1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, judgment of 12 May 2015 – L 3 AS 7/15 – The appeal is admitted.
No SGB II benefits for student transport to a sports high school if there are other suitable and closer schools.
Guiding Principles (Juris)
1. The term "chosen educational path" according to Section 28 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is to be defined in a sector-specific manner according to the legal context, the history of the provision, and its meaning and purpose. Its content goes beyond the school-type-related concept of educational path according to Sections 9 Paragraph 2 and 69 Paragraph 1 of the Rhineland-Palatinate School Act (SchulG RP).
2. The regulations governing educational and social participation needs serve to enable schooling tailored to individual abilities and, thereby indirectly, to prepare students for working life and to empower eligible students to earn their own living. The decision of parents to select a school offering a specific option for their children from the existing range of schools within a particular educational track, based on their interests and abilities, must therefore, in principle, be respected, also with regard to the resulting student transportation costs.
3. A sports-focused secondary school without a specific academic focus, whose purpose according to its concept is to provide its students with a general education alongside a career in high-performance sports, does not constitute an educational program oriented towards the special abilities of the students.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Sat: Press release from the Mainz Higher Social Court No. 13/2015 dated September 3, 2015:
No basic income support for transportation to a sports-focused high school: www.mjv.rlp.de
1.2 – Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, decision of 17 August 2015 – L 3 AS 370/15 B ER
Exclusion of the need for assistance under Section 9 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) through the possibility of claiming an early retirement pension after reaching the age of 63
Guiding Principles (Juris)
1. Section 9 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) expresses that – tax-financed – benefits to secure subsistence under the SGB II should not be provided to those who, based on their actual circumstances, are capable of supporting themselves. Claims against third parties, in particular providers of other social benefits, therefore preclude eligibility for assistance if they actually exist, their utilization is reasonable, and they can be enforced within a reasonable timeframe. This is the case, at least, with a claim for early retirement benefits if the person concerned has reached the age of 63 (Section 12a Sentence 2 No. 1 SGB II) and, as a result of the reductions in benefits for early retirement, does not remain in need of assistance.
2. “Receiving” the necessary assistance from providers of other social benefits within the meaning of Section 9 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), does not require an actual inflow of funds. Rather, the SGB II uses the term “receiving” to describe the entitlement to a social benefit.
3. If the payment of an early retirement pension is delayed due to circumstances beyond the control of the pensioner, bridging finance through a loan from the SGB II benefit provider may be considered to secure the pensioner's livelihood.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Sat: Press release 10/2015 Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court:
Entitlement to early retirement pension excludes "Hartz IV" benefits despite pension reductions: www.mjv.rlp.de
1.3 – Hessian State Social Court, Judgment of 13 May 2015 – L 6 AS 134/14 – Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number B 14 AS 30/15 R
Basic income support for job seekers – Integration agreement – insufficient determination of benefits for application costs
Regarding the standard of review and the depth of review for sanctioning a violation of an application obligation imposed by an integration agreement.
The integration agreement must include a commitment to cover application costs if the job center requires job application efforts.
Guiding principle (author)
1. If the integration agreement specifies the obligation to make job applications individually by a fixed number of applications to be proven, the integration agreement must also contain a corresponding specification regarding cost reimbursement.
2. In light of all this, it remains open whether the concerns regarding the unconstitutionality of the sanctions system will prevail (see decision of the Social Court of Gotha of 26 May 2015 – S 15 AS 5157/14; see also decision of the Senate of 8 September 2014 – L 6 AS 74/14 B ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
The following legal question is already pending before the Federal Social Court (BSG) in two proceedings: Regarding the examination of a reduction of unemployment benefit II pursuant to Section 31 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) due to non-compliance with obligations arising from the integration agreement, if the benefit recipient is required to provide proof of job application efforts, but the integration agreement lacks a provision for the reimbursement of application costs (Case Nos. B 14 AS 26/15 R and B 14 AS 29/15 R).
1.4 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 05.08.2015 – L 7 AS 263/15 – Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number B 14 AS 33/15 R
Legal claims of the landlord of a benefit recipient against the basic income support provider in the case of rent arrears.
Landlords have no right to direct payment of rent from job centers.
