1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 02.04.2014 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of April 2, 2014 – B 4 AS 26/13 R
Basic income support for job seekers – Integration agreement – Commitment to the continued provision of benefits to secure subsistence during studies for up to 3 years – Invalidity of the integration agreement – Exclusion of students from supplementary housing benefits – Constitutionality
Key principles (Author)
1. According to Section 15 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), an integration agreement may only regulate integration benefits, not benefits to secure subsistence. If the integration agreement is considered a commitment within the meaning of Section 34 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), and thus an administrative act, it is also invalid in this case. It is inadmissible to make the unconditional provision of benefits to secure subsistence, provided the statutory requirements for benefits are met, dependent on the provision of a consideration – in this case, studies and their completion.
2. Exclusion of students from supplementary accommodation benefits – Section 22 Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 SGB II aF only applies to students whose needs are calculated according to Section 13 Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2 No. 1 BAföG, i.e., those who are completing an education in one of the institutions mentioned in Section 13 Paragraph 1 No. 2 BAföG and live with their parents.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 25 June 2014 – L 2 AS 2373/13
Guiding Principles (Juris):
The primary purpose of the exception in Section 11 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is to simplify the administrative process of considering income. It applies when this purpose can be achieved. In all cases where the receipt of income only becomes known to the administration at a point when it is no longer possible to consider it for the following month, the generally applicable regulations remain in effect, in particular the accrual principle, and the reversal process takes the form of a withdrawal or revocation and reimbursement procedure.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 14 May 2014 – L 11 AS 621/13
Headnotes (Juris)
1. If the purpose of a benefit is unlawfully determined in a notice of approval, a revocation of the benefit award due to failure to achieve the intended purpose is not possible pursuant to Section 47 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X).
2. Actual expenses within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are already incurred if the benefit recipient is subject to a valid and not permanently deferred rent claim. A rent reduction declared by the benefit recipient to their landlord, but which is obviously invalid, does not eliminate the need for accommodation.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, Decision of June 2, 2014 – L 7 AS 392/14 B ER
Headnotes (Juris)
1. Preliminary injunction proceedings require that there is an open main proceeding. For this purpose, the subject matter of the dispute must first be determined.
2. For expired approval periods, there is generally no longer any grounds for issuing an order.
3. In the case of an urgent application concerning a legally binding settlement, efforts should be made to ensure that the application is appropriate. It is reasonable to accept an application for the imposition of a coercive fine if the authority fails to comply with its obligations under the settlement.
4. If a court of first instance fails to recognize which application is appropriate and decides on an inadmissible application without consulting an unrepresented plaintiff, when another application would be admissible, the case may be remanded pursuant to Section 159 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
5. Enforcement of a settlement agreement is carried out by imposing a coercive fine if the authority refuses to issue a new decision. If the authority is only obligated to issue a new decision under certain conditions in the settlement agreement, e.g., cooperation from the beneficiary, these cooperation actions must be defined so precisely that they can be clearly described in the enforcement clause.
6. A review comparison must determine the period over which the authority must make a decision.
7. If, within the framework of a settlement, it is not pointed out that a follow-up application must be submitted for the period beginning after the end of the settlement, the application for restitution under social law will be deemed to have been submitted.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.4 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 14 May 2014 – L 11 AS 617/13
Guiding principle (author)
1. No entitlement to initial furnishing of an apartment with new furniture and for the purchase of an LED FULL-HD 3-D monitor with satellite receiver.
2. Benefit recipients can, in principle, also be referred to the purchase of used items. This does not violate human dignity (cf. regarding the purchase of used clothing: Federal Social Court [BSG], judgment of April 13, 2011 – B 14 AS 53/10 R). Furthermore, the benefit provider can also, within the framework of the provision of benefits in kind permitted by Section 24 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), maintain furnishings in a warehouse, etc., and provide these "in kind" as benefits in kind (cf. Federal Social Court [BSG], judgment of August 20, 2009 – B 14 AS 45/08 R).
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2.5 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 14 May 2014 – L 11 AS 620/13
Principle (Juris):
An appeal by the job center against a judgment of the social court, which overturned the decision to grant benefits, does not have suspensive effect. The benefit recipient can therefore file a lawsuit for payment if the benefits in question are refused.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.6 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 03.06.2014 – L 7 AS 360/14 B ER
Guiding Principles (Juris)
1. In expedited proceedings concerning benefits that secure subsistence, a merely summary examination is inadmissible. Rather, according to the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, the factual and legal situation must be comprehensively examined.
2. If a job center's concept for accommodation costs has been confirmed as conclusive by the highest court, there is regularly no entitlement to an order in expedited proceedings for a concept that is continued for subsequent years, unless a beneficiary has credibly demonstrated specific reasons that could call the concept into question.
