1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, judgment of July 2, 2014 – L 3 AS 315/14 B ER
On the admissibility of home visits for SGB II benefit recipients
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. If there are reasonable doubts about the actual use of an apartment by a benefit recipient in accordance with SGB II, the job center is entitled to check the requirements for a claim for accommodation and heating needs, the actual use by inspecting the apartment in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 4 SGB X (home visit) must be checked.
2. The tolerance of the inspection of the apartment in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 4 SGB X cannot be enforced using coercive means. If a benefit recipient refuses to tolerate the inspection, he or she bears the objective burden of proof for the actual use of the apartment as a prerequisite for the requirements for accommodation and heating in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1, provided that the actual use cannot be determined by other evidence through the official investigation Sentence 1 SGB II.
3. If the prospects of success in the main matter are open in proceedings for interim legal protection, a comprehensive weighing of interests takes place, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case. The applicant's shared responsibility for a disadvantageous situation that has arisen must also be taken into account. In the event of disputes about a claim for accommodation and heating requirements, this also applies to the refusal to tolerate an inspection of the apartment if there are reasonable doubts about the actual use.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Is the job center allowed to check benefit recipients at home? – a contribution from Dr. Manfred Hammel, originally published in: ZfF 2012 Issue 3, 57 – 60, short message printed here: www.verwaltungspraxis.jurion.de
1.2 – Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, judgment of March 25, 2014 – L 3 AS 343/10 ZVW
Specific accommodation alternative according to Section 22 SGB II
Guiding Principles (Juris)
In the examination to be carried out within the framework of Section 22 SGB II as to whether there is a specific accommodation alternative for an abstractly appropriate apartment, the specific circumstances of the family living together must be taken into account with a view to Article 6 of the Basic Law, even if not all members belong to the community of needs within the meaning of SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note: S.a.
: Judgments of the LSG on the costs of accommodation according to SGB II in Zweibrücken, a contribution from Küttner Rechtsanwälte: www.kanzlei-kuettner.de
1.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of July 23, 2014 – L 16 AS 457/14 B ER
Benefits for trainees in accordance with Section 27 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB II to cover their standard needs as a loan in the interim legal protection procedure.
Guiding principles (author)
1. Trainee media designers who receive training allowance from the Federal Employment Agency in accordance with Section 122 SGB III and are excluded from benefits under SGB II in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 5 are entitled to loan-based benefits in accordance with Section 27 Paragraph 4 Sentence . 1 SGB II due to an accumulation of special circumstances such as no child benefit, no support from parents and no employment due to their health situation, even if none of the case groups discussed by the BSG are not clearly present (cf. the judgments of July 6, 2009, B 14/7b AS 36/06 R and B 14/7b AS 28/06 R).
2. If there is a case of particular hardship, the question of “whether” the benefit should be granted is generally based on a discretionary reduction to zero (BSG, judgment of September 6, 2007).
However, the nature and extent of the provision of services are at the discretion of the administration. Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.4 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of August 28, 2014 – L 11 AS 556/14 NZB
An action to challenge a reduction notice
Guiding principle (Juris)
A pure action to challenge a reduction notice does not also include a general claim for performance based on a previous approval notice that was not separately revoked due to the sanction.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.5 - State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of September 9, 2014 - L 4 AS 373/14 B ER - legally binding
Interim legal protection on the granting of an assurance in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 4 SGB II
The general necessity of the applicant moving from his former 10 sqm children's room to an apartment is supported by his age of over 25 years and his living situation of having to supervise and accommodate his underage daughter on weekends every fortnight (cf. for interpretation of Section 22 Paragraph 5 SGB II: Resolution of the Senate of May 19, 2014 - L 4 AS 169/14 B ER).
Guiding principles (author)
1. In order to substantiate a reason for an order in the sense of an urgent regulation to avert significant disadvantages, particularly strict standards apply in the case of the sought-after assurance of a move, which are not met here (cf. LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of April 26th 2013, L 5 AS 427/13 B ER).
