1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of February 20, 2014 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - BSG, judgment of February 20, 2014 - B 14 AS 53/12 R
Basic security for job seekers - income consideration - deductibility of maintenance payments on arrears of titled maintenance claims from the past
Section 11 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 7 SGB 2 old or Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 7 SGB 2 nF does not cover payments on maintenance arrears.
Guiding principles (author)
Payments by the person in need of assistance on maintenance arrears are not taken into account as a deduction from their earned income.
The payment of the 150 euros on the maintenance arrears does not lead to a corresponding reduction in the income to be taken into account due to the case law on income as “ready resources”.
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 76/12 R
Basic security for job seekers - income consideration - inheritance - distribution of the one-off income over an appropriate period of time - Premature consumption - Even wasteful heirs are entitled to Hartz IV benefits.
Guiding principles (author)
In the event of a need for help on the part of the beneficiary caused by “incorrect spending behavior” (possibly culpable), SGB II does not provide for the granting of subsistence benefits for standard and additional needs only in the form of a loan.
The jurisprudence maintains that living benefits cannot be refused solely because the need for help could have been averted if the person had behaved appropriately (e.g. using the one-off income in certain monthly installments).
If one-off income is not used to secure a living, the job center may be able to assert a claim for compensation in accordance with Section 34 SGB II. Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
3. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of May 15, 2015 - L 31 AS 762/14 B ER - legally binding
“Reichsdeutsche” – proof of identity when applying for ALG 2
Guiding principles (author)
Before approving benefits according to SGB 2, the responsible authority is entitled to require the presentation of proof of identity or ID cards.
Due to the cooperation obligations that also apply in SGB II in accordance with Section 60 ff. SGB I, applicants are required to actually present an identity card, a passport or a similar valid identity document.
This obligation is expressly not normed in either SGB II or SGB I.
However, the requirement to provide proof of identity for a claimant is a prerequisite for entitlement tacitly assumed by the legislature, which has not been standardized because it is self-evident. Source: Sozialgerichtsbaren.de
Note:
Copies of ID cards are not permitted: www.arbeitsagentur.de – page 9
3.2 – LSG Bayern, judgment of April 23, 2014 (ref.: L 11 AS 410/13):
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel All sanctions mentioned in Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II presuppose that the person in need of help has been informed of the legal consequences of a breach of duty.
Taking into account the content of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB II, it is necessary that a JobCenter extends its legal consequences information to the offense of preventing the initiation of an employment relationship proposed by it in an accurate and factually correct manner. In particular, prompt information about the legal consequences is always required.
In addition, the possible employer must be clearly named within the JobCenter's placement proposal, because the specific work offered must be reasonable (Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB II).
If the temporary employment agency designated by the SGB II provider does not provide any further information about the type of work to be carried out on its behalf, there is a lack of a sufficiently specific job offer.
This is especially true if the employer does not refer to the aspect of temporary work.
Note:
Also in the result LSG Bayern, judgment of April 23, 2014 - L 11 AS 512/13
3.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of April 10, 2014 – L 7 AS 777/13
The person in need of help feels badly treated because he did not receive a telephone call back from an employee that was promised to him. He wants to check whether an employee has behaved unfairly.
Guiding principles (author)
For the assessment of the behavior of an official employee, it is not an action for a declaratory judgment to the social court that is relevant, but rather a supervisory complaint to the management of the authority (for legal action regarding a supervisory complaint, see LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of December 6th, 2011, L 5 AS 2040 /11 B).
The social court is not tasked with checking official actions for friendliness. Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Bay LSG, decision of August 9, 2013 - L 7 AS 472/13 B ER - Recipients of benefits according to SGB II have no legal right to a telephone callback.
3.4 - State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, judgment of March 26, 2014 - L 2 AS 3878/11 - Constitutional complaint pending at the Federal Constitutional Court under the file number 1 BvR 944/14
Guidelines (Juris)
A survey of less than 4% of the housing stock is not a sufficient data basis for a coherent concept.
If a concept can no longer be made coherent, the housing benefit table according to § 12 WoGG plus a surcharge of 10% must be used (following the BSG ruling of December 12, 2013 - B 4 AS 87/12 R).
Without proof of the actual heating costs, a flat-rate calculation by the defendant cannot be based on the (higher) values resulting from the nationwide heating level “to be on the safe side”.
