1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 07.01.2015 – L 16 AS 734/14 B ER
Preliminary legal protection in integration administrative acts
Guiding principles (author):
1. In expedited proceedings, the review of the regulations of an integration administrative act does not take place due to lack of urgency.
2. Subsequent legal recourse against sanctions is possible and sufficient (see Bavarian State Social Court, decision of November 14, 2014 – L 16 AS 737/14 B ER, not published).
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
Different view – Social Court Reutlingen, decision of March 19, 2013 – S 7 AS 288/13 ER, not published, Social Court Berlin, decision of December 4, 2014 – S 131 AS 27736/14 ER, not published
1.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, Partial Judgment of 22 January 2015 – L 7 AS 757/14 B ER
Increased requirements for substantiating the claim and grounds for an order when granting basic income support in preliminary legal protection proceedings.
Guiding Principles (Author)
1. A review procedure pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) is generally capable of overturning the finality of a decision. Thus, a review procedure can also render an application for preliminary legal protection aimed at securing subsistence benefits admissible again.
2. However, there is agreement that in such cases a particularly strict standard must be applied to the grounds for the order, or that a serious impairment of the applicant's economic existence must be imminent.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 09.01.2015 – L 7 AS 846/14 B ER
No further cash payment of an ALG II back payment if the benefit is garnished from the garnishment protection account
Guiding Principles (Author):
1. There is no entitlement to a further cash payment of unemployment benefit II (ALG II) if a creditor has seized the benefit from the protected bank account. The job center is entitled to transfer the benefits to the recipient's bank account. The benefit claim is thus fulfilled.
2. The question of the extent to which creditors could access the applicant's protected bank account regulated in Section 850k of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), or the degree of protection against attachment, is not to be answered by the social courts. The enforcement courts at the local courts have jurisdiction.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
See also: Press release BAY LSG dated January 23, 2015: www.lsg.bayern.de
1.4 – LSG Schleswig Holstein, decision of 09.10.2014 – L 6 AS 181/14 B ER
The applicants were granted temporary permission to cover their moving and housing procurement costs.
Principle (by the editors, reprinted in info also 6/2014, 276):
In exceptional cases where the court's discretion fails in the main proceedings, it may exercise its own discretion in preliminary injunction proceedings if otherwise the party seeking legal protection would face unreasonable disadvantages until a decision is reached in the main proceedings, and if this does not constitute a prejudgment of the main proceedings for the opposing party.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
See also: Important decision on confirmation of discretionary powers pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), an article by attorney Helge Hildebrant: sozialberatung-kiel.de
1.5 – Hessian State Social Court, decision of 07.01.2015 – L 6 AS 815/14 B ER
An Italian national is entitled to ALG II (unemployment benefit II).
The application of the exclusion of benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) to unemployed job seekers with an actual connection to the local labor market is contrary to Article 45 Paragraph 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Guiding Principles (Author)
1. Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) must remain inapplicable if a job seeker with an existing right of residence for the purpose of seeking employment has an actual connection to the local labor market in which he claims the benefit based on his habitual residence (see Bavarian State Social Court, decision of July 2, 2014 – L 16 AS 419/14 B ER – ; North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of December 11, 2012 – L 7 AS 1658/12 B ER – ; contra: 7th Senate of the Hessian State Social Court, decision of December 11, 2014 – L 7 AS 528/14 B ER -).
2. On the definition of an employee within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
The same applies to Polish nationals – LSG NSB, decision of 11 November 2014 – L 8 SO 306/14 B ER
1.6 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 18 December 2014 – L 2 AS 1285/14 B ER – legally binding
Educational support services for those in need can enable them to obtain a regular school leaving certificate.
Guiding principle (author):
The applicant's integration into the regular school has been successful so far, meaning that the transfer to a special needs school, which the job center apparently prefers, is not advisable. If the job center fears that the applicant will be dependent on taxpayer-funded benefits during vocational training after obtaining a school leaving certificate "only" with tutoring, this risk is likely significantly higher for the applicant without a school leaving certificate.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1.7 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 13 January 2015 – L 2 AS 1849/14 B – legally binding:
No consideration of the deductions pursuant to Section 11b Paragraph 1 No. 6, Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for unemployment benefit I received within the framework of vocational training.
