1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of December 2, 2014 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - BSG, judgment of December 2nd, 2014 - B 14 AS 8/13 R
Basic security for job seekers - Application of the exclusion of benefits for those entitled to benefits according to Section 1 AsylbLG - Binding effect of the residence permit according to Section 25 Paragraph 5 AufenthG 2004 - Long-term residence permit according to Section 30 Paragraph 4 AuslG
Guiding principles (author)
1. Possession of a residence permit in accordance with Section 25 Paragraph 5 of the Residence Act excludes entitlement to benefits in accordance with SGB II.
2. Constitutionally, the legislature is free to decide in which benefit system it takes into account the need for subsistence benefits. The fact that foreigners can then be assigned to the benefits system of the AsylbLG even after a long-term stay in Germany and thus be referred to reduced benefits must be temporarily accepted taking into account the transitional regulation ordered by the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of July 18, 2012 until the benefits are reorganized according to the AsylbLG.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, decision of April 28, 2015 (ref.: L 3 AS 99/15 B ER)
Order of the suspensive effect of the objection - Basic security for job seekers - Integration agreement - Illegality of individual provisions of a replacement decision - Reasonableness of a €1 job - No appropriate exercise of discretion Child and senior care is not reasonable for everyone in a €1 job, because there are considerable Doubt that the applicant is able to carry out such care activities independently in a cooperative company due to his previous education and the interests and inclinations shown in his previous professional activities.
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. Section 16d Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II grants an employable person entitled to benefits a right to appropriate action by a job center in connection with their assignment decision, but not to the creation or assignment to a specific job opportunity.
2. A work opportunity must always be structured in such a way that this special employment relationship can contribute to improving the prospects of integration into the labor market and that people entitled to benefits are able to carry out an activity that is reasonable for them at any time without any problems.
3. These requirements are not met if a placement places high professional and personal demands on an employable person entitled to benefits that do not correspond to his skills profile.
2.2 - LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of September 18, 2013 - L 3 AS 5184/12 - pending at the BSG Az. B 4 AS 11/14 R
Rental deposit loan repayment through monthly offsetting in the amount of 10% of the standard requirement - constitutionality
Guiding principle (author)
1. There are no constitutional objections to the regulation in Section 42a Paragraph 2 SGB II, insofar as it also includes offsetting against a loan for a rental deposit, although rental deposits were not taken into account in the assessment of the standard requirement.
2. However, an atypical case does not already exist if the benefit recipient is able to work, but due to life circumstances or other circumstances has no chance of getting out of receiving benefits in the short term or of earning additional money (SG Berlin, judgment, dated February 22, 2013 - S 37 AS 25006/12).
Note 1:
See article by Attorney Fritz and colleagues - February 19, 2014: BSG allows revision on the question of whether rental deposit loans must be repaid from the standard requirements according to SGB II.
read more: www.srif.de
Note 2:
Note: also LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of March 12, 2015 - L 20 AS 261/13 - appeal pending at the BSG under the case number B 4 AS 14/15 R; LSG NRW, resolution of February 3, 2014 – L 2 AS 2280/13 B; LSG NRW, decision of March 15, 2013, L 2 AS 1829 / 12 B; SG Berlin, judgment of March 20, 2013, S 142 AS 21275/12; SG Cologne judgment of September 28, 2012, S 33 AS 1310/12; against: SG Berlin, judgment of February 22, 2013 – S 37 AS 25006/12; SG Berlin, judgment of September 30, 2011 – S 37 AS 24431/11 ER; open legal question LSG NRW, decision of. 01/29/2014 – L 7 AS 448/13 B; LSG NRW, decision of August 8, 2014 – L 6 AS 727/14
2.3 - Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, judgment of March 12, 2015 - L 20 AS 261/13 - Appeal pending at the BSG under the reference B 4 AS 14/15 R
Unemployment benefit II - Accommodation and heating - Rental deposit loan - Repayment by monthly offsetting in the amount of 10% of the standard requirement – single parents – constitutionality
A single parent also has to repay the rental deposit loan granted to her by the job center by setting off a monthly amount of 10% of the relevant standard requirement.