Notes (Court):
1. A direct payment of rent pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not establish a claim for payment by the landlord against the Jobcenter, but only an entitlement to receive payment. The contractual assignment of unemployment benefit II (Alg-II) in the amount of the rent to the landlord requires, for its validity, an administrative decision as to whether the assignment is in the best interests of the benefit recipient. Such a decision is lacking here.
2. The granting of ALG-II does not imply any assumption of debt by the JC of the tenant's obligation to pay the rent to the landlord.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Sat: Press release from the Bavarian State Social Court (LSG Bayern) dated September 2, 2015:
Direct payment of rent to the landlord.
Can the landlord demand the rent from the Job Center (JC) because the recipient of unemployment benefit II (ALG II) does not forward the costs of accommodation and heating to the landlord?
For the press release: www.lsg.bayern.de
1.5 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 29 July 2015 – L 11 AS 471/15 B PKH
The cost reduction request itself does not constitute an administrative act; it does not contain any binding regulation.
Principle (Author)
1. It is generally accepted that a cost reduction request, which is only issued after an examination of the unreasonableness of the accommodation costs or the impossibility of a cost reduction, is not an administrative act (cf. Federal Social Court [BSG], Judgment of 27 February 2008 – B 14/7b AS 70/06 R; Bavarian State Social Court [LSG], Judgment of 19 May 2015 – L 11 AS 90/15 –; North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court [LSG], Decision of 16 January 2015 – L 2 AS 1848/14 B; cf. also: Federal Social Court [BSG], Judgment of 22 November 2011 – B 4 AS 219/10 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
In case B 4 AS 27/15 B, the Federal Social Court (BSG) has for the first time allowed an appeal on the question of whether legal protection against the request to reduce accommodation costs is possible.
Source: www.socialrecht-in-freiburg.de
1.6 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 27.08.2015 – L 2 AS 1161/13
A limitation of the scope of reimbursement regarding the costs of accommodation and heating to 44% is not possible under Section 35 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Guiding principle (author)
1. The equal treatment of employable persons in need of assistance with housing benefit recipients does not extend to the heirs.
2. Under Section 35 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), benefits must be reimbursed in full; in particular, the reductions currently provided for in Section 40 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the SGB II in favor of benefit recipients do not apply.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.7 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 22 May 2015 – L 8 AS 125/15 B ER – legally binding:
No readily available funds solely due to the possibility of applying for a pension.
Guiding principles (author):
1. Social benefits are not to be fictitiously considered as income that the person in need could enforce in a reasonable manner and in a timely manner.
2. Therefore, it is also not relevant whether an inflow could occur in the short term, i.e., "by the end of the following month", with reasonable efforts on the part of the person in need of assistance (as stated in No. 9.7a of the Technical Instructions on Book II of the German Social Code [FH-BA]).
3. These principles apply at least when – as here – the issue is the current granting of benefits to secure subsistence and not decisions on revocation and reimbursement (see BSG, judgment of 29.11.2012 – B 14 AS 33/12 R).
4. However, it does not follow that, following a pension application submitted by the basic income support provider pursuant to Section 5 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the person in need of assistance could arbitrarily delay the granting of the pension by violating their duty to cooperate in the pension proceedings. Rather, the basic income support provider must have the option, at least by analogy to Section 66 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I), to refuse or reduce benefits to secure the livelihood.
However, the Jobcenter did not issue a rejection notice in this case.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note: a. A. LSG Rheinland-Pfalz, decision of 17.08.2015 – L 3 AS 370/15 B ER – Exclusion of the need for assistance under § 9 para. 1 SGB II by the possibility of claiming early retirement benefits after reaching the age of 63, read here: www.haufe.de
1.8 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 29 April 2015 – L 8 AS 780/14 – Appeal granted.
Regarding the request to apply for early retirement (affirmed here).
Guiding principle (author)
1. The request to the beneficiary to apply for such a social benefit is at the discretion of the SGB II benefit provider.
2. In this context, it is assumed that discretion is intended, so that a more detailed reasoned balancing decision is only required if an atypical case exists.
3. There is no indication of an atypical case here, therefore the discretionary decision made by the job center, at least in the appeal decision, is not objectionable.
4. There are also no constitutional concerns.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Thuringian State Social Court reached the same conclusion in its decision of April 8, 2015 – L 4 AS 263/15 B ER
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – SG Berlin, decision of 20.08.2015 – S 99 AS 7893/15 ER
Application for continued payment of unemployment benefit II – processing time
Note (Attorney Matthias Göbe):
A processing time of more than three weeks is not justified if there has been no change in the circumstances of the beneficiaries compared to previous periods.
