Case law ticker from Tacheles week 28/2015

1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 29 April 2015 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)

1.1 – Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of April 29, 2015 – B 14 AS 10/14 R

Basic income support for job seekers – Consideration of income or assets – Inheritance – Credit to overdrawn bank account – Current account agreement – Distribution period – Available funds

The €8,000 received by the household must be fully considered as income. Despite debts, the inheritance will be fully counted towards Hartz IV benefits.

Guiding principle (author):
If a sum of money is transferred to an account of the benefit recipient that is in debit at that time, this does not change the inflow itself; debt repayment is a form of use of funds (see also BSG, judgment of 30.07.2008 – B 14 AS 26/07 R).

Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de

Note:
Similarly, SG Hamburg, judgment of 01.04.2015 – S 57 AS 1850/14 – when assets are used to pay off debts.

2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 29 June 2015 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)

2.1 – Federal Social Court, decision of June 29, 2015 (Case No.: B 4 AS 11/14 R):

Guiding principles Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. There are well-founded doubts as to whether rental deposit loans granted pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are unconditionally subject to the regulation of Section 42a Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).

2. A job center is protected by the assignment of the right to repayment from the landlord to its own benefit and by the fact that the social security agency (SGB II provider) not only directly pays the rent to the landlord, but also the security deposit (§ 22 para. 7 SGB II). Unless the landlord has a right of retention, the security deposit is always returned to the job center by the landlord.

See also: 9.7.2015: Federal Social Court (BSG) rules against the repayment of rent deposit loans under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) by offsetting them against the standard benefit, a contribution by lawyers Fritz and colleagues, social law in Freiburg.

Source: www.socialrecht-in-freiburg.de

3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)

3.1 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of June 10, 2015 (Case No.: L 6 AS 2158/14 B ER):

Guiding Principles by Dr. Manfred Hammel
: 1. The exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is generally permissible, but in this comprehensive form it is contrary to European law. This applies particularly when a Bulgarian national has consistently sought to integrate into the German labor market and has even taken up employment here – albeit only minor employment.

2. The compensation for use that becomes due after placement in a homeless shelter does not constitute rent, but it is an expense that may be eligible for reimbursement under Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).

Note:
Similarly, LSG NRW, decision of 17.06.2015 – L 6 AS 833/15 B ER – legally binding

3.2 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, Judgment of 04.12.2014 – L 29 AS 1501/11 – pending before the BSG file no. B 4 AS 17/15 R

Basic income support for job seekers – income determination for multiple businesses operated by one basic income support recipient

When calculating benefits to secure subsistence under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is it necessary to offset profits and losses from two different businesses?

Guiding principle (author):
When calculating benefits to secure subsistence under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), offsetting profits and losses from two different businesses is not permitted.

Note:
See also LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of February 26, 2014 – L 18 AS 2232/11; SG Stade, judgment of October 2, 2014 – S 32 AS 289/14; Implementation guidelines of the Federal Employment Agency (BA) §§ 11-11b SGB II (1 1.34), supported by Social Court Dresden, judgment of February 14, 2014 – S 21 AS 6348/10 –, each with further references; Social Court Duisburg, judgment of April 28, 2014 – S 49 AS 617/10 – appeal pending before LSG NRW under file number L 2 AS 1006/14

3.3 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Judgment of 12 June 2015 – L 25 AS 3370/13 – not legally binding

Basic income support for job seekers – final determination of benefits – reimbursement – income from self-employment – single business enterprise – business income – business expenses – business loan for the procurement of goods or services required for business purposes – expenses for debt service (repayment and interest) of business loans.

Guiding principles (author)
1. The operating income and expenses of the self-employed person in the areas of motor vehicles and online trade are to be considered uniformly, because this constitutes a single self-employed activity or a single business.

2. For the question of whether one or more independent activities or commercial enterprises exist, reference can be made to the case law of the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) on Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Trade Tax Act (BFH, judgments of October 24, 2012 – XR 36/10; and of March 20, 2013 – XR 38/11).

3. Expenses for the repayment of loans taken out for business purposes are deductible as business expenses in accordance with Section 3 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the former version of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).

4. The established case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG), according to which payments to settle debts cannot generally be deducted from income under the law governing basic income support for job seekers (see, among others, BSG judgments of September 19, 2008 – B 14/7b AS 10/07 R; of September 30, 2008 – B 4 AS 29/07 R; and of May 10, 2011 – B 4 KG 1/10 R), does not contradict this.