3. If a job center offers a loan for the initial furnishing of an apartment requested in the urgent application, there is at least no ground for an order.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.7 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 14 May 2014 – L 11 AS 610/11
Guiding Principles (Author)
1. Benefit recipients are entitled to an additional allowance of €77 per month for nutritional needs in cases of lactose and fructose intolerance. These food intolerances can also, in principle, constitute a medically necessary dietary requirement.
2. No retroactive revocation of the grant of unemployment benefit II (Section 48 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book X) if a pension is granted retroactively, but a payment is made due to a reimbursement of benefits by the pension provider to the basic income support provider.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2.8 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 05.06.2014 – L 7 AS 435/14 ER
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. The suspension of the enforcement of a social court decision granting subsistence benefits is possible in exceptional cases.
2. If the court of first instance has ruled that a cohabiting partnership exists and therefore no entitlement to benefits exists, no further benefits can generally be granted in summary proceedings, even using the balancing of interests prescribed by the Federal Constitutional Court, unless the partner's income and assets are disclosed and substantiated.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.9 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 06.06.2014 – L 11 AS 322/14 NZB
Principle (Juris):
No appeal is admissible if the subject of the dispute is solely a challenge to the reduction notice, even if the underlying grant notices have not been revoked.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Court's note:
The general claim for performance based on this must be clarified in separate first-instance proceedings, or could have been clarified there by a potentially permissible amendment to the claim. However, the plaintiff has not yet raised this claim (see, in this regard, the Senate's judgments of April 21, 2014 – L 11 AS 410/13 and L 11 AS 512/13). Therefore, the fundamental question of whether a further (partial) revocation notice is required in addition to the reduction notice does not require clarification in the present proceedings.
2.10 – Saxony-Anhalt State Social Court, Judgment of June 24, 2014 – L 4 AS 98/11:
Costs for a cable connection can only be allocated to accommodation costs if the corresponding payment obligation is established by the tenancy agreement.
Key principles (author):
1. Housing and accommodation include only those needs that serve to satisfy basic needs such as food, sleep, and shelter, but not specific leisure activities or entertainment and information needs. Therefore, expenses for a cable connection are to be allocated to the needs covered by the standard benefit (cf. Federal Social Court, Judgment of February 19, 2009, Case No.: B 4 AS 48/08 R).
2. He is not entitled to additional benefits under Section 23 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as such an entitlement is already precluded in this case because – apart from the one-time provision fee – the monthly recurring charges constitute a permanent, so-called ongoing need.
3. There is neither an unavoidable need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), nor is the claimed need so substantial that the recipient's dignified minimum standard of living would no longer be guaranteed without its separate fulfillment.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2.11 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 30.06.2014 – L 25 AS 1511/14 B ER – legally binding.
Romanian national is entitled to ALG II within the framework of the balancing of interests.
the question
of whether it follows the challenged decision with regard to the reasoning based on Section 40 Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in conjunction with Section 328 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III).
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
See LSG BB, decision of 27.05.2014 – L 34 AS 1150/14 B ER – exclusion of benefits pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II – provisional provision of benefits pursuant to Section 40 Paragraph 2 No. 1 SGB 2 in conjunction with Section 328 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB 3 – reduction of discretion to zero.
2.12 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 23 June 2014 – L 3 AS 88/12 B ER
The issuance of a preliminary injunction is necessary, in addition to ordering the suspension of the enforcement of a decision to grant preliminary legal protection, if the requested benefit has not been granted by the administration or not to the extent requested.
Guiding principles (author):
1. The practice of ordering an action for annulment after the issuance of a decision on an objection, rather than the suspension of the enforcement of the decision, is common. However, whether this is also dogmatically correct is disputed.
2. The integration agreement must specify which of the benefits listed in Section 16 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) the employable person receives for integration purposes, as well as the intensity and quantity of job search efforts the person in need is required to undertake and the form in which they must provide evidence of these efforts (see Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, decision of January 22, 2007 – L 13 AS 4160/06 ER-B). Given that any reciprocal obligation stipulated in the integration agreement by the employable person is subject to a severe and significant sanction through the reduction of benefits under Section 31 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if not fulfilled, this obligation must be sufficiently specific and not vague. It must also be clearly recognizable and comprehensible to the benefit recipient, taking into account their perspective as a recipient, what is required of them (cf. Hessian State Social Court, decision of January 16, 2014 – L 9 AS 846/13 B ER).