Sat: Average processing time for ALG II application, a contribution by attorney Matthias Göbe, Berlin
“In practice, the question often arises as to how long job centers are allowed to take to process a renewal application and what measures must be taken before legal expedited protection can be sought due to the outstanding benefits.
According to the law, basic income support benefits are to be provided monthly in advance, § 41 para. 1 sentence 4 SGB II. The benefits for a specific month must therefore actually be available to the person in need on the first working day of that month.
The LSG NRW ruled that a reasonable processing time of less than three weeks from application to decision is by no means objectionable (Judgment of 18.12.2012 – L 7 AS 2012/12-).
In a recent expedited proceeding I handled, the Berlin Social Court also ruled that a processing time of more than three weeks is not justified if there have been no changes in the beneficiary's circumstances compared to previous periods. Further delays in the approval of continued ALG II benefits and repeated contact with the benefit provider before appealing to the court would exceed the requirements of the duty to mitigate damages (decision of August 20, 2015 – S 99 AS 7893/15 ER-)
Read more: www.anwalt.de
2.2 – SG Detmold, Decision of 31.08.2015 – S 9 AS 1080 /15 ER
The objection against a refusal notice/withdrawal notice (§ 66 I SGB I) also has suspensive effect in the area of basic income support for job seekers under the SGB II.
Guiding principle (author):
1. Benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) may not be revoked if there are merely doubts about the recipient's need for assistance.
2. The Jobcenter cannot invoke the right of retention under Section 331 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) in conjunction with Section 40 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Unless the knowledge is based on information provided by the person receiving the ongoing benefit, they must be notified immediately of the temporary suspension of the benefit and the reasons for it, and they must be given the opportunity to comment.
3. This is the case here, because the JC should have informed the person seeking help about the witness statement and also heard him about it.
2.3 – Social Court Lüneburg, Judgment of 26 May 2015 – S 37 AS 994/12
Failure to apply – the benefit recipient has prevented the initiation of an employment relationship by failing to apply, Section 31 Paragraph 1 No. 2, last variant SGB II (preventing initiation).
Guiding Principles (Author)
1. While the unemployed person is not obligated to mention only positive aspects with regard to the employer's right to information, the applicant should, on the other hand, express their interest in taking up employment through their application. Therefore, at this stage, they are obliged to refrain from all efforts that outwardly contradict this intention (i.e., taking up employment) and that might cause the employer to eliminate them from the pool of applicants even before a personal interview.
2. The application letter, based solely on its objective content, had to be treated by the employer as obviously unserious (e.g., addition in the signature line "Initiative against Hartz IV and social cutbacks").
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, Judgment of 27 August 2015 – L 5 SO 70/15 B ER
Social assistance – income use – benefits of the Russian pension insurance – no comparability with the basic pension under the BVG (Federal Law on Occupational Retirement, Survivors' and Disability Pension Plans)
Regarding the crediting of Russian pensions paid to participants in the "Great Patriotic War" or bearers of the "Survivor of the Siege of Leningrad" badge (affirmed here)
Guiding Principles (Author)
1. Although the benefits received by the applicants from Russia are not directly covered by the exception in Section 82 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), this provision must be applied accordingly to foreign benefits for reasons of equal treatment, insofar as they are comparable in nature and amount to a basic pension exempt from income assessment within the meaning of this regulation.
2. Insofar as, due to a lack of comparability of the benefits, a corresponding application of Section 82 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is not possible, a privilege under Section 83 of the SGB XII is also excluded, since Section 82 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) is the more specific regulation with regard to the basic pension under the Federal Supply Act and comparable benefits, which excludes recourse to other privilege provisions.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
The same result was reached by the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (LSG NRW), judgment of December 1, 2014 – L 20 SO 254/12 – pending before the Federal Social Court (BSG) – B 8 SO 3/15 R – regarding the crediting of Russian pensions as income for social assistance purposes.
4. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – SG Berlin, Judgment of 25.08.2015 – S 212 SO 1248/14
No retroactive cancellation of long-term care benefits; cancellation of long-term care benefits for the future; coverage of needs through services agreed upon in the care contract; invalidity of a so-called supplementary agreement with the care service; equivalence between long-term care benefits according to the Berlin daily allowance (LK 19, 38) and the shared accommodation supplement
Guiding Principles (Juris)
1. The granting of the residential group supplement pursuant to Section 38a SGB XI constitutes a change in the actual circumstances of the person in need of care, provided that he or she simultaneously receives supplementary benefits for care pursuant to Sections 61 et seq. SGB XII from the social welfare provider in the form of the Berlin daily allowance (LK 19, 38) and lives in a residential care group.
2. A retroactive cancellation of long-term care benefits is only possible if the conditions of Section 48 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) are met. However, the housing group supplement is not considered income within the meaning of Section 48 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 3 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X).
3. The revocation for the future is lawful. The care recipient's needs are already partially covered by in-kind care benefits and the shared living supplement. The shared living supplement pursuant to Section 38a of the German Social Code, Book XI (SGB XI), is a benefit appropriate to other legal provisions pursuant to Section 66, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), which is to be used for the approved home care in a shared living arrangement.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the Higher Administrative Courts on exemption from broadcasting fees
5.1 – Higher Administrative Court of Lüneburg, 4th Senate, decision of 05.08.2015, 4 LA 53/15
Extension of a broadcasting fee exemption to additional household occupants
Principle (Juris):
An exemption from broadcasting fees granted to a child who is of legal age but not yet 25 years old and who forms a household with a parent in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), does not extend to the parent.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
6. German Bar Association (DAV) complains: Job centers thwart legal fees when representing Hartz IV recipients
The German Bar Association (DAV) fears that recipients of Hartz IV benefits will find it increasingly difficult to find a lawyer to represent them in proceedings against the job center. This is because lawyers representing Hartz IV recipients in court are increasingly having to waive their fees. While the job center must reimburse the costs if the unemployed person wins a case against it, if the unemployed person owes the job center money, the job center often offsets the two amounts. In such cases, the lawyer receives nothing.
DAV criticizes the unacceptable billing practices of job centers
“A client’s debts, on the one hand, and their lawyer’s fees, on the other, are claims from two separate parties that have nothing to do with each other,” says lawyer Martin Schafhausen of the Social Law Working Group at the German Bar Association (DAV). “They cannot be offset against each other.” Nevertheless, job centers are explicitly instructed to check whether a Hartz IV recipient has debts before paying lawyers’ fees. If the client wins and has not received legal aid or advice assistance, the job center must reimburse them for the lawyer’s fees. In that case, the unemployed person is no longer the one who owes the lawyer the fees, but rather the job center. “It’s obvious that these fees cannot then be offset against the Hartz IV recipient’s debts,” Schafhausen criticizes. This is also confirmed by a ruling of the Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court (Case No.: L 6 AS 188/13).
Source: rsw.beck.de
Sat: Hartz IV recipients: Finding a lawyer increasingly difficult?
It goes without saying: Anyone who goes to court needs a good, motivated lawyer, and this lawyer is entitled to a fee. However, lawyers representing Hartz IV recipients in court are increasingly having to forgo their fees. The reason: If the unemployed person wins the case against the job center, the job center must reimburse their costs. However, if the unemployed person owes money to the job center, the job center often offsets the two amounts. The lawyer then receives nothing. This is not only unlawful – it can have devastating long-term consequences for the unemployed.
Read more: anwaltauskunft.de
Legal tip:
1. Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, Judgment of May 6, 2015 – L 6 AS 288/13
Social law administrative procedure – Claim for reimbursement of costs pursuant to Section 63 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) – no extinguishment by set-off due to lack of a set-off situation – no right of retention pursuant to Section 273 of the German Civil Code (BGB)
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. Before the conversion of the claim for reimbursement of costs pursuant to Section 63 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) into a claim for payment, a set-off by the job center with its own claims for payment fails due to the required similarity of the claims put forward for set-off.
2. The emergence of mutual claims due to the social benefit relationship does not yet establish a right of retention.
Legal tip:
2. LSG Mainz, Judgment of 06.05.2015 – L 6 AS 34/15
Social law proceedings – Reimbursement of costs in preliminary proceedings – Legal aid – Standing to sue
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. Insofar as legal aid is granted, a transfer of claim occurs, as a result of which the creditor of the reimbursement claim is no longer the objector, but the lawyer (§ 9 sentence 2 BerHG).