Note: a. A. SG Speyer, Judgment of 24.02.2015 – S 5 AS 1293/14; SG Neubrandenburg, Judgment of 17.1.2013 – S 14 AS 1754/08 para. 29 – arguing that the costs were avoidable in the specific case, LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, Judgment of 23.4.2012 – L 9 AS 757/11 – according to which it is not the acquisitions made with the loan, but rather the repayment of the loan, which usually only begins much later, that is considered the flip side of granting the loan and is therefore not taken into account as a business expense.

3.4 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 01.07.2015 – L 9 AS 1583/14 ER

Request to apply for early retirement pension – the regulations of the hardship ordinance are not exhaustive – withdrawal of the submitted pension application – balancing of interests – legal protection

The Senate does not follow the case law of the LSG Berlin-Brandenburg (decision of 18 November 2014 – L 10 AS 2254/14 B ER)

Guiding principle (author):
1. According to the regulatory concept of Sections 12a and 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), every early retirement pension must be claimed regardless of the amount of the pension payment remaining after deductions. A pension amount that does not cover basic needs, which can be compensated by benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) or housing benefit, does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. Rather, even in this case, the impact is limited to the typical, generally expected extent outlined by the provisions of Section 12a SGB II. Therefore, claiming an early retirement pension, the payment amount of which is lower than the otherwise applicable unemployment benefit II, must be requested without further consideration or justification.

2. However, this view of the Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg (LSG BB), decision of November 18, 2014 – L 10 AS 2254/14 B ER, overlooks the fact that such a procedure may force benefit recipients to rely on subsidiary social assistance benefits (§ 2 para. 2 sentence 2 SGB XII), which the Senate has also rejected in other cases (in the area of sickness benefits). Therefore, this view cannot be followed.

Source: www.ra-fuesslein.de

Note:
See also the article by attorney Kay Füßlein, Berlin: Unclear legal situation? No hasty decisions by the Job Center!

Read more: www.analyse-konzepte.de

3.6 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 18 June 2015 – L 4 AS 247/15 B ER

Basic income support for job seekers – preliminary legal protection – lack of local jurisdiction – no exclusion pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 4a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)

Guiding principles (author)
1. In preliminary legal protection, the lack of local jurisdiction of the addressed benefit provider does not prevent its provisional obligation to provide the standard benefit if a claim for an injunction exists.

2. The provision of Section 7 Paragraph 4a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not preclude the granting of benefits to the applicant. According to this provision, the SGB II benefit provider, which would otherwise be locally responsible, is not obligated to provide benefits if the beneficiary is not present within its local and immediate vicinity without its consent. This provision functions as an exclusion of benefits when consent is lacking; however, the SGB II benefit provider's consent to absence from the local area—like availability—is not a prerequisite for entitlement to benefits under the SGB II (see Federal Social Court [BSG], Judgment of May 16, 2012, Case No.: B 4 AS 166/11 R).

Source: socialcourtsability.de

3.7 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 05.06.2015 – L 4 AS 237/15 B ER

Discretion of the basic income support provider when requesting the person in need of assistance to apply for early retirement pension

Order for the suspensive effect of the objection against the job center's request to submit an early application for an old-age pension.

Guiding principle (author):
1. In exercising its discretion, the benefit provider must weigh the individual circumstances of each case; that is, it is obliged to consider the circumstances of the individual case that are relevant to the discretionary decision. It must, if necessary, investigate the facts required for its decision ex officio; it may, among other things, enlist the cooperation of the parties involved.

2. An abuse of discretion results from the fact that the JC did not adequately examine the specific effects of its decision on the situation of the eligible applicant on a case-by-case basis (no current pension information was used as a basis).

Source: socialcourtsability.de

Note:
See also LSG NRW, decision of 19.06.2015 – L 19 AS 909/15 B ER

3.8 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 30 June 2015 – L 4 AS 375/15 B ER – legally binding

Preliminary legal protection – balancing of interests – basic income support for job seekers – exclusion of benefits for foreigners residing for the purpose of seeking employment – EU citizens – incompatibility with EU law

Italian nationals of Albanian origin are entitled to ALG II (unemployment benefit II) in preliminary legal protection within the framework of the balancing of interests.

Principle (Decision of the Second Senate of June 1, 2015, Case No.: L 2 AS 80/15 B ER):
Even in the case of citizens from EU member states who have entered the Federal Republic of Germany and for whom no integration into the German labor market could be established before becoming unemployed, the exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) may be incompatible with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 29, 2004, on the coordination of social security systems. This may result in individual cases from the fact that a considerable degree of integration in the Federal Republic of Germany has not been taken into account. Clarification is not expected until the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the preliminary ruling of the Federal Social Court (BSG) in case B 4 AS 9/13. Until then, if there are indications of considerable integration, a decision on the provision of benefits must be made in preliminary injunction proceedings by weighing the consequences.