3. Against this background, there are considerable doubts as to whether the applicant can be accused of violating his obligation under the integration agreement, namely, "Information on the 2012 guide will be obtained from Berufsförderungswerk Network e. V. by August 31, 2011 at the latest." It is already questionable whether this provision of the integration agreement, in its agreed wording, is lawful.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
3. Decisions of the Social Courts on Basic Income Support for Job Seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Social Court Leipzig, Decision of June 23, 2014 – S 21 AS 846/14
Headnotes (FSN-Recht, Leipzig)
The Job Center must bear the costs of the lawsuit if, in the preceding objection proceedings, it refuses to send the benefits file to the law firm of a reliable lawyer, and after review of the file in the legal proceedings, the lawsuit is withdrawn due to lack of prospects of success.
Source: Law firm fsn-recht, Leipzig
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB X II)
4.1 – Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of 19.06.2014 – L 9 SO 54/12 PKH – legally binding.
The applicant has no claim against the social assistance provider for a subsidy for the purchase and conversion of a motor vehicle (Kfz) to be suitable for a disabled person, as well as for an operating cost subsidy.
Guiding principles (author):
1. Health insurance companies are responsible for journeys to doctors and rehabilitation and medical treatments.
2. The applicant is not dependent on the use of a motor vehicle for her voluntary work (cf. BSG, judgment of 23 August 2013 – B 8 SO 24/11 R – according to which social engagement can also be considered active participation in community life and thus the exercise of voluntary work is also to be attributed in a special way to participation in community life).
3. It is also reasonable to expect disabled people to accept certain inconveniences and delays that may arise from having to wait for a bus, requesting a bus adapted for disabled people, or using a special transport service for disabled people. Public transport is obligated to transport disabled people and is generally equipped to do so (Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, Judgment of November 27, 2013 – L 9 SO 16/11).
4. A car is also not required for trips to the swimming pool, even if funded by integration assistance. Trips to the swimming pool undertaken at the individual's own request are not considered trips for participation in community life (Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of July 27, 2010 – L 8 SO 139/10 B ER; Lüneburg Social Court, decision of July 6, 2005 – S 23 SO 195/05 ER; Munich Social Court, judgment of March 27, 2012 – S 48 SO 485/10, ZFSH SGB 2012, pp. 549 et seq.).
5. The applicant is also not entitled to reimbursement of the operating costs for her already acquired vehicle pursuant to Sections 53 Paragraph 1, 45 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in conjunction with Section 10 Paragraph 6 of the Introductory Act to the German Social Code, Book XII (EGHVO). Here, too, the prerequisite is that the applicant is regularly dependent on the use of a vehicle, which – as explained above – is not the case (see Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of June 29, 2010 – L 8 SO 132/09).
6. The applicant is also not entitled to reimbursement of the costs for modifying her vehicle. While the Federal Social Court (BSG), in its judgment of August 23, 2013 – B 8 SO 24/11 R – ruled that the principles applicable to modifications under Section 8 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Ordinance on the Disability of Persons with Disabilities (EGHVO) are not applicable, this does not apply in this case. According to Section 9 Paragraph 2 No. 11 EGHVO, the disabled person must be dependent on special operating devices and accessories for motor vehicles, which is not the case here.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
4.2 – LSG Baden-Württemberg Judgment of 27 May 2014, L 2 SO 1625/13
Guiding Principles (Juris)
1. The Senate adheres to its previous case law (judgment of June 29, 2011 – L 2 SO 5698/10 in Juris) that even in cases of advanced jaw atrophy, there is no entitlement against the social welfare provider to the granting of a subsidy or a loan for the purpose of financing implant-supported dentures pursuant to Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). Rather, the social welfare recipient, like all persons with statutory health insurance in this case, must be referred to the provision of "normal" dentures/prostheses.
2. Nothing else results from Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), since this is not a recurring need, but rather a one-off need.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See also the judgment of the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court of 27 May 2014, L 2 SO 1431/14 –
4.3 – Baden-Württemberg Higher Social Court judgments of May 27, 2014 – L 2 SO 20/14 – and – L 2 SO 21/14 – The appeal is granted.
Headnotes (Juris)
: 1. Under social assistance law (SGB XII), unlike under the law governing basic income support for jobseekers (SGB II), it is permissible to offset household energy costs already included in the standard benefit rate against housing costs.
2. Regarding the requirements for proof of increased clothing needs.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Commentary on: Federal Social Court (BSG), 4th Senate, Judgment of November 22, 2011 – B 4 AS 138/10 R –, Author: Jörg Neunaber, Attorney at Law.
Principle:
The 2008 recommendations for additional needs are not anticipated expert opinions that can be applied by the courts in a manner similar to legal norms.
Source: Juris, available here: www.juris.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