The sought-after (basically) “provisional assurance” is only of use to a beneficiary if it has a long-term binding effect on those involved. However, this is only the case if it is not only granted provisionally but finally (cf. LSG Berlin Brandenburg, decision of November 6, 2012, Ref.: L 25 AS 2712/12 B PKH). 2. There is no urgent need to move into the attic apartment immediately.
The applicant's factual presentation about the allegedly strained relationship with his parents and the alleged pressure exerted on him to finally move out are not convincing in the summary examination required in the expedited procedure. If the parents intend to rent the attic apartment to someone else, this does not make the matter urgent because in such a case the applicant could rent another suitable apartment. Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of May 19, 2014 - L 4 AS 169/14 B ER
Guiding principle (NWB database)
It can remain open whether the age limit of Section 22 Paragraph 5 SGB II is only to be interpreted so that those under 25 need special reasons for moving out of their parents' household, or whether it also makes it clear that from When this age limit is reached, there are no longer any additional reasons for moving out of the parental home (see LSG Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, B v July 22, 2008, L 10 B 203/08, juris). In any case, moving to an appropriate apartment is necessary if the 28-year-old only had a 9 m² room with sloping ceilings in his parents' house and the cramped living conditions had led to family tensions.
1.6 - Saxon State Social Court, decision of September 23, 2014 - L 7 AS 986/14 B ER
A Jordanian citizen is entitled to provisional benefits under SGB 2 because he is a family member of a German citizen.
Guiding principles (author)
1. The crucial question here, whether people who do not have German citizenship but rather that of a third country and who are joining a German family member - here: a spouse - are covered by the exclusion of benefits, is answered differently in case law and literature (against the application of Section 7 Paragraph 1 S 2 No. 1 SGB II e.g. LSG North Rhine-Westphalia decision of December 7, 2009 - L 19 B 363/09 AS; LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen judgment of March 15, 2012 - L 6 AS 748/10; Bavarian LSG judgment of June 27, 2012 - L 16 AS 449/11; Hessian LSG decision of September 19, 2012 - L 7 AS 30/12 B ER; for the application of the exclusion of benefits, however, LSG Baden-Württemberg decision of April 27, 2011 - L 3 AS 1411/11 ER-B; SG Duisburg resolution of November 19, 2009 - S 31 AS 414/09 ER).
2. The inapplicability of the exclusion of benefits in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 1 S 2 No. 1 SGB II follows directly from the interpretation of domestic law.
3. Section 1 of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act may not cover persons who, although they meet all the requirements of an asylum seeker, but have married a Union citizen, because they have a right of residence in the European Union as family members (ECJ, decision of December 19, 2008 - C-551 /07).
4. It is mostly likely that the applicant is entitled to a residence permit in accordance with Section 28 of the Residence Act. Because the applicant is entitled to family reunification with the German wife in accordance with Article 6 Paragraph 1 and 2 GG as well as Article 3 Paragraph 1, 6 Paragraph 2 and 7 Paragraph 1 d) and Paragraph 2 of Directive 2004/38/ EC generally grants a right to residence in Germany (ECJ, decision of December 19, 2008 - C-551/07; aA SG Nuremberg, judgment of August 26, 2009 - S 20 AS 906/28).
5. The residence permit for family reunification entitles you to pursue gainful employment in accordance with Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the Residence Act.
6. The applicant lives with his wife and their children in a community of need.
If he were not to be considered employable, he would therefore be entitled to social benefits in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II (cf. LSG Hamburg, judgment of January 13, 2012 - L 4 AS 236/11; Hessisches LSG, decision from September 6th, 2011 - L 7 AS 334/11 B ER; SG Berlin, judgment from August 15th, 2012 - S 55 AS 7242/1). Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - SG Berlin, decision of September 11, 2014 - S 147 AS 20920/14
No discontinuation of the service when the local jurisdiction changes.
Section 2, Paragraph 3, Sentence 1 of the SGB Edition 2014, § 2 para. 15). The purpose of this regulation is to prevent an interruption in the service to the service recipient, which typically occurs when there is a change of responsibility, and to achieve a seamless transition in the provision of services (cf. legal justification in BT-Drucks. 8/2034 on Art. 1 §2; Schleswig -Holstein State Social Court, judgment of April 12, 2011 - L 6 AS 45/10 -).
The lawyer Kay Füßlein: www.ra-fuesslein.de
Note:
S. a. : Discontinuation of services when moving, an article by Kay Füßlein: www.ra-fuesslein.de
2.2 – SG Kiel, decision of. July 29, 2009 – S 9 AS 399/09 ER
Mold in the apartment is a reason to move
It cannot be assumed that the move is necessary until damage to health occurs. If there is a specific health risk due to mold in the apartment, the job center is obliged to give consent to a move.
Next: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
2.3 – Leipzig Social Court, court decision dated May 13, 2014 – S 17 AS 4284/13
Obligation to apply for an early old-age pension only from the age of 63 - transfer of the authority to apply to the basic security provider - exercise of discretion - purpose of discretion - consideration of unfairness aspects Guiding
principles (author)
1. The applicant was obliged in accordance with § 12 a sentence 1, sentence 2 No. 1 SGB II in order to eliminate their need for help, to submit an application for early claim of old-age pension for long-term insured people to the DRV Central Germany.
2. The fact that the applicant may still have to make use of supplementary basic security benefits, then according to SGB 2012, Ref. B 4 AS 105/12 R, Rz. 20 ff, 31 - in the case of a foreign old-age pension before the age of 63 in the amount of only €173 per month).
3. The purpose of the discretion granted in Section 5 Paragraph 3 SGB II is not to allow the basic security providers to weigh up the typical consequences of the exclusion of benefits for old-age pensioners in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB II, but rather to comprehensively weigh up all the pros and cons Individually complex investigations and considerations would have to be made.
However, they only concern the regular and mandatory consequences of receiving a retirement pension due to the exclusion of benefits in SGB II in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Alt. 2 SGB II. It is not the task or purpose of the Enforcement of the law by the basic security providers (a different opinion: most recently, as far as can be seen, SG Dresden, resolution of February 21, 2014 - S 28 AS 567/14 ER -). 4. There are no fundamental constitutional concerns because even insured persons who do not need help must accept the same deductions if they claim their old-age pension early.
The decision is available to the author. My thanks go to the Leipzig Social Court.
2.4 - SG Gießen, judgment of July 15, 2014 - S 22 AS 341/12 - legally binding
principles (Juris)
The assessment of the need for help (§ 9 SGB II) in the case of existing savings assets must be based on the right of disposal.
With savings accounts, the person in need of help does not have to be held to the legal certificate of account ownership. Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB X II)
3.1 - Saxon State Social Court, judgment of August 25, 2014 - L 8 SO 59/12
Guiding principles (author)
1. 21 Sentence 1 SGB are entitled to benefits, do not receive any benefits for living expenses according to SGB XII.
2. This provision, which contradicts the applicants' request, is consistent with higher-ranking law.
In particular, it does not violate Article 22 UDHR. First of all, it should be kept in mind that the UDHR is not a binding legal source of international law, but only has a recommendatory character (see Ansbach Administrative Court, judgment of August 31, 2007 - AN 4 K 07.00590). Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB X II)
4.1 - SG Regensburg, decision of September 5th, 2014 - S 9 SO 61/14 ER
Guidelines (author)
Social welfare provider must cover travel costs for outpatient treatment. The claim follows from Section 27 b SGB XII, provided that no third party has a priority obligation. It is another necessary means of subsistence.