Source: socialcourtsability.de

3.9 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 23 June 2015 - L 11 AS 303/15 B ER

due to a temporary injunction, ineffectiveness of a decision

Principle (Juris):
If an application for a preliminary injunction is withdrawn before the court order is issued, the order is ineffective. An appeal against this is inadmissible.

Source: socialcourtsability.de

4. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)

4.1 – Bremen Social Court, decision of April 29, 2015 (file no.: S 37 AS 619/15 ER):

Guiding Principles by Dr. Manfred Hammel
: 1. The interruption of the electricity supply to an occupied dwelling can constitute at least a comparable emergency situation within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 8 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). This situation can also be equated with homelessness in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 8 Sentence 2 of the SGB II.

2. However, the assumption of electricity debts is neither justified nor necessary within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 8 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as long as applicants do not endeavor to eliminate the respective emergency situation in another way, e.g. by agreeing on an installment payment with the energy supplier, applying for preliminary legal protection before the civil court against the electricity supplier who ordered the cessation of supply, or by changing suppliers.

3. The entrepreneurial risk of the energy supplier must not be simply passed on to the social security provider.

Note:
Cf. LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 13.03.2012 – L 2 AS 477/11 B ER – according to which the reference to self-help options (switching to another provider or having the electricity disconnection lifted, if necessary by seeking preliminary legal protection against the energy supply company at the competent civil court) is only possible for the person in need of assistance if the job center provides corresponding help or advice (see LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 8 August 2011 – L 5 AS 10907/11 B ER).

Legal tip:
Referring to civil court proceedings is not always permissible. In its decision of August 13, 2013, file numbers L 7 AS 1134/13 B ER and L 7 AS 1135/13 B, the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia stated accordingly: “According to the legal opinion of several civil courts, the energy supplier is only obligated to resume the interrupted energy supply once all outstanding energy costs have been paid (cf. regarding the civil law situation, Gotzen, ZfF 2007, pp. 248, 249 et seq.). Furthermore, according to the case law of the Senate (Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of October 15, 2012, file number L 7 AS 1730/12 B ER), a duty of cooperation on the part of the employable benefit recipient does not release the basic income support provider from its obligation to provide support as established in Section 17 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I). Referral to preliminary legal protection in civil courts regularly requires consistent advice and support from the benefit provider.”

4.2 – Social Court Halle (Saale), Judgment of 09.06.2015 – S 7 AS 2305/13

Matters under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II); consideration of income; no multiple allowances for wage advances

Principle (Juris):
If an employer pays a wage advance in the month before the wage payment is due, the basic and earned income tax allowances are not to be calculated and deducted separately from the gross amount of the advance and again from the gross amount of the final payment. The allowances are to be calculated based on the total gross wage for the month of employment and deducted proportionally from the advance and the final wage payment in the months in which the payments are received.

Source: socialcourtsability.de

4.3 – Social Court Bayreuth, judgment of May 26, 2015 (Case No.: S 4 AS 102/15):

Guiding Principles by Dr. Manfred Hammel
: 1. The determination of reasonable costs for accommodation and heating pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), by the Jobcenter based on a "coherent concept" is invalid if this concept has not also been publicly announced, as it constitutes an administrative regulation with direct external effect on third parties. A selective, explanatory reproduction of the content by the Jobcenter through the publication of simple "information sheets" or similar materials is insufficient.

2. With proper publication of an administrative regulation, individuals newly receiving benefits can select a reasonably priced apartment even before they begin receiving public funds. Landlords can also address the question early on, when modernizing apartments, of whether an apartment can be occupied by employable benefit recipients (Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II).

3. For a living space of 65 square meters, there is an entitlement to "average heating costs" according to § 22 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB II of approximately EUR 1 per square meter

Note:
See also Thomé Newsletter 17/2015 of 06.07.2015: Interesting approach: SG Bayreuth considers the KdU guideline to be ineffective due to the lack of publication of an administrative regulation.

Read more: sozialberatung-kiel.de

4.5 – SG Gießen, Judgment of 05.05.2015 – S 22 AS 629/13

A married couple may keep overpaid basic income support benefits if the authority does not revoke the benefit award within one year of becoming aware of the facts that justified the revocation of the past payments.