It is the plaintiff's obligation to retain the relevant documents during a legal dispute over the costs of accommodation and heating and to provide evidence of the actual costs upon request.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note 1:
Rent caps will soon be decided by constitutional complaint?? Continue reading on “radio dreyeckland”: rdl.de
Note 2:
Press release from May 16, 2014 from the law firm “Social Law in Freiburg” on the subject of “rent ceilings” in the Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald district - That is why a decision has now been made against a decision concerning benefit recipients in Gundelfingen near Freiburg. Constitutional complaint filed. The constitutional complaint is pending at the Federal Constitutional Court under file number 1 BvR 944/14 - read more here: www.socialrecht-in-freiburg.de (pdf)
3.5 - LSG NSB, judgment of April 3, 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 coherent concept - Use of the housing benefit table and the nationwide heating 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 capping limit of 33% determined from this do not represent a coherent concept for setting an appropriate rent upper limit within the meaning of Section 22 SGB II.
The Heikos 2.0 calculation portal is not a differentiated determination of appropriate heating costs carried out by the local basic security provider in its area of responsibility.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
Likewise with the computer program “Heikos”, which is unsuitable for determining a limit value for appropriate heating costs – SG Stuttgart, judgment of. December 12, 2011 – S 18 AS 8899/08 and LSG NSB, decision of. July 9, 2012 – L 7 AS 883/11
3.6 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of May 16, 2014 - L 12 AS 416/14 B ER - legally binding
The bridging allowance according to Section 51 Paragraph 1 of the Prison Act is a privileged income according to Section 11a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II .
Guiding principles (author)
The bridging allowance was only allowed to be credited due to “consumption” – for the four weeks following release from prison, but not beyond that.
The bridging allowance basically serves the same purpose as the benefits under SGB II. But Section 51 StVollzG specifically states: “From the remuneration regulated in this law and from the remuneration of prisoners who are in a freelance employment relationship (Section 39 Paragraph 1 ) or who are permitted to employ themselves (Section 39 Paragraph 2), a bridging allowance must be set up to ensure the necessary living expenses of the prisoner and his dependents for the first four weeks after his release.”
The purpose of the bridging allowance is to secure living expenses for four weeks and, if necessary, to be used up during this time. If the one-off income that is being considered as income is actually no longer (or no longer) available without restrictions, a claim to benefits cannot be ruled out. The refusal of subsistence benefits based on an irrefutable assumption that the need for assistance could have been (partially) averted in the event of certain economic behavior - in this case the consumption of the one-off income in certain monthly installments - is to be found in Article 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with Article 1 of the Basic Law (GG). Incompatible with Art 20 GG (BSG, judgment of November 29, 2012 - B 14 AS 33/12 R -).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.7 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of March 4, 2014 - L 19 AS 1516/13 B - legally binding
For the assumption of costs within the scope of Section 21 Para. 6 SGB II for bandages and medication for the past - additional requirements according to Section 21 Para. 6 SGB II does not have to be applied for separately, but is included in an ALG II application if there is a need for help.
A recipient of unemployment benefit II can claim the costs for bandages and medication as additional requirements in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II.
Guiding principles (author)
The application for benefits in SGB II must be interpreted in such a way that the applicant's wishes are taken into account as far as possible. Accordingly, all benefits that are seriously considered based on the circumstances of the case are to be considered as being applied for. In the case of an application for benefits to secure one's livelihood, these usually include all the benefits mentioned in the first and second subsections of the second section of the third chapter of the SGB II. The application therefore asserts a need for assistance, which includes all benefits and thus also those in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II that serve to secure one's livelihood. These benefits therefore do not have to be applied for separately (cf. BSG judgment of May 6, 2010 - B 14 AS 3/09 R).
If one takes into account that the person in need of help (HB) did not have health insurance during the disputed period, according to the BSG's decision of December 12, 2013 - B 4 AS 6/13 R, it seems at least possible that the HB should be granted benefits in accordance with SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
BayLSG has a different opinion, decision of March 28, 2012 – L 7 AS 131/12 B ER
3.8 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of August 15, 2013 - L 7 AS 1795/12
Half of the child benefit cannot be considered as maintenance in accordance with the offsetting regulation of § 1612 b BGB, with the result that an offsetting by the benefit recipient (LB) as income would have to be omitted.
Guiding principles (author)
The proportion of child benefit that exceeds needs is to be viewed as the LB's income.