read more: Case law confirms: Social welfare provider must cover travel costs for outpatient treatment, an article by lawyer Mathias Klose: socialrecht-aktuell.blogspot.de
5. Decisions on employment promotion law according to (SGB III)
5.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of August 6, 2014 – L 10 AL 45/13
Soldiers are not entitled to equality with severely disabled people - special features of the soldier's relationship - a soldier's job is not a job within the meaning of Section 73 Paragraph 1 SGB IX
Guiding principle (author)
1. Equality for disabled soldiers only comes into consideration after they have left their service. In principle, it can therefore only be pronounced with effect from the date of termination of employment (cf. SG Chemnitz, judgment of November 22, 2012 - S 26 AL 132/11 -).
2. Consequently, the soldier relationship is not covered by Section 73 Paragraph 1 SGB IX.
The prerequisites for the possibility of equality according to Section 2 Paragraph 3 SGB IX are therefore not met, since the specific relevant workplace of a soldier is not such a job within the meaning of Section 73 SGB IX. Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. The official obligation to investigate and the work of the field service within the framework of Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 3c SGB II, SRa 05/2014, 177
Dr. Bettina Weinreich, University of the Federal Employment Agency, Schwerin
According to statistics from the Federal Employment Agency, there were 3,291,983 benefit communities in Germany in January 2014 with a total of 6,057,530 people, of which 4,366,982 were eligible for benefits.
Many people entitled to benefits live together within the community of need without a “marriage certificate”. Since the formation of a community of needs within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 3c SGB II is an exclusively legal term, the question arises for benefit administration as to what is meant by this and under what conditions according to Section 20 SGB X i. V. m. § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 SGB II is entitled to determine the existence of such a community of needs. printed in Sozialrecht aktuell, issue 05/2014: www.socialrecht-aktuell.nomos.de
7. Preliminary legal protection in disputes over accommodation costs
Uwe Klerks, lawyer and specialist in social law and insurance law, Essen
I. Introduction
In its decision of April 17, 2014, the State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia reaffirms its view that benefits for accommodation and heating can only be claimed as provisional legal protection in the event of a concrete threat of homelessness or a comparable emergency.
It excludes from this the cases of granting benefits in accordance with Section 44a Paragraph 1 Sentence 7 SGB II on the grounds that the jurisdictional dispute between the recipient of benefits under SGB II and SGB XII would otherwise be carried out to the detriment of the person in need of assistance. This last argument must be agreed with; Nevertheless, the previous case law on the granting of accommodation and heating benefits must be reviewed as part of the provisional legal protection. The existing options for granting interim legal protection are too narrow. It must be increasingly taken into account that non-payment of accommodation and heating costs causes many problems to those entitled to benefits, which can certainly be avoided through a positive decision in interim legal protection. printed in info also, issue 05/2014: www.info-also.nomos.de
8. Report from August 18, 2014, G 1/14 - published on the website of the German Association - Securing livelihoods during the transition from SGB II to BAföG, expert: Constanze Rogge,
Dr. Edna Rasch, here for the report: www.deutscher-verein.de
Securing livelihoods during the transition from SGB II to BAföG
1. Section 27, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2 of the SGB II does not open up the possibility of granting benefits in accordance with the SGB II in the form of a loan beyond the first month of training.
2. The legislature accepted that trainees would have difficulties securing their livelihood at the start of their training by considering a maximum period of 10 weeks after application without training funding to be reasonable in Section 51 Paragraph 2 of the BAföG.
3. The mere existence of a need for assistance after starting a training program that is eligible for funding does not constitute a particular hardship according to Section 27 Para. 4 Sentence 1 SGB II.
4. Difficulties in securing a living during the transition from SGB II to BAföG should be addressed at the administrative level: The Administration can help prevent gaps in the livelihood security of trainees from occurring within the framework of obligations to act, obligations to provide advice and the power to independently enforce the information obligations of those entitled to maintenance under BAföG.
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