Principle (Author):
The allowances under Section 11b Paragraph 1 No. 6, Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) cannot be deducted from unemployment benefit I because they do not constitute "income from employment."
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1.8 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 16 December 2014 – L 2 AS 407/14
The job center will not cover the costs of custom-made progressive lenses with two prism lenses for the purpose of initiating employment subject to social security contributions or school training from the placement budget if the desired service falls under the responsibility of statutory health insurance.
Guiding principles (author):
1. The requested support is not necessary for vocational integration. Nor does it serve to promote the participation of disabled people in working life.
2. Since the sought-after progressive lenses for use in the near and far range merely serve to replace the switching between glasses for near and far vision, progressive lenses serve as a basic compensation for a disability for participation in social life and are not specifically required for professional practice, unlike safety glasses.
3. The purchase of progressive lenses is not an essential necessity. To ensure a dignified existence, the purchase of two pairs of glasses, one for near vision and one for distance vision, is sufficient.
4. The result reached is also consistent with the plaintiff's constitutionally guaranteed right to a dignified minimum standard of living, as further elaborated in the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of February 9, 2010 (BVerfGE 125, 175-260) and the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 23, 2014 (1 BvL 10/12, 1 BvL 12/12 and 1 BvR 1691/13).
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1.9 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 12 January 2015 – L 19 AS 2211/14 B ER – legally binding
Request to apply for a pension – errors of discretion – justification of discretionary decisions
The applicant's objection has suspensive effect because the application for early retirement pension lacks a proper justification for the discretionary decision.
The benefit provider must state its reasons for requesting benefit recipients to apply for a pension in its request letter.
Guiding Principles (Author)
1. The request of a benefit recipient to submit an application for early retirement benefits pursuant to Sections 5 Paragraph 3 and 12a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is at the discretion of the benefit provider. The word "may" contained in Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the SGB II is not merely a "may" based on competence (cf. Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of November 18, 2014 – L 10 AS 2254/14 B). Rather, the benefit provider must exercise its discretion in accordance with the purpose of the authorization and comply with the statutory limits of discretion (Section 39 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I)). Correspondingly, the benefit recipient has a right to the proper exercise of discretion (Section 39 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the SGB I).
2. Formulaic phrases, such as that "no special circumstances exist" or "nothing special is apparent with regard to the circumstances", are insufficient for the required justification of discretionary decisions, because with such "empty formulas" it cannot be verified whether the benefit provider has exercised its discretion at all and, if so, in a manner consistent with the purpose of the authorization granted to it.
3. A detailed explanation of the individual case is required, detailing that and what balancing of the opposing interests took place and which considerations were of decisive importance, so that the affected party or the court can review whether the exercise of discretion complies with the legal requirements. This includes presenting the circumstances of the individual case relevant to the discretionary decision, as determined ex officio (§ 20 SGB X).
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
The same result was reached – SG Berlin, decision of 05.01.2015 – S 138 AS 10299/14
1.10 – North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Social Court, Decision of December 22, 2014 (Case No.: L 12 AS 2259/14 B ER):
Headnotes by Dr. Manfred Hammel:
1. The fact that the accrual of rent arrears is attributable to a complete sanction imposed by the Jobcenter on the employable benefit recipient pursuant to Section 31a Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), by means of decisions that are not yet legally binding, does not preclude the assumption of rent arrears pursuant to
Section 22 Paragraph 8 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). 2. This sanction does not fundamentally eliminate the
entitlement to benefits within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 8 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). 3. It must be assumed that this comprehensive sanction can be mitigated through the application of Section 22 Paragraph 8 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). This does not completely eliminate the loss of benefits for housing costs.
4. Due to the granting of a loan pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 8 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the Jobcenter must carry out a monthly offset in accordance with Section 42a Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the SGB II, starting from the month in which a standard benefit payment is first made again.