Guiding principles (author)
1. The basic security provider is not granted discretion regarding the implementation of the repayment by way of offsetting in accordance with Section 42a Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II (as already stated: Resolution of the Senate of June 5, 2014 - L 20 AS 2947/13 ). The basic security provider is not permitted to refrain from repaying the loan by offsetting it against ongoing living expenses in accordance with SGB II.
2. There are no constitutional concerns about the regulation of Section 42a Paragraph 2 SGB II.
3. A risk of under-coverage of needs can therefore also be countered with ongoing services over a longer period of time, during which monthly offsetting can have an effect (LSG Baden-Württemberg dated September 18, 2013 - L 3 AS 5184/12, pending BSG B 4 AS 11/14 R). If a shortfall arises due to the ongoing use of the savings option to repay this loan, further loans can be provided to cover living expenses via Section 24 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II. Even if there are several loans, the repayment is limited to a maximum of 10 percent of the standard requirement, so that even if a further loan is granted with a subsequent obligation to repay, there will be no further reduction in monthly funds.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Likewise: LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of September 18, 2013 - L 3 AS 5184/12 - pending at the BSG Ref. B 4 AS 11/14 R; LSG NRW, resolution of February 3, 2014 – L 2 AS 2280/13 B; LSG NRW, decision of March 15, 2013, L 2 AS 1829 / 12 B; SG Berlin, judgment of March 20, 2013, S 142 AS 21275/12; SG Cologne judgment of September 28, 2012, S 33 AS 1310/12; against: SG Berlin, judgment of September 30, 2011 – S 37 AS 24431/11 ER; SG Berlin, judgment of February 22, 2013 – S 37 AS 25006/12; open legal question LSG NRW, decision of. 01/29/2014 – L 7 AS 448/13 B; LSG NRW, decision of August 8, 2014 – L 6 AS 727/14 B
2.4 - Saxon State Social Court, judgment of December 18, 2014 - L 3 AS 569/11
Section 22 Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 SGB II a. F. was unable to bear a claim for approval of moving costs (this also applies to the regulation in Section 27 Para. 3 SGB II that has been in force since April 1, 2011: SG Dresden, court decision of January 6, 2014 - S 49 AS 8115/12) .
A trainee entitled to BAföG is not entitled to approval for moving costs as accommodation needs.
Guiding principles (author)
Against the consideration of moving costs as uncovered reasonable costs for accommodation and heating within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 SGB II a. F. Finally, the case law of the Federal Social Court also speaks about the calculation of the subsidy (see BSG, judgment of March 22, 2010 - B 4 AS 69/09 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.5 - State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of January 20, 2015 - L 5 AS 634/12 - legally binding
apartment building - interest on debt - unusable due to de facto over-indebtedness - repayment payments
Guiding principles (author)
1. The job center must cover the full interest on the debt, as well as the non-consumption-related expenses such as property tax, building insurance and interest on the debt of a 180 m², inappropriate apartment building, which did not conflict with the benefit claim due to its economic unusability, as accommodation costs in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph . 1 sentence 1 of SGB II is adopted, even if the benefit recipients are only half co-owners and two apartments in the apartment building (60 m² each) are not inhabited. They are not to be reduced from the proportion of living space or apartment used by the beneficiary.
2. However, the applicants are not entitled to take over the repayments for the real estate loans. In 2007, after 25 years of installment payments, not even half had been repaid, but it cannot be determined that it was “just a matter of repaying a remaining debt” or that “the accumulation of assets was already largely completed” (cf. BSG, judgment of 7. July 2011, Ref.: B 14 AS 79/10 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.6 - State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of April 28, 2015 - L 4 AS 63/15 B ER - legally binding
The need for additional social assistance benefits does not constitute unfairness in early claim of the old age pension according to § 12a SGB II - appropriate house property is also protected in SGB XII
Guiding principle (Juris)
The request of the service provider in accordance with Section 12a SGB II to claim a reduced old-age pension early is not subject to discretionary errors if there are no reasons for unfairness and the payment amount of both the reduced old-age pension and the standard old-age pension is unlikely to be sufficient to cover this To cover the needs of the SGB II benefit recipient, so that SGB XII benefits must also be granted.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Similar result: Saxon LSG, decision of August 28, 2014 - L 7 AS 836/14 B ER
2.7 - Thuringian State Social Court, decision of April 17, 2015 - L 4 AS 1578/13 NZB - legally binding
On the question of whether spouses living separately also form a community of needs according to Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 3a SGB II with the consequence of Section 20 Paragraph 4 SGB II. The question does not need to be clarified.
