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 27/13 R
Social law administrative procedure - lawyer's remuneration - reimbursable costs in isolated preliminary proceedings - client - majority - representation - same matter - circumstances of the individual case - uniform order - internal connection - individual claims - power of attorney – Community of needs – Increase fee – Business fee – Provision – Unfairness – Threshold fee
Guiding principles (author)
When representing several people in a community of needs, lawyers cannot generally charge the full cost rate for each person, because what is usually in dispute is “a uniform circumstance”.
The two BSG senates responsible for basic security for job seekers have assumed that individual claims under SGB II can in principle be the same matter within the meaning of Section 15 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 RVG old and Section 15 Paragraph 2 RVG, whereby the Constellation of a community of needs then triggers an increase fee according to No. 1008 VV RVG (see BSG judgment of December 21, 2009 - B 14 AS 83/08 R; BSG judgment of September 27, 2011 - B 4 AS 155/10 R). In principle, several orders from different clients can therefore be “the same matter” in SGB II. The same generally applies, taking into account the relevant circumstances of the individual case, if the matter concerns different objects and partially separate test tasks. That's the case here.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
See SG Cottbus, judgment of. March 17, 2014 - S 32 AS 436/13 - Representation in legal disputes in the area of SGB 2 - "the same matter" in the sense of fee law - separate objection procedures for assessment and reimbursement notices against several members of a community of needs - uniform circumstances.
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of February 13, 2014 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - BSG, judgment of February 13, 2014 - B 4 AS 22/13
Administrative procedure under social law - application to review all decisions from the last few years for their legality without explaining the reasons for illegality - no obligation to examine the content of the provider of basic security for job seekers
Guiding principle (author)
An application according to § 44 SGB However, if the entire actions of the basic security provider are subject to review across the board and without reference to individual cases, no obligation to review is triggered.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
3. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - Bavarian State Social Court, decision of May 21, 2014 - L 7 AS 347/14 B ER
To store account statements in the administrative file
Guidelines (Juris)
1. Persons who apply for benefits under SGB II are obliged, upon request, to submit bank statements for the last three months to the job center.
2. Submitting account statements for inspection is a lawful collection of data in accordance with Section 67a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB X.
3. Storing account statements in the administrative file is a lawful storage of data in accordance with Section 67c SGB X. It does not matter whether the account statements show creditable income.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Likewise Bay LSG, decision of November 14, 2013 - L 7 AS 579/13 B ER -.
3.2 - Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of October 24, 2012 - L 16 AS 389/12 - Appeal pending at the BSG - B 14 AS 21/14 R -
On the multiple reduction of unemployment benefit II in the event of repeated failure to register.
Guidelines (Juris)
Reductions in accordance with Section 32 SGB II as amended from April 1, 2011 due to failure to keep reporting deadlines can be determined repeatedly without the previous reduction having been set by notice before the further violation of the reporting obligation occurs. The requirement established in the judgment of the BSG of November 9, 2010 (ref.: B 4 AS 27/10 R) that a sanction must be previously determined by notice before a reduction can be determined due to a repeated failure to report is related to the offense of failure to report according to § 32 SGB II as amended from April 1, 2011 not transferable.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note 1:
LSG NRW, decision of September 4th, 2012, - L 6 AS 596/12 B - There are fundamental constitutional concerns about the new regulation of Section 32 Paragraph 1 SGB 2 when, as here, it concerns so-called older adults, not.
Note 2:
Further revisions are pending at the BSG regarding the admissibility of adding reductions in reporting dates: B 14 AS 19/14 R - and B 14 AS 20/14 R -.
3.3 - Decision of the Bavarian State Social Court of May 27, 2014, Ref. L 16 AS 352/14 B ER (previously: Regensburg Social Court, April 9, 2014, Ref. S 9 AS 243/14 ER)
Guidance statements from lawyer & specialist lawyer for social law Mathias Klose:
An integration agreement as an administrative act (integration administrative act, Section 15 Para. 1 Sentence 6 SGB II) can only be issued by the job center in the area of SGB II if an attempt has previously been made to conclude a mutual integration agreement; The consensual solution takes precedence over the sovereign solution through a unilateral administrative act.
If the duration of an administrative integration act extends beyond the standard approval period of six months, this deviation must be justified.
Source: www.ra-klose.com
Note 1:
Same opinion SG Munich, decision of. June 5, 2014 – S 48 AS 1306/14 ER and SG Hamburg, decision of. April 28, 2014 - S 58 AS 1238 /14 ER - (both unpublished).
Note 2:
See LSG NRW, decision of. 03/24/2014 – L 19 AS 250/14 B ER –
Legality of an administrative act replacing an integration agreement.
Guiding principles (author)
An administrative act replacing the integration agreement comes into consideration if the basic security provider has previously unsuccessfully attempted to conclude an agreement with the job seeker and also if there are special reasons in an individual case that make it seem inappropriate to conclude an agreement let.
If the applicant responds to this with deletions and comments such as “illegal” and “unacceptable” without this being correct in terms of content or even understandable from his point of view, the attempt to reach an amicable arrangement with him is rightly considered a failure by the job center could be viewed.
In such a case, it is unreasonable for the administrative body to make further attempts that are doomed to failure from the outset (Senate judgment of February 17, 2014 - L 19 AS 749/13; further LSG North Rhine-Westphalia decision of December 9, 2013 - L 2 AS 1956/13 B ER; replacing administrative act in the event of imminent loss of time).
3.4 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of May 27, 2014 – L 16 AS 344/14 B ER
Granting of provisional ALG II for Polish citizens as part of the assessment of the consequences.
Guiding principles (Juris)
In interim legal protection, it is not possible to determine whether Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II is inapplicable due to the violation of the equal treatment requirement of Article 4 (Regulation) EC 883/2004.
Benefits according to SGB II can include social assistance benefits in the sense of. of Article 24 Paragraph 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC and at the same time special non-contributory cash benefits in accordance with Article 70 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Different opinion LSG NSB, decision of March 26, 2014, L 15 AS 16/14 B ER
3.5 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of May 26, 2014 – L 11 AS 350/14 NZB
Granting of legal aid for the non-admission complaint procedure
Guiding principle (author)
The SG deviates from the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court when it assumes that in the absence of a realistic estimate, a deduction can be made in accordance with the costs included in the standard household energy requirements (cf. BSG, judgment of November 24, 2011 - B 14 AS 151/10 R - and judgment of October 19, 2010 - B 14 AS 50/10 R -; another opinion is probably BSG, judgment of February 27, 2008 - B 14/11b AS 15/07 -).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.6 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of May 27, 2014 - L 11 AS 369/11
Standards: Section 23 Paragraph 3 SGB II old version - Keywords: washing machine as initial equipment, defect before receiving benefits, break after moving
Guidelines (author)
The job center must provide the applicant with the costs of purchasing the washing machine as a “subsidy”.
The entitlement to benefits for the initial furnishing of the apartment also exists if the beneficiary initially refrained from purchasing the necessary items for the home out of a free decision and has already lived for a long time without these items - which are necessary in themselves. “Forfeiture” only comes into consideration in exceptional cases (cf. BSG, judgment of August 20, 2009 – B 14 AS- 45/08- R).
Such a “forfeiture” did not occur because the application. despite the entitlement under Section 23 Paragraph 3 No. 1 SGB II aF (now: Section 24 Paragraph 3 No. 1 SGB II) that has existed since the beginning of the SGB II benefit receipt, she washed her laundry in a laundromat. Regardless of the fact that this was financially cheaper for the (then responsible) service provider and for the applicants. Although it may have been financially disadvantageous, it was her free decision to use the resources available to her to cover the costs of using a laundromat. With regard to its obligation to provide services in accordance with Section 23 Paragraph 3 No. 1 SGB II old version (now: Section 24 Paragraph 3 No. 1 SGB II) the JC cannot do anything for the application. draw adverse legal consequences.
Source: Source: Attorney Sven Adam, Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen, here for the full text: www.anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
Note:
See LSG BB, judgment of. 11/17/2010 - L 5 AS 1220/07 - There is a right to the granting of initial furnishings for the apartment even if the person in need of assistance initially refrained from purchasing the necessary household items out of a free decision and has already lived in an unfurnished or partially furnished apartment for a long time .
3.7 - Saxon State Social Court, decision of April 30, 2014 - L 7 AS 502/14 B ER
Provisional grant of ALG II for Romanian citizens - reason for the order for the past (assumption of rent debt) affirmed.
Guiding principles (author)
The exclusion in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II violates higher-ranking law, namely Articles 18 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) or the principle of equal treatment in Article 4 of the Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 29, 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ EU L 166, p. 1 ff. (Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004)), as far as Union citizens entitled to freedom of movement are concerned.
According to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) of September 19, 2013 - C-140/12 (“Brey”), it can be stated that Section 7 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II requires an individual case assessment taking into account the principle of proportionality for economically active Union citizens, neither in terms of time nor with regard to the connection to the national labor market nor does it provide for an examination of the burdens on the social system, although the ECJ does not consider an exclusion from social benefits even for economically inactive Union citizens without examining the individual case and without examining the burdens on the social assistance system deemed compliant with European law (also: HessLSG, decision of September 30, 2013 - L 6 AS 433/13 B ER; BayLSG, decision of November 19, 2013 - L 7 AS 753/13 B ER; HessLSG, judgment of September 20, 2013 - L 7 AS 474/13 ; Fuchs, ZESAR 2014, pp. 103, 111; see also Behrend, jurisPR-SozR 3/2014, note 1; Janda, ZFSH/SGB 2013, pp. 453, 460). This means that a denial of a claim to an order with regard to Section 7 Para. 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II in the procedure according to Section 86b Para are no longer considered if the performance requirements have otherwise been substantiated.
In any case, the applicants in this case have credibly demonstrated that there is a continuing, serious, unreasonable disadvantage resulting from the non-granting of benefits for the period in the past at the time of the court decision for the benefits applied for for their accommodation.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.8 - LSG Hessen, decision of June 6, 2014 - L 6 AS 130/14 B ER
The Hessian LSH has decided that a 26-year-old Bulgarian citizen is entitled to basic security - against the Advocate General at the European Court of Justice.
Source: www.fr-online.de
Full text of the resolution here: www.harald-thome.de (pdf)
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 - SG Munich, decision of June 5, 2014 - S 48 AS 1306/14 ER
The court orders the suspensive effect of the objection to the administrative integration act because there are considerable doubts about the legality of the decision.
Guiding principles (author)
The integration administrative act turns out to be unlawful because the job center, contrary to the legal requirement, ordered a period of validity of 12 months without exercising the necessary discretion (see BSG, judgment of February 14, 2013 -B 14 AS 195/11 R ).
The JC did not give the applicant the opportunity to participate in the content of a possible integration agreement, but rather he was immediately “presented with a fait accompli.”
The decision is available to the author.
Note:
Likewise on the period of validity of an administrative act without discretionary considerations - SG Chemnitz, decision of April 29, 2014 - S 29 AS 1636/14 ER -, unpublished.
4.2 - SG Cologne, decision of June 16, 2014 - S 6 AS 2024/14 ER
Ordering the suspensive effect of the objection to the administrative integration act
Guiding principles (author)
The court has serious doubts here about the legality of the administrative integration act, because the obligations imposed on the applicant therein, the violation of which should at least result in a reduction in unemployment benefit II, are not described in sufficient detail. The following statements can be found in number 2 of the integration administrative act regarding the applicant's efforts:
“During the period of validity of the integration agreement, you undertake at least 3 applications for employment relationships subject to social security contributions every 4 weeks - starting with the date of signing - and submit the following evidence of this following the above-mentioned respective period: on June 30th, for the first time on June 30th .2014.”
The job center issues an administrative integration act, which consists of incomplete block sentences regarding the applicant's obligations. Which proof is required from the applicant and at what point in time remains completely open. The obligations of the applicant, who has not signed this integration agreement because it was issued by administrative act, are indefinite and not suitable for establishing a legal relationship between the parties that can be sanctioned.
The decision is available to the author.
4.3 - SG Leipzig, decision of May 30, 2014 - S 17 AS 1911/14 ER
Guiding principle (beck - online)
The suspensive effect of the action to challenge a loan granted in accordance with Section 24 SGB II in lieu of a subsidy also includes the offsetting of the loan repayment claim against due payment claims from basic security.
4.4 - Lübeck Social Court, decision of October 12, 2011 - S 21 AS 942/11 ER - legally binding
Costs of access rights in Russia for recipients of basic security benefits according to SGB II.
Guiding principles (Author)
Section 21 Para. 6 SGB II can, under strict conditions, result in a claim to cover the necessary costs of access rights in the Republic of Russia.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See on the assumption of the costs for access rights abroad: LSG NRW, decision of March 17, 2014 - L 7 AS 2392/13 B ER (Indonesia); SG Bremen, resolution of May 13, 2013 - S 23 AS 612/13 ER (Australia) and LSG Rheinland-Pfalz, resolution of November 24, 2010 - L 1 SO 133/10 B ER (California).