Note:
Regarding the assumption of rent arrears that have arisen due to a complete cessation of benefits in anticipation of a sanction, within the framework of preliminary legal protection: Bavarian State Social Court (BayLSG), Decision of December 21, 2012 – L 11 AS 850/12 B ER.
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Social Court Berlin, judgment of 5 January 2015 (Case No.: S 138 AS 10299/14):
Guiding Principles by Dr. Manfred Hammel
: 1. The request by the SGB II provider, pursuant to Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II in conjunction with Section 12a Sentence 1 SGB II, to submit an application for benefits to another social security provider is already within the discretionary power of the Jobcenter. According to Section 39 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB I, employable benefit recipients have a subjective public right to the proper exercise of this discretion.
2. In particular, a job center must examine how the expected duration of benefit receipt will be, to what extent a reduced pension must be expected due to early retirement, whether the associated deductions are reasonable, and to what extent this reduced pension is sufficient to cover living expenses on a permanent basis.
3. It is not sufficient if, for example, it is completely undisputed that a pension application has already been submitted, and therefore the amount of the expected old-age pension is also fixed.
Note:
See also the article by the authorized representative, attorney Kay Füßlein – www.ra-fuesslein.de
2.2 – Berlin Social Court, decision of January 12, 2015 (Case No.: S 96 AS 25532/14 ER):
Guiding principles by Dr. Manfred Hammel:
1. If an integration agreement concluded pursuant to Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) still exists, from which no obligation of the employable benefit recipient to apply for a pension (Section 12a Sentence 1 SGB II) arises, but the integration of the applicant into the regional labor market is stated as the goal, and the obligations associated with this are listed in this document, a job center cannot, when requesting the applicant to apply for a pension (Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II in conjunction with Section 12a Sentence 1 SGB II), merely refer to the existence of the prerequisites pursuant to Section 12a SGB II in conjunction with the Unreasonableness Ordinance.
2. Rather, a thorough assessment of all relevant criteria must be carried out.
3. According to the wording of Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), a job center can only submit an application for benefits to another social security agency on behalf of an employable benefit recipient if that recipient has failed to submit such an application despite being explicitly requested to do so. The procedure under Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the SGB II always requires that the SGB II agency has previously and unsuccessfully requested the recipient of unemployment benefit II (Alg II) to submit an application for benefits in accordance with Section 12a Sentence 1 of the SGB II.
Note:
See also the judgment of the Berlin Social Court of January 5, 2015, and the decision of the Berlin Social Court of January 12, 2015 – Continuing its established case law, the Berlin Social Court has once again overturned two "requests to apply for early retirement benefits" ("forced retirement"). An article by attorney Kay Füßlein: www.ra-fuesslein.de
2.3 – Social Court Kassel, Judgment of 17 December 2014 – S 6 AS 612/13
Start-up grant – discretionary decision-making – duration of funding – special support needs for released prisoners
Regarding the judicial review of the granting of an entry allowance under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for a period of two months.
Principle (Author)
: Granting the start-up allowance for only two months is objectively incomprehensible and also fails to consider various aspects that argue for a longer approval period.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB X II)
3.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 11 November 2014 – L 8 SO 306/14 B ER
(No) exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for employees within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU or in the case of a connection to the German labor market
Guiding Principles (Juris)
1. The concept of "worker" within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU (freedom of movement for workers) is an autonomous concept of EU law which may not be interpreted narrowly (most recently ECJ, Judgment of 21 February 2014 – C 46/12 Case LN, juris para. 39 with further references). The assessment of worker status requires a comprehensive evaluation of all the circumstances of the individual case (affirmed here in the case of three months of actual employment with remuneration of EUR 255.00 in the first month and approximately EUR 60.00 in the second and third months).
2. Involuntary unemployment within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU is to be affirmed if it is independent of the applicant's will or justified by a legitimate reason.
3. Benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), are intended to facilitate access to the labor market. The exclusion of benefits in Section 7, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, No. 2 of the SGB II must therefore be interpreted in conformity with European law to mean that it must be examined separately in each case whether there is a connection to the domestic labor market.