Guiding principles (author)
A community of needs between spouses in the sense of SGB 2 can also exist in marriages without a common spatial center of life. For the assumption of “permanent separation” according to family law principles regarding spatial separation, an externally recognizable desire to separate from one spouse must be added to resolve the mutually chosen marriage model (cf. BSG, judgment of February 18, 2010 - B 4 AS 49/09 R) .
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.8 – Hamburg State Social Court, judgment of March 19, 2015 – L 4 AS 149/13
Additional need for expensive nutrition in type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension –
Guidelines (author)
1. With regard to the disease type 2 diabetes mellitus, a diet with a so-called complete diet is indicated, which does not trigger any additional need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 5 SGB II. A complete diet is not a health diet, which is what this regulation is aimed at, but rather a diet that refers to the model of the healthy person. It is to be met as a healthy mixed diet from the standard benefits (BSG, judgment of May 10, 2011 - B 4 AS 100/10 R; Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of April 23, 2009 - L 11 AS 124/08).
2. In the case of hypertension, as is the case with the applicant, a complete diet is also indicated according to the current recommendations of the German Association for the Provision of Sick Food in Social Welfare (4th edition 2014), so that there is no need that has not already been met is covered by the standard services required. These recommendations cannot be used as anticipated expert reports because they do not relate to the individual case. However, their medical-technical statements provide suitable guidance for authorities and courts. If a deviation from this is to be made, a technical justification is required (BSG, judgment of February 20, 2014 - B 14 AS 65/12 R).
3. The applicant has not provided any reasons or evidence to this effect and they do not arise from the statements made by the doctors involved.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Also in the result LSG Hamburg, judgments of. March 19, 2015 – L 4 AS 275/14, L 4 AS 411/13 and L 4 AS 333/12
2.9 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of April 29, 2015 - L 2 AS 2388/14 B ER - legally binding
Bulgarian applicant is excluded from benefits according to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II because he is looking for work in the Federal Republic of Germany – illegal work
Guiding principles (author)
1. Such illegal “illegal work”, for which in particular no social security contributions were paid, cannot result in a right of residence as an employee according to Section 2 Paragraph 2 No. 1 Var. 1 FreizügG/EU aF or in accordance with Section 2 Paragraph 2 No. 1 Alt. 1 FreizügG/EU nF (cf. LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of February 26, 2014 - L 20 SO 449/13 B; LSG Berlin-Brandenburg , decision of October 20, 2014 - L 29 AS 2052/14 B ER).
2. Taking into account the decision of the ECJ in the “Dano” case (judgment of November 11, 2014 – Ref.: C-333/13), this exclusion of benefits is at least applicable to economically inactive EU foreigners who cannot even be identified as looking for work , not contrary to European law (see decision of February 25, 2015 - L 2 AS 113/15 B ER). This also applies to EU foreigners who have entered the Federal Republic of Germany to look for work, but have so far had no connection to the German labor market because they have never been employed here. The exclusion of such job seekers is also compatible with European law (see also Hessian State Social Court, decision of December 11, 2014 - L 7 AS 528/14 B).
3. At best, the applicant belongs to this group of people if one were to regard his job search as having been credibly carried out because he has in any case not credibly demonstrated legal employment subject to social security contributions that could establish such a connection to the labor market.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Berlin Social Court, judgment of April 14, 2015 (ref.: S 43 AS 6331/14)
Costs for handwritten applications must also be covered.