The legal principle (Juris)
§ 45 para. 4 sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) sets a time limit of one year. The authority must order the revocation within one year of becoming aware of the facts justifying the revocation. This is the case at the latest when the authorization was first revoked.

Source: socialcourtsability.de

4.6 – SG Dortmund, decision of 26.06.2015 – S 29 AS 2129/15 ER

A 5.2% reduction in the standard benefit rate is not sufficient to establish an urgent need.

Principle (Author)
1. The needs of the household amounting to 1092.22 euros (399.2 times 267 euros each, plus additional needs for single parenthood 143.64 euros and the additional needs for decentralized hot water production) are only 56.80 euros short due to the disputed income deduction, which is 5.2% of the standard benefit.

2. This is less than, for example, the requirement for accommodation and catering services included in the standard benefit (7.16%).

Note:
See also the ruling on the denial of urgency in the case of travel expenses amounting to €14.80 (4 percent of the standard allowance for partners in a benefit unit, €360) – Social Court Neuruppin, judgment of June 22, 2015 – S 26 AS 1250/15 ER

4.7 – Duisburg Social Court, Judgment of 28 April 2014 – S 49 AS 2522/13

Distinction between recurring and one-off income – Section 11 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – Distribution period – Unemployment Benefit I

Guiding principle (author):
Back payments of unemployment benefit I are to be considered as current income and may not be spread over six months.

Source: socialcourtsability.de

Note:
Similarly, regarding the judgment of the Social Court of Augsburg dated June 6, 2014 – S 15 AS 58/14 – an appeal against the judgment of the Social Court is pending before the Bavarian State Social Court under file number L 16 AS 543/14.

4.8 – Social Court Neuruppin, decision of 06.07.2015 – S 26 AS 1323/15 ER

Unemployment benefit II – additional needs – unavoidable ongoing special needs – travel expenses for outpatient treatments – obligation to apply for reimbursement of travel expenses from the health insurance fund – lodging of legal remedies against a refusal – no grounds for an order – no urgency in approximately 9 percent of the guideline for partners (31.80 euros)

Guiding Principles (Author)
1. An additional need is not unavoidable within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if the beneficiary has not made reasonable attempts to cover the need in another way. In particular, it is incumbent upon them to appeal against negative decisions by other benefit providers, at least insofar as this does not appear obviously hopeless from the outset (Higher Social Court Chemnitz, Decision of September 25, 2013 – L 7 AS 83/12 NZB; Social Court Chemnitz, Decision of October 13, 2014 – S 26 AS 3947/14 ER; Social Court Karlsruhe, Judgment of June 11, 2014 – S 15 AS 2553/13).

2. The total amount of 31.80 euros requested by the applicant represents approximately 9 percent of the standard allowance of 360.00 euros to be considered for the applicant, who lives in a household with her husband, so that no special urgency can be assumed.

3. The amount requested by the applicant is significantly below the amount included in the standard allowance pursuant to Section 5 of the Standard Allowance Determination Act (RBEG) in conjunction with the RBSFV 2015 for categories 3 (clothing and shoes), 5 (interior furnishings, household appliances and items), 11 (accommodation and catering services), and 12 (other goods and services). With regard to the aforementioned needs, 80 percent of the standard allowance is generally still sufficient to meet current basic needs and avert hardship (for a reduction of up to 30 percent: Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court, decision of February 2, 2006, – L 14 B 1157/05 AS ER).

Note:
The same applies to travel expenses for outpatient treatments: SG Neuruppin, decision of 06.07.2015 – S 26 AS 1324/15 ER (also no urgency at 15% of the guideline for partners).

5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)

5.1 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 23 April 2015 (file no.: L 8 SO 414/14 B ER):

Guiding Principles Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. The special interest in the immediate enforcement of a request for information made by the social welfare agency pursuant to Section 117 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), must be justified in writing in accordance with Section 86a Paragraph 2 No. 5 of the German Social Courts Act (SGG).

2. This special interest goes beyond that which objectively justifies the “original administrative act” issued in accordance with Section 117 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII.

3. In the event of a disputed claim for information against a person liable for maintenance under Sections 1601 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB), the maintenance claim which has been transferred to the social welfare provider by operation of law is decided in civil proceedings pursuant to Section 94 Paragraph 5 Sentence 3.

4. If a social welfare agency proceeds in accordance with Section 117 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), a specific official justification is required as to why, in such a case, there is a particular public interest in the immediate enforcement of this administrative act, the objective of which can also be achieved through civil proceedings.