4. Decisions in preliminary legal protection proceedings are made by weighing the consequences, taking into account the fundamental rights of the applicant.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 29 July 2014 – L 8 SO 212/11 – The appeal is admitted.
The question is whether a cessation of need occurring after the review application is irrelevant for the subsequent payment of social assistance benefits wrongfully withheld pursuant to Section 44 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1, Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X).
(Social law administrative procedure – review application – social assistance – basic income support for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity – income use – employment in the work area of a sheltered workshop – wages – employment promotion allowance – admissibility of dividing twice-yearly allowances over a reasonable period – calculation of the deduction amount pursuant to Section 82 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 Alternative 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) from gross income – relevant point in time when need ceases)
Guiding Principles (Juris)
1. Supplements to the basic remuneration from employment in the work area of a sheltered workshop (here twice a year EUR 55.00) are only to be divided over a reasonable period in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the Ordinance to Section 82 if, by taking full account in the month of receipt, the need for assistance of the person entitled to benefits and thus the obligation of the social welfare provider to provide benefits ceases.
2. The further allowance pursuant to Section 82 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 Half-Sentence 2 SGB XII (25 percent of the remuneration exceeding this amount) is to be calculated from the gross and not the net income.
3. The employment promotion allowance pursuant to Section 43 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) is not considered remuneration within the meaning of Section 82 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), from which the further allowance is to be calculated. It does not count as remuneration within the meaning of Section 138 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) (basic amount equal to the training allowance plus a performance-related increase), but is passed on by the workshop to the employee as a special wage incentive.
4. Regarding the question of the relevant point in time for a loss of need that extinguishes a claim in a benefit proceeding pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (see Federal Social Court judgment of 29 September 2009, B 8 SO 16/08 R), the relevant point in time is, according to general procedural principles and due to the requirement of effective legal protection, the date of the application within the meaning of Section 44 Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book X, or, in the case of an administrative proceeding initiated ex officio, the date of the initiating order.
Appeal filed B 8 SO 24/14 R
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.3 – Hamburg State Social Court, Judgment of 20 November 2014 – L 4 SO 22/12 –
Social assistance – Assumption of funeral costs – Unreasonableness of bearing the costs –
The lack of a bond between the mentally disabled mother and daughter does not render the assumption of funeral costs unreasonable.
Guiding Principles (Juris):
If a close legal relationship exists in the form of close kinship, the unreasonableness of bearing funeral expenses within the meaning of Section 74 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), solely due to the specific circumstances of the personal relationship between the person liable for the expenses and the deceased—i.e., regardless of the liable person's financial circumstances—can only be considered if these circumstances of the personal relationship are so significant that the close legal relationship is completely overshadowed. This requires that the deceased has committed serious and reprehensible misconduct towards the person liable for the expenses.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
4.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 11 December 2014 – L 10 AL 263/13
Notification obligation, relocation, accessibility, abroad, unemployment benefits
Principle (Juris)
1. If a move from Germany to Switzerland is not reported, the need for accessibility within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 1 EAO is lacking even if the new residence is only a few kilometers away from the old residence and a post office box address in Germany is given without comment in response to the unemployed person's letter.
2. If an unemployed person moves, they are no longer reachable until the employment agency has been notified of their new address. This applies even if the move is within the same employment agency district or only within the same place of residence, due to the lack of postal accessibility.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
See also the article by attorney Mathias Klse from Regensburg – "Reachability" when receiving unemployment benefits: sozialrecht-aktuell.blogspot.de
5. Decisions of the Higher Social Courts on Asylum Law (AsylblG)
5.1 – Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 18 December 2014 – L 20 AY 76/14 B ER – and – L 20 AY 77/14 B ER – legally binding
Standard benefit level 3, Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act, no additional benefit for single parents
Guiding Principles (Author)
1. According to the decision of the Federal Social Court (BSG) of July 23, 2014 – B 8 SO 14/13 R – it must generally be assumed that, in the case of adults who – like the applicant – do not live with a partner of the opposite or same sex, entitlement to standard benefit level 1 exists even if they do not maintain their own household. Otherwise, the regulation would violate the principle of equality under Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG), because each of the cohabiting persons would only receive 80% of the standard benefit.