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. Within the framework of an integration agreement (Section 15 Para. 1 Sentence 1 SGB II) a job center cannot unilaterally limit the validity of the legal basis for entitlement (Section 16 SGB II - benefits for integration - in conjunction with Section 44 SGB III) to the detriment of an employable person entitled to benefits – Remove funding from the placement budget).
2. With regard to the quality of applications required by the job center, a SGB II provider cannot generally assume that only computer-written job applications can be taken into account for reimbursement. What is of crucial importance here is the position for which a person in need of help applies.
3. With regard to the quality of applications, a job center must, within the scope of its discretionary considerations, pay particular attention to whether and to what extent employable people entitled to benefits have already been informed of the need to comply with the necessary formalities for a proper application.
Note:
S.a. Attorney Kay Füßlein, Berlin: Costs for handwritten applications must also be covered: www.ra-fuesslein.de
3.2 - Berlin Social Court, judgment of March 25, 2015 - S 205 AS 8970/14 - The appeal is permitted.
The applicant is entitled to additional needs for single parents as a benefit for trainees in accordance with SGB II at the statutory rate.
On the legal question of the order in which income is to be taken into account in a fictitious means test to determine additional needs for trainees in accordance with Section 27 (2) SGB II.
Guiding principles (author)
1. An additional need for trainees within the meaning of Section 27 Paragraph 2 SGB 2 can be an isolated subject of dispute.
2. When calculating the fictitious needs to determine the additional needs according to Section 27 Paragraph 2 SGB II, in deviation from Section 19 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 SGB II, the income to be taken into account must first be offset against the training-related needs (standard needs and needs for accommodation and heating) and only then to any additional requirements.
3. The housing benefit is not a designated income according to Section 11a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II, because its purpose is identical to the accommodation benefit according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II with the further consequence that the housing benefit differs from Section 19 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 SGB II must be credited towards the accommodation requirement (LSG Saarland, judgment of May 25, 2010 - L 9 AS 9/07). The fact that the granting of housing benefit on the one hand and benefits under SGB II are excluded is harmless as long as it is available as a ready means to cover needs.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.3 – SG Bayreuth, decision by. March 11, 2015 – S 17 AS 108/15 ER
Request to submit an application for early retirement pension - requirements for the exercise of discretion
The applicant was rightly obliged to apply for an old-age pension for severely disabled people.
Guiding principles (author)
1. According to Section 12a Sentence 1 and Sentence 2 No. 1 SGB II, a beneficiary is legally obliged to apply for an early old-age pension after reaching the age of 63.
2. A service provider is generally entitled to request a beneficiary to comply with this obligation. The discretion provided for in Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB when requesting to apply for priority social benefits from other providers is, in the case of Section 12a Sentence 1 and Sentence 2 No. 1 SGB II, a so-called intended discretion, so that the service provider is within the framework When exercising discretion, the disadvantageous consequences that are regularly associated with claiming an early retirement pension, but which are generally approved by the legislature, do not have to be weighed up again.
3. A discretionary decision that weighs up the interests of the beneficiary of benefits against the public interest is only necessary within the framework of Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II in atypical cases and in particular if the forced use of the other social benefit results in an exceptional disadvantage for would be associated with the beneficiary, which could constitute unreasonable hardship (cf. Sächsisches LSG, decision of February 19, 2015 - L 8 AS 1232/14 ER, a. A. LSG Lachsen-Anhalt, decision of February 10. December 2014 – L 2 AS 520/14 B ER).
Note:
Also in the result Saxon LSG, decision of February 19, 2015 - L 8 AS 1232/14 ER; Thuringian LSG, decision of April 8, 2015 – L 4 AS 263/15 B ER; a. A. LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of December 10, 2014 – L 2 AS 520/14 B ER
3.4 - SG Schwerin, judgment of March 10, 2015 - S 15 AS 1947/13
Reimbursement of travel expenses by the employer is not income within the meaning of SGB II - newspaper delivery/courier service
Guiding principles (author)
1. The travel costs reimbursed by the employer and the travel allowance paid are reimbursement of expenses in accordance with Section 670 of the German Civil Code (BGB). This does not represent income for the applicant that leads to an increase in assets that she could actually use to support herself.
2. There was no increase in the value of the applicant's assets through the reimbursement of travel expenses previously financed by her. She therefore did not earn any income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II (see SG Detmold, judgment of September 18, 2014 - S 18 AS 871/12 with reference to BSG, judgment of August 23, 2011 - B 14 AS 185 /10 R to prepaid electricity discounts).
3. The basic allowance in Section 11b Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II does not apply to reimbursement of travel expenses by the employer in accordance with Section 670 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
3.5 - SG Kiel, judgment of May 9, 2014 - S 33 AS 613/11
Unemployment benefit II - Accommodation and heating - Cost reduction procedures - Double rent payments due to moving - Duration of consideration of overlapping costs - Composition of the 4-person community of needs
In individual cases, the basic security provider must cover double rents due to the move as accommodation costs in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II if it was unreasonable for the applicant's community of needs with 2 small children to terminate the existing tenancy in the expectation of terminating within the period Find suitable accommodation with 3 months' notice.
Guiding principles (author)
1. Double rents incurred as a result of moving do not represent housing costs, but rather accommodation costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, which must be taken into account to increase needs within the scope of their appropriateness. The duration for which overlap costs are to be taken into account depends on the individual case (Connection LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of March 31, 2013 - L 34 AS 721/11).
2. Given the specific composition of the BG (two children aged six and two), it was unreasonable to avoid overlapping costs (e.g. a quick move out due to mold in the children's rooms).
3. Unlike moving with older children or adults, moving with small children cannot be easily organized and carried out without a delay.
Source: Sozialberatungkiel.files.wordpress.com
Note 1:
S.a.
Lawyer Helge Hildebrandt, social counseling Kiel: Double rents: Consistently illegal administrative actions for 10 years now Sozialberatung-kiel.de
Note 2:
Same opinion: SG Nordhausen, judgment of. September 18, 2013 - S 11 AS 3700/11 - Entitlement of a BAB-eligible trainee to approval of double rental costs as accommodation requirements in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 SGB II a. F. – Accommodation costs that still arise for the previous apartment during the notice period after a move that has been approved by the basic security provider are not housing acquisition costs, but accommodation costs in the sense. S.d. § 22 paragraph 1 sentence 1 SGB II (connection to LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of January 31, 2013 - L 34 AS 721/11); on SGB a. A. LSG NRW, resolution of January 21, 2015 - L 19 AS 2274/14 B - according to which unavoidable double rental expenses are included in the costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 SGB II.
3.6 - Duisburg Social Court, decision of March 20, 2015 - S 36 AS 828/15 ER - pending at the LSG NRW Ref. L 19 AS 571/15 ER
No approval of legal aid - Section 31a Paragraph 2 SGB II - supplementary benefits in kind - non-participation the measure you are looking for
Guiding principles (author)
1. The provision of Section 31a Paragraph 2 SGB 2 is not unconstitutional. The objective reason for the different treatment of members of the age group under and over 25 arises from the legislative motivation. This legislative motive is not objectionable. Furthermore, it is crucial that Section 31a Paragraph 2 SG B 2 contains regulations with which the legal consequences of sanctions can be weakened (cf. LSG NRW, decision of December 21, 2012, Ref.: L 12 AS 2232/12 B).
2. A reference in the sanction notice to the possibility of providing additional benefits in kind or in kind “upon request” is sufficient, especially if, as in the present case, this reference has already been made previously in the hearing letters and there would have been sufficient time left to ensure this that these benefits could have been available at the beginning of the reduction periods.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.7 – Hanover Social Court, judgment of January 22, 2015 – S 70 AS 5581/14 – The appeal is permitted.
According to the established case law of the Federal Social Court, the SGB II/XII rental value survey for the state capital of Hanover in 2013 turns out to be unlawful. On the one hand, the rental value survey is not based on a coherent concept. On the other hand, there are not enough apartments available on the rental market at the rental price that is set as appropriate.