The crediting of the child benefit with its share exceeding the son's needs in full against the needs of the benefit recipient corresponds to the legal provision of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 SGB II. Neither tax law provisions nor the provision of Section 1612 b BGB conflict with this crediting . The Federal Constitutional Court did not accept a constitutional complaint against § 1612 b BGB for decision (BVerfG decision of July 14, 2011 Ref. BvR 932/10) and stated in the decision that the offsetting regulation of § 1612 b BGB does not apply to the relationship between the parents obliged to support each other is objectionable because cash and childcare maintenance are of equal value. The Federal Constitutional Court did not make any reference to the accounting provisions of SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See LSG NRW, judgment of February 24, 2014 - L 19 AS 2286/13
3.9 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of May 8, 2014 - L 19 AS 678/14 B ER - legally binding
Portuguese national is entitled to ALG 2 as part of the assessment of the consequences.
Guiding principles (author)
The basic social security provider according to SGB 2 is required to immediately forward the corresponding applications according to Section 16 Paragraph 2 SGB I to the local social welfare provider for processing if a claim to benefits is rejected due to the assumption of an exclusion of benefits.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 - SG Munich, decision of May 19, 2014 - S 54 AS 1155/14 ER
Replacement of the integration agreement by an administrative act - Suspensive effect of the objection to an administrative act replacing an integration agreement
Guiding principles (author)
The integration administrative act is illegal for formal reasons alone, because the illegality arises from the fact that the job center (JC) did not properly hear the applicant before issuing the decision. If an administrative integration act contains an obligation on the part of the person involved, as is the case here, a hearing is required in accordance with Section 24 SGB X. Although the hearing can also take place orally, those involved must be given the opportunity to comment on the facts relevant to the decision. As a rule, the deadline for commenting cannot be less than two weeks.
The lack of hearing can be remedied in the objection procedure (LSG NRW, decision of November 16, 2012 - L 19 AS 2098/12 B ER). However, at the time of the decision on the urgent application, the objection procedure in this case had not yet been completed, so the procedural deficiency still exists (BayLSG, decision of May 8, 2013 - L 7 AS 754/12 B PKH).
Furthermore, the administrative act is also unlawful because the obligation to provide reasons was violated. The amendment of an administrative act replacing an integration agreement during its period of validity by a further replacement decision in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II is only permitted if the requirements of Section 48 Paragraph 1 SGB .2011 – L 7 AS 2367/11 ER-B). Such a change in circumstances occurs, for example, if a measure cannot be implemented for the person entitled to benefits for organizational reasons. The JC has not yet presented such a change in the actual circumstances. The administrative integration act therefore does not contain any justification within the meaning of Section 35 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB X. If an administrative act is not justified or not sufficiently justified, it is unlawful. However, the corresponding justification can still be given later (see Section 41 Paragraph 1 No. 2 SGB X).
Finally, there is no revocation order in the integration administrative act regarding the previously issued integration administrative act, so both integration administrative acts apply side by side, so to speak, which is, however, not legally permissible.
Note: See SG Mannheim, decision of. June 27, 2013 – S 6 AS 1847/13 ER (unpublished); LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of. March 21, 2012, – L 5 AS 509/11 B ER; LSG BB, decision of. of January 12, 2012 – L 5 AS 2097/11 B ER; BayLSG, decision of May 25, 2010 - L 11 AS 294/10 B ER and SG Dortmund, proceedings (note from the court) v. 05/15/2012 - S 62 AS 645/ 11 - and - S 62 AS 1261/11 (unpublished): The wording of Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II precludes the basic security provider from having already completed a basic security scheme according to SGB II and the integration agreement that continues to apply may be unilaterally replaced by an administrative act in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II.
The decision is available to the author.
4.2 – Dortmund Social Court, decision of May 16, 2014 (ref.: S 32 AS 484/14 ER):
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel In order to substantiate the necessity of a move within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II, a statement from the applicant that is general and lacking in details and is not accompanied by any evidence of the alleged defects in the previously occupied apartment is not sufficient. The failure of sufficient and reasonable self-efforts to eliminate defects must in particular be made credible here.
However, an appeal to the legal effects of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II is certainly possible even after a period of several years in the absence of a legal time limit.
A simultaneous execution of two offsettings in accordance with Section 42a SGB II in the amount of 10% each. H. of the standard requirement is to be classified as inadmissible.
A reimbursement notice is an administrative act (Section 31 Sentence 1 SGB X) that is issued to determine and enforce the job center's claim.
This notice suspends the statute of limitations for the offsetting claim (Section 52 Para. 1 SGB X).
If such an administrative act becomes incontestable, the limitation period is thirty years in accordance with Section 52 Paragraph 2 SGB X.