4.5 - Gießen Social Court, judgment of August 13, 2013 - S 26 AS 1436/10 - Appeal pending at the Hessisches LSG under the case number L 9 AS 666/13
Unemployment benefit II - Standard requirements for single people - Residence of the foreign father in the household - Non-existence of a community of needs – No division of accommodation costs according to the headboard principle – Job center ignores the importance of the standard benefit as a means of securing the subsistence level.
Guiding principles (author)
No assumption of a community of needs when living together with a foreigner staying in Germany as a tourist.
A single mother is entitled to the full standard rate. This can also apply if the child's father lives in the same household. However, only if the person has no income and does not receive any benefits.
Single parents are entitled to cover the full amount of the reasonable costs of accommodation; halving the reasonable costs of accommodation is unlawful.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
S.a. Father visiting - Full Hartz IV rate for single mothers - read more on n-tv - Guide: www.n-tv.de
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 26, 2014 – L 9 SO 474/13
No entitlement to one-off aid to cover additional electricity costs
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. A claim for additional energy costs in the case of decentralized hot water preparation establishes a claim to the provision of additional services in accordance with Section 30 Paragraph 7 S 2 2nd half-sentence 1. Old SGB XII, if and to the extent that it is clear that the additional claim is based on the costs for decentralized hot water preparation .
2. If the energy requirements and costs for decentralized hot water preparation are not recorded separately using a technical device, additional services in accordance with Section 30 Paragraph 7 Sentence 2 2nd Clause 1 Old SGB XII are generally excluded.
3. An increase in the standard rate according to Section 27a Paragraph 4 S 1 2. Old SGB XII due to an additional demand for electricity costs is not possible; In this respect, only the granting of a loan in accordance with Section 37 Paragraph 1 SGB XII comes into consideration.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See SG Dortmund, judgment of September 20, 2013 – S 41 SO 132/12
Editorial principle (Jurion):
1. With regard to Section 30, Paragraph 7, Sentence 2, No. 5 of the SGB – reasonable – costs.
Section 30, Paragraph 7 of the SGB 2. With a “need that varies in individual cases” iSd. The standard can only refer to a (different upward) need for hot water or costs for hot water preparation that cannot be covered by the flat rate provided for in sentence 2 no. 1.
3. If there is an additional need for household electricity to be financed from the standard rate, a different assessment of needs is generally possible under the conditions of Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 2nd Alternative SGB XII. According to this, the individual needs are determined differently from the standard rate in individual cases if the level of a need inevitably deviates significantly from an average need.
6. Decisions on asylum law
6.1 - Duisburg Social Court, judgment of April 1, 2014 - S 44 AY 140/12 - legally binding - the appeal is permitted.
On the legal question of whether the analogous application of Section 116a SGB XII also applies to all other case variants beyond the case variant decided by the BSG.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
7. Stefan Sell: People in Hartz IV: “Forgotten” and lost between the systems when there is supposed to be “help from a single source”?
Things (and people) are regularly thrown into disarray and many fall overboard. What we mean again are the numbers. When people talk about “the” unemployed, what appears in the media is almost exclusively the number of “registered unemployed,” which is announced every month by the Federal Employment Agency (BA). This currently stands at 2,882,00 people, of which 883,000 are in the SGB III system, i.e. the “classic” unemployment insurance, the largest number are in the SGB II or basic security system, colloquially known as Hartz IV: 1,989,000 people.
But the 2.9 million people should only be understood as the lower limit of the actual problem. The BA itself has another number that a) is more realistic for depicting the problem of in-work unemployment and b) is at the same time significantly higher: 3,801.00. This is the number of underemployed people. And 3.8 million are already significantly more than the official 2.9 million unemployed.
Next: www.aktuelle-socialpolitik.blogspot.de
8. Assumption of rent debts even in the event of a repeat case - a contribution from Attorney Helge Hildebrandt
In Kiel, the assumption of rent debts is consistently rejected in administrative practice if rent debts have already accrued in the past. In its legal notice dated June 5, 2014, the SG Kiel has now declared this practice to be unlawful:
Next: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
Note:
A different opinion - LSG Baden-Württemberg decision, dated March 13, 2013 - L 2 AS 842/13 ER-B - the repeated inappropriate use of funds (here for rent payments) suggests that the recipient of the benefit consciously does not pay the rent in the trust that that residues will be taken over later. In such a case where rent arrears are caused in a socially unfriendly manner despite sufficient resources, granting assistance does not appear justified (affiliation with LSG Baden-Württemberg, resolution of March 1, 2011 - L 12 AS 622/11 ER-B with reference to LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, resolution of December 27, 2010 – L 3 AS 557/10 B ER -).
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