Conclusive concept: capping limit equal to the average value of the rent index
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. When creating a coherent concept (to determine appropriateness within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB), the capping limit must regularly be set at the local market price (e.g. average value of the rent index).
2. A cap below the local market price requires a well-founded examination of the composition of the local rental market (continuation of the Federal Social Court, judgment of October 19, 2010, Ref. B 14 AS 50/10 R, www.juris.de, guiding principle 2 and para 32; State Social Court of Lower Saxony Bremen, judgment of April 3, 2014, Ref. L 7 AS 786/11, www.juris.de , in particular Rn. 61 ff.)
3. If the average value of the rent index is used, it can be assumed that there are sufficient apartments at this abstractly appropriate price per square meter in the local comparison area (continuation of the Federal Social Court, judgment of April 13, 2011, ref. B 14 AS 106/10 R , www.juris.de , guiding principle).
4. Proof of (abstract) availability should be based on a six-month cost reduction period (see Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II) (continuation of the Federal Administrative Court, judgment of August 31, 2004, Ref. 5 C 8/04, www .juris.de ).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
The 70th Chamber adopted this view in judgments of January 22, 2015 (ref. S 70 AS 5581/14, S 70 AS 4804/14, S 70 AS 4258/13 and S 70 AS 2053/13) and 26 March 2015 (ref. S 70 AS 3604/14, S 70 AS 3820/14 and S 70 AS 3823/14). In doing so, it took into account in particular the ruling of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court of April 3, 2014, Ref. L 7 AS 786/11, which has been legally binding since the decision of the Federal Social Court of December 29, 2014, Ref is.
4. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of April 27, 2015 - L 20 SO 426/12
Social assistance - Help with living expenses - Additional need if proof of the determination of the mark G - No retroactive provision of benefits - Start of social assistance - Knowledge of the social assistance provider of the benefit requirements - Consideration only upon presentation of the proof
Guiding principle (author)
1. A right to have additional needs taken into account as a severely disabled person only exists upon presentation of the pension office decision determining the severe disability or the severely disabled person's card (LSG NRW, decision of October 7th, 2014 - L 20 SO 163/14 (PKH)).
2. Even if the Federal Social Court expressly left this open at the time (judgment of November 10, 2011 - B 8 SO 12/10 R), the version of Section 30 Para. 1 SGB XII that has been in force since December 7, 2006 is in favor of it to record the interpretation result found in the previously valid version of the standard (already resolution of the adjudicating Senate of October 7th, 2014 - L 20 SO 163/14 (PKH) and LSG NRW, resolution of May 8th, 2014 - L 9 SO 55/14 B; LSG Baden-Württemberg). , judgment of September 18, 2013 - L 2 SO 404/13; SG Wiesbaden, judgment of April 30, 2014 - S 30 SO 47/12).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of March 18, 2015 – L 2 SO 5608/13
Funeral costs according to § 74 SGB
Guiding principle (Juris)
There is no entitlement to the costs of burying the deceased mother being borne by the social welfare agency if the plaintiff's brother, who was also obliged to bury him as a relative and who, unlike the plaintiff, was also primarily obliged to bury him as an heir, actually (even if in installments) the outstanding funeral costs will be paid off.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See SG Karlsruhe, judgment of November 28, 2014 - S 1 SO 903/14 - Realizable compensation claims against other people obligated to undertake funerals conflict with the full assumption of funeral costs from social welfare funds.
4.3 - LSG Baden-Württemberg judgment of March 18, 2015 - L 2 SO 56/15
On the abolition of the approved social assistance for Germans abroad due to the removal of the obstacle to return.
Guiding principles (Juris)
No entitlement to (continued) granting of social assistance in accordance with Section 24 SGB because of a crime.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.4 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of April 23, 2015 – L 7 SO 308/14
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. The responsibility of the first rehabilitation provider within the meaning of Section 14 SGB IX towards the benefit recipient can result from the recipient recognizing its responsibility.
2. The catalog of services in Section 54 Paragraph 1 SGB XII in conjunction with Section 55 SGB IX is not complete and also includes the care of an adult disabled person in a foster family.
3. There is no objection if the social assistance provider uses guidelines for assessing the care allowance that exist at the place of residence of the disabled person in order to calculate the amount of a care allowance as an integration assistance service in accordance with SGB XII regarding the care of an adult disabled person in a foster family. An analogous application of the youth welfare law provision of Section 39 SGB VIII is not possible when it comes to the accommodation and care of adults with disabilities.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.5 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of April 23, 2015 – L 7 SO 43/14
Limitation within the meaning of Section 32 Paragraph 2 No. 1 SGB X - Limitation of social assistance benefits
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. The time limit associated with the approval of basic security benefits in old age and in the event of reduced earning capacity according to SGB XII can be challenged in isolation with an action for annulment.
2. The regulation of Section 44 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB
3. A deviation from the standard approval period of one year is permissible if there is an objective reason for which no excessive requirements are imposed.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of January 25, 2008 - L 20 B 132/07 SO ER - A deviation from the standard approval period, ie a shorter approval period, is possible if there is an objective reason for which no excessive requirements are imposed are permitted.
5. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Detmold Social Court, judgment of March 31, 2015 – S 2 SO 119/14
If the receipt of social assistance due to a pension due to reduced earning capacity is temporary - only temporary - (here 17 months), the disposal of the car is unreasonable.
Guiding principles (author)
1. The car does not fall under one of the constellations enumerated in Section 90 Paragraph 2 SGB XII.
2. In the present case, however, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case, the disposal of the car would be an unreasonable hardship because the applicant was foreseeably only receiving benefits under Chapter 3 temporarily and was dependent on a car again when her ability to work resumed or within the framework of this the receipt of benefits according to SGB II up to a value of 7,500 euros is protected assets within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 No. 2 SGB II, while cars are generally not protected assets in SGB XII.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See also SG Düsseldorf, judgment of August 4, 2008, Ref. S 28 (23) SO 132/05 - Valuable property does not have to be sold due to receipt of social assistance if the need for help is only temporary and the situation is through no fault of one's own.
5.2 – Detmold Social Court, judgment dated March 31, 2015 – S 2 SO 308/14
An older disabled person who now lives with one of their children and their family is also entitled to standard needs level 1.
Guiding principles (Author)
1. In the case of family coexistence between disabled and non-disabled people, especially when parents live together with their disabled adult children, it must be assumed that the person in need of help falls under the standard need level 1, supplemented by the legal presumption of the § 39 sentence 1, 1st half sentence SGB XII (BSG, judgment of July 23, 2014, B 8 SO 31/12 R).
2. This view must be followed, including for the mirror-image variant presented here, in which an older disabled person now lives with one of his children and his family.
3. The extent to which the practical activities of household management are carried out by the disabled person themselves or to what extent these are carried out by others, be it by a paid integration assistant or nursing service or by the parents of a young adult, cannot be decisive for the assignment to a standard needs level People with disabilities or, as in the present case, an older adult with a severe disability are now carried out by the adult children. Rather, what is crucial is that the beneficiary has an organizational budget management that is intended for inclusion.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
The same applies to an adult disabled person who lives with his parents - SG Detmold, judgment of March 31, 2015 – S 2 SO 280/14
6. Nobody has to go to the office alone - proceedings against Hartz IV helpers in Offenbach have been discontinued.
They are resisting the house ban. Christine Zoschke, judge at the Offenbach district court, made it clear early on that she did not particularly value publicity in this process. Because she had chosen a small “hall” for a hearing on Thursday against two so-called Hartz IV helpers who were accused of trespassing in a job center. Only eight people could fit in the room, but three times as many interested trial observers were waiting in the court corridor. Many Hartz IV recipients are always committed to attending negotiations that revolve around problems with job centers: On the one hand, because they have often had to experience their harassment on their own behalf; on the other hand, to show solidarity with those who are also affected.
Next: www.jungewelt.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