4.3 – Dortmund Social Court, decision of April 25, 2014 – S 35 AS 772/14 ER
Guiding principle (author)
Polish citizens are entitled to ALG II as part of the assessment of the consequences.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Also in the result of LSG NRW, decision of. May 14, 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 permitted.
On the legal question under which conditions there is an additional requirement for decentralized hot water generation that deviates from the flat rates within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 7 Sentence 2, 2nd half sentence 1st alternative SGB II.
Guiding principles (author)
According to Section 21 Paragraph 7 Sentence 2 SGB II, the flat-rate compensation for the additional demand for decentralized hot water generation only applies if there is no different need in the individual case. This need can be higher or lower, depending on the specific and measurable costs.
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 LSG, B. v. September 11, 2013 – L 7 AS 1574/12 NZB; SG Berlin, judgment of 01/27/2014 - S 206 AS 20884/11, unpublished - On the legal question under what conditions an additional requirement for decentralized hot water generation that deviates from the flat rates within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 7 Sentence 2, 2nd half sentence 1st alternative SGB II consists.
4.5 - SG Duisburg, resolution of May 14, 2014 - S 27 AS 1041714 ER
In the case of provisional notices, job centers must make a forecast of income based on their due discretion.
Attached is an interesting decision (also for lawyers) from the Duisburg Social Court from May 14, 2014:
Facts:
The beneficiary took up menial work (pizza delivery). The employment contract stipulated a monthly income of up to 450 euros. However, it was foreseeable that no more than 200 euros of income would be paid. The job center set the income at 450 euros without asking the person entitled to benefits. In the urgent proceedings against this, the authority then corrected the income, but did not want to cover the lawyer's costs.
Decision:
In its decision, the court makes it clear that in the case of provisional decisions, a forecast of income must be made based on due discretion. As part of the official investigation, the authority may not rely on the maximum value of the written contract but must contact the beneficiary to determine the actual expected income. If she does not do this and violates her duty to provide information, she must bear the costs of the expedited procedure.
Context:
In case of doubt, the job center decides against the beneficiary. For small employment contracts, it is common for only a maximum amount to be stated (450 euros). Although it would legally be the primary task of the service provider to guarantee basic security, in practice the goal of “avoiding overpayments” takes precedence over the law. The result is that people who take up employment fall below the subsistence level. “Those who work will be punished.” Those affected often run after their money for a long time. Fortunately, the social court clearly states one consequence of this behavior for the authority: it bears the costs.
Lawyer Jan Häußler
4.6 - SG Bremen, court decision dated May 9, 2014 - S 28 AS 1366/13
On the legality of an administrative integration act if it is only intended to apply for four months - application costs
Guiding principles (author)
The integration administrative act turns out to be unlawful because, contrary to the legal requirement, the job center ordered a period of validity of just under four months without exercising the necessary discretion (see BSG, judgment of February 14, 2013 -B 14 AS 195/ 11 R).
The illegality of the decision does not follow from the cost reimbursement provision for the support services to be provided (application costs). The LSG - Lower Saxony-Bremen has repeatedly decided in urgent proceedings that the integration agreement or a replacement decision for bindingly agreed or specified written applications must also contain provisions on the services to be provided for application costs incurred, which go beyond the existing legal regulation and the services individually and clearly state the reasons relevant for the grant (cf. LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, resolutions of April 4, 2012 - L 15 AS 77/12 B ER -, of August 1, 2012 - L 15 AS 235/12 B ER - and from March 21, 2013 – L 15 AS 307/12 B ER -).
However, the cost assumption regulation in place meets these requirements. The JC not only generally held out the prospect of covering the necessary application costs in accordance with Section 16 Paragraph 1 of the SGB II in conjunction with Section 45 of the Third Book of the Social Code (SGB III), but also further regulated which expenses should essentially be considered reimbursable. By explicitly naming the postage costs for large letters and the expenses for writing paper, envelopes, application folders and application photos, he has included all the essential costs of written applications. The fact that he has refrained from notifying fixed upper limits, with the exception of the fixed costs for sending large letters of EUR 1.45, does not make the regulation illegal (cf. LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, decision of May 5, 2014 - L 15 AS 144/14 B ER).
Source: Law firm Beier & Beier, Rechtsanwälte, Gröpelinger Heerstraße 387, 28239 Bremen, full text here: www.kanzleibeier.eu
Note:
Same opinion: SG Chemnitz, decision of April 29, 2014 - S 29 AS 1636/14 ER (unpublished) ; SG Hamburg, decision of April 28, 2014 - S 58 AS 1238 /14 ER (unpublished) and LSG NRW, decision of October 17, 2013 - L 7 AS 836/13 B - It cannot be affirmed that a job center extends the validity of an administrative act in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II without being bound to the requirements of Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II at its own discretion.