2. Neither Section 3 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) nor the transitional provision of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) in its decision of July 18, 2012, allows for the consideration of additional needs due to single parenthood, according to their wording. Without a (simple) statutory basis, the applicant cannot be granted further benefits, even from a constitutional perspective (see, in particular, the Federal Constitutional Court's decision of October 30, 2010 – 1 BvR 2037/10).
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
5.2 – Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, Judgment of 26 November 2014 – L 9 AY 70/12
Section 7 paragraph 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) refers to net income.
Guiding principle (author)
1. The allowance according to § 7 para. 2 AsylbLG is to be determined from the net earned income.
2. For systematic and teleological reasons, applying provisions of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) or Book II (SGB II) to interpret Section 7 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is not permissible; this is also supported by historical interpretation (see Bundestag printed matter 12/4451, page 10, regarding Section 6 (identical to the current Section 7 AsylbLG) and the Senate's judgment of November 27, 2013 – L 9 AY 1/11 –).
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
6. Decisions of the social courts on asylum law (AsylblG)
6.1 – Hildesheim Social Court, decision of September 29, 2014 (file no.: S 42 AY 36/14 ER):
Guiding Principles Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. The implementation of a benefit reduction pursuant to Section 1a No. 2 AsylbLG is not justified if the return of the applicant, who is not obliged to cooperate in any way, to his country of origin could not have been carried out even with the presentation of valid personal documents.
2. A non-German person is not obliged to submit a so-called declaration of voluntariness, according to which he is prepared to return to his home country “of his own free will and without coercion”.
3. A restriction of entitlement pursuant to Section 1a AsylbLG always requires a thorough individual case review carried out before the respective official decision.
7. Social Court Hannover, 6th Chamber, Judgment of 06.01.2015 – S 6 R 901/12
Claim for reimbursement of housing costs by the basic income support provider in the case of retroactive approval of transitional allowance – granting of supplementary benefits pursuant to Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) by the basic income support provider.
Guiding principles (Juris):
Transitional allowance and unemployment benefit II are to be assessed as congruent benefits within the meaning of Section 104 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), even if the insured person receives unemployment benefit II only as supplementary benefits and, in this case, only for housing costs. Both unemployment benefit II and transitional allowance provide the insured person with the financial means to cover their living expenses during a transitional phase for reintegration into working life and are therefore identical in purpose.
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
8. Commentary by Dr. Andy Groth, Judge at the Schleswig Regional Social Court, on the case “Dano” – ECJ Grand Chamber, Judgment of 11 November 2014 – C-333/13
Exclusion of destitute and economically inactive Union citizens from basic income support (“Dano”)
Guiding Principles
1. Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (Regulation 883/2004) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1244/2010 of 9 December 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that Article 4 thereof applies to the ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article 3(3) and Article 70 of that Regulation.
2. Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC (Directive 38/2004) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of that Directive and Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No. Regulation (EC) No 1244/2010, as amended, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State's legislation which excludes nationals of other Member States from receiving certain "special non-contributory cash benefits" within the meaning of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, while nationals of the host Member State in the same situation receive those benefits, provided that the nationals of other Member States concerned do not have a right of residence in the host Member State under Directive 2004/38.
3. The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the fourth question.
Source: Juris (www.juris.de)
9. Comments by Attorney Eva Steffen, Cologne, on the "Dano" case in ANA-ZAR 5/2014, 52:
ECJ: Exclusion of economically inactive EU citizens from benefits.
The ECJ has ruled that economically inactive EU citizens who are not seeking employment and are unable to secure their own livelihood, including health insurance, may be excluded from Hartz IV benefits. They are presumed to have entered the EU solely for the purpose of receiving benefits. This appears to represent an unexplained departure from previous case law, including the Brey case (ANA 2013, 48 – Doc. 1950 a).
Source and further reading: https://www.google.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