5.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 28 May 2015 – L 9 SO 303/13

Social assistance – Integration assistance – Participation in community life – Contact with family – Assistance in procuring a motor vehicle –

Guiding Principles (Author)
1. A social welfare provider is not required to cover the costs of acquiring a vehicle adapted for people with disabilities if the applicant primarily wishes to maintain contact with family (parents, brother, sister-in-law), as this is not a benefit for participation in community life (§ 53 para. 1 SGB XII, § 54 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB XII in conjunction with § 55 SGB IX).

2. Travel expenses incurred as a result of visiting relatives are instead to be allocated either to benefits for securing the minimum subsistence level and thus to assistance for subsistence according to Chapter Three or Four of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), possibly in the form of a deviating assessment of the standard benefit according to Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the SGB XII, or to assistance in special life situations (Section 73 of the SGB XII).

3. Insofar as the applicant also justifies her claim for reimbursement of costs for the purchase of a vehicle adapted for people with disabilities by stating that she wishes to "attend various events in cities such as Oberhausen, Dortmund, Essen, Düsseldorf and Cologne" and lists, for example, the Sea Life Aquarium in Oberhausen, swimming at Unterbacher See in Düsseldorf, recreational visits to parks such as the Gruga in Essen, Westfalenpark and Westfalenhalle in Dortmund, as well as Benrath Palace or the Japanese Garden in Düsseldorf, these are indeed activities that enable the applicant to participate in community and cultural life (Section 55 Paragraph 2 No. 7 SGB IX) or promote communication with the environment (Section 55 Paragraph 2 No. 4 SGB XII) or with people outside the family. However, the purchase of a vehicle adapted for disabled persons to achieve these participation goals is not necessary within the meaning of Section 4 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX (see Federal Social Court, judgment of 12 December 2013 – B 8 SO 18/12 R).

Source: socialcourtsability.de

6. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)

6.1 – Duisburg Social Court, decision of 04.05.2015 – S 48 SO 271/15 ER – legally binding

Social assistance – Proof of need – Duty to cooperate pursuant to Section 60 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) – Submission of bank statements – Redaction of personal data – Data protection – Restriction to expenditure side

There is no need to know the spending habits of a benefit recipient without any indication of concealed income.

Principle (Author):
The right to informational self-determination requires that recipients of assistance be given the opportunity to redact payees and payment purposes in bank statements when benefit providers request bank statements to verify eligibility for assistance (The court follows the case law of the Federal Social Court (judgments of September 19, 2008, B 14 AS 45/07 R, and of February 19, 2009, B 4 AS 10/08 R) as well as the higher court case law (see, for example, Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of March 3, 2010, L 12 AS 15/08, Bavarian Higher Social Court, decision of September 7, 2010, L 8 SO 151/10 B and Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, decision of July 21, 2014, L 1 AS 2713/14 ER-B).

Source: socialcourtsability.de

6.2 – SG Bremen, decision of 06.07.2015 – S 15 SO 170/15 ER

A Latvian national is entitled to benefits to secure his livelihood in accordance with Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).

Principle (Author):
The exclusion of benefits pursuant to Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) only concerns the legal entitlement to benefits (Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentences 1 and 2 SGB XII), but not the discretionary granting of benefits pursuant to Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB XII (cf. Lower Saxony-Bremen Higher Social Court, judgment of April 15, 2015 – L 8 SO 54/15 B ER – with reference to the case law on the predecessor provision Section 120 Paragraph 1 of the Federal Social Assistance Act (BSHG); Federal Administrative Court, judgment of December 10, 1987 – 5 C 32/85 – juris Rn. 9 ff.; and North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Social Court, decision of July 28, 2014 – L 1.9 AS 948/14 B ER –, Coseriu in jurisPK-SGB XII, 2nd ed. 2014, Section 23). Paragraph 75).

Source: Lawyers Beier & Beier, Gröpelinger Heerstraße 387, 28239 Bremen: www.kanzleibeier.eu

7. Reminders from the Federal Employment Agency in Recklinghausen – No payment due, no enforcement!

A contribution by attorney Kay Füßlein.

Dear Ms./Mr.…-

The payment due on May 4, 2015 from the JobCenter has not yet been received in full.

The recipient is then threatened with enforcement and compulsory collection, and a late payment fee is imposed. Recipients are usually unsettled and pay, even though, for example, the Job Center's "outstanding claim" is still disputed—meaning an objection and a lawsuit have been filed.

The following applies here:
The imposition of the late payment fee is unlawful because only due and legally binding claims must be paid. As long as legal proceedings are pending, the claim is not due (suspensive effect of objection and lawsuit).

Similar posts: