (LSG NSB) of October 9, 2013 – L 7 AS 1055/13 B ER, unpublished).
Source: Attorney Denis König, 37079 Göttingen, Willi-Eichler-Str. 11
Note:
Similarly, regarding the provisional granting of unemployment benefit II (ALG II) to EU citizens within the framework of the balancing of interests – Social Court Hildesheim, Decision of 10 February 2014 – S 43 AS 140/14 ER (unpublished); Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, Decision of 12 March 2014 – L 12 AS 108/14 B ER and Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony, Decision of 11 August 2011 – L 15 AS 188/11 B ER; a different view is held by Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony, Decision of 15 November 2013 – L 15 AS 365/13 B ER and Decision of 26 March 2014 – L 15 AS 16/14 B ER.
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB X II)
5.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 13 May 2014 – L 20 SO 396/13 B – legally binding.
It is irrelevant that the purchase of the stairlift took place before the rejection notice was issued (cf. Federal Social Court, judgment of 12 December 2013 – B 8 SO 18/12 R – regarding the assumption of costs for the purchase of a motor vehicle as a benefit of integration assistance before the rejection notice was issued).
Guiding Principles (Author)
If the stairlift was not ordered before the social welfare agency became aware of it, then, based on the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG; see in particular judgments of 02.02.2012 – B 8 SO 9/10 R and of 20.09.2012 – B 8 SO 15/11 R), the social welfare recipient's claim to the asserted integration assistance benefit appears at least possible.
Therefore, if an application for social assistance – even an informal one – is submitted, which, without further information from the applicant, does not yet enable the provider to examine the eligibility requirements, benefits must nevertheless be provided from the date of application if the eligibility requirements are met; because the provider has already gained knowledge within the meaning of Section 18 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) through the application.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5.2 – Baden-Württemberg Higher Social Court (LSG) Judgment of March 26, 2014, L 2 SO 3177/13 – Appeal pending under file number B 8 SO 44/14 B
Headnotes (Juris):
Even if, within the framework of a review pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), benefits are claimed retroactively for a period of more than one year, this does not render an appeal admissible pursuant to Section 144 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 if the origin of the (recurring and ongoing) benefits can be found in separate grant notices for a period of no more than one year, in accordance with Section 44 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) (following the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Higher Social Court (LSG) Judgment of December 5, 2011 – L 8 B 430/10 NZB – concerning the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