4.7 – Bremen Social Court, court decision dated May 12, 2014 – S 16 AS 2172/13
Guiding principle (Sozietät Beier & Beier)
The mere reproduction of the legal text does not meet the requirements for an effective explanation of the legal consequences.
Source: Law firm Beier & Beier, Rechtsanwälte, Gröpelinger Heerstraße 387, 28239 Bremen, full text here: www.kanzleibeier.eu
4.8 - Stuttgart Social Court, decision of May 21, 2014 - S 18 AS 2698/14 ER
Suspensive effect of the objection to 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 permissibly replaced by an administrative act that has previously been negotiated with the beneficiary. The issuance of an administrative act replacing an integration agreement with content that deviates from the negotiated integration agreement is unlawful.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.9 – Konstanz Social Court, decision of February 18, 2013 (ref.: S 3 AS 363/13 ER):
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel If, after being released from prison, you move to a new apartment and the payment of the rental deposit is due, an assurance in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 SGB II would be a superfluous intermediate step.
As a constitutive prerequisite for entitlement, the necessary consent must be given before the point in time at which costs that can be replaced by Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 SGB II are justified in a legally significant manner, i.e. before the corresponding rental agreement is concluded.
An exception only applies if the job center has breached its duty and failed to provide a timely notification when the need to move is clearly urgent and the application was submitted in a timely manner.
4.10 - SG Hildesheim, decision of May 22, 2014 - S 43 AS 618/14 ER
Benefits according to SGB II for EU foreigners as part of an impact assessment - granting of provisional benefits until open questions are clarified
Guiding principles (author)
If the legal situation is to be viewed as open, benefits in accordance with SGB II must be granted provisionally as part of the assessment of the consequences.
Benefits according to SGB II are subsistence benefits that are intended to ensure the minimum subsistence level that is protected by fundamental rights. For constitutional reasons, such benefits must be granted provisionally in case of doubt (cf. LSG NSB, decision of October 9, 2013 - L 7 AS 1055/13 B ER, unpublished).
Source: Attorney Denis König, 37079 Göttingen, Willi-Eichler-Str. 11
Note:
Likewise on the provisional granting of ALG II for EU citizens as part of the impact assessment - SG Hildesheim, decision of. February 10, 2014 – S 43 AS 140/14 ER (unpublished); LSG NRW, decision of. March 12, 2014 - L 12 AS 108/14 B ER and LSG NSB, decision of August 11, 2011 - L 15 AS 188/11 B ER; different opinion - LSG NSB, decision of. November 15, 2013 - L 15 AS 365/13 B ER and decision of March 26, 2014 - L 15 AS 16/14 B ER.
5. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB X II)
5.1 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of May 13, 2014 - L 20 SO 396/13 B - legally binding
. It is irrelevant that the stair lift was purchased before the rejection decision was issued (cf. BSG, judgment of December 12, 2013 - B 8 SO 18/12 R - to cover the costs of purchasing a vehicle as an integration assistance service before the rejection decision is issued).
Guiding principles (author)
If the stair lift had not been ordered before the social welfare agency became aware of it, this appears based on the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG; see in particular the judgments of February 2, 2012 - B 8 SO 9/10 R and of September 20, 2012 - B 8 SO 15/11 R) it is at least possible for the social assistance recipient to claim the integration assistance benefit claimed.
Therefore, if an application for social assistance is submitted - even if it is only informal - and does not enable the provider to check the eligibility requirements without further information from the applicant, benefits must nevertheless be provided from the time the application is submitted if the eligibility requirements are met; Because through the application the provider has already gained knowledge within the meaning of Section 18 Paragraph 1 SGB XII.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5.2 - LSG Baden-Württemberg judgment of March 26, 2014, L 2 SO 3177/13 - Complaint pending under the reference number B 8 SO 44/14 B
Guidelines (Juris)
Even if, as part of a review according to Section 44 SGB If the claim is made for a period of more than one year, this does not make the appeal permissible in accordance with Section 144 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 if the origin of the (recurring and ongoing) benefits is in separate approval notices in accordance with Section 44 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB XII for a period of a maximum of one year (following the LSG Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania judgment of December 5, 2011 - L 8 B 430/10 NZB - on SGB II).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