2. For the plaintiffs, as former objectors, to voluntarily assume procedural representation, the required legitimate interest of the authorized party to conduct the proceedings in its own name is lacking.
Legal tip:
3. Guide to ALG II / Social Assistance from A to Z, Jäger/Thomé, 28th edition.
How can I prevent the authorities from offsetting a claim against my reimbursement claim?
According to the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court (BSG, judgment of January 29, 2012, B 14 AS 310/12 B), it is recognized that the authority may offset its own claims against the benefit recipient's claim for reimbursement of costs arising from a successful objection procedure (§ 389 BGB). Although by no means all authorities actually do this, it does occur repeatedly.
Tip: If the job center has undisputed claims against you, you should discuss this with your lawyer as soon as possible. You can easily avoid offsetting your claim by assigning your right to reimbursement of costs under Section 63 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) to your lawyer in a timely manner. The lawyer will then assert their own claim against the agency, rather than your claim for costs. Since the agency will generally have no claims against the lawyer, they can no longer offset your claim. The assignment of your right to reimbursement of costs should not be included as a clause in the power of attorney form, but rather in a separate agreement, as an assignment within a power of attorney could potentially constitute an invalid "surprising clause" in a standard form contract (see Section 305c Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB)).
(Attorney Helge Hildebrandt is addressing the keywords "advice assistance", "legal aid" and "lawyers" for the first time.)
Source: Attorney Helge Hildebrandt, Social Counseling Kiel in Guide to Unemployment Benefit II / Social Assistance from A to Z, Jäger/Thomé, 28th edition.
7. When do recipients of Hartz IV benefits have to expect sanctions?
People receiving Hartz IV benefits have many obligations. If they violate these obligations, the job center can sanction them and reduce or even completely cut off their benefits. The German Lawyers' Information Service explains the legal situation.
Read more: anwaltauskunft.de
8. Negligence on the part of the social welfare agency can preclude parental support payments, an article by attorney Mathias Klose
If it is the responsibility of the social welfare agency that the person entitled to maintenance is not covered by long-term care insurance and therefore does not receive long-term care benefits in the event of a subsequent need for care, the transfer of the parental support claim pursuant to Section 94 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), in the amount of the hypothetical long-term care benefit, may constitute an undue hardship. In this respect, however, hypothetical insurance contributions can increase the needs of the person entitled to maintenance (Federal Court of Justice, 17 June 2015, Case No. XII ZB 458/14).
Source: Sozialrecht-aktuell.blogspot.de
9. 01.09.2015 Additional needs allowance for single parents
What housing needs are single parents entitled to? – an article by Roselt and Wienemann.
Short news item on “Single parenting under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II): Increased housing needs per se?” by Dipl.-Kfm. Dr. Pasqual Roselt and Ass. jur. Dennis M. Wienemann, originally published in: FamRB 2015, Issue 7, 270–273. D…
Short news item on “Single parenting under the German Social Code, Book II: Increased housing needs per se?” by Dipl.-Kfm- Dr. Pasqual Roselt and Ass. jur. Dennis M. Wienemann, originally published in: FamRB 2015 Issue 7, 270 – 273.
This article addresses the question of whether single parents can claim increased or reduced housing allowances under Section 22b Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), in conjunction with a municipal bylaw. The authors first explain that a single parent living with their child in one apartment is generally entitled to the allowance of a two-person household. According to the authors, municipal benefit providers often take the view that there is no increased housing need for infants and toddlers. They consider this unlawful, among other things, because the explanatory memorandum to the law itself makes the adequacy of living space dependent on the number of household members.
This article was written by attorney Hans-Peter Simon.
Source: www.jurion.de
10. Legal aid in practice: Barrier-free access to justice looks different, an article by lawyer Luisa Milazzo, Endersstraße 3b, 04177 Leipzig
Legal aid is intended to give access to justice to people who cannot afford court and lawyer fees. Everyone must have the opportunity to seek help from the courts. However, many people are overwhelmed by the process of applying for legal aid. They prefer to have their tax return done by a tax advisor because it's so complicated? Applying for legal aid is often just as complicated, or even more so. Unfortunately.
Read more: www.luisa-milazzo.de
11. Stuttgart Job Center – Up to 30 percent less money
The League of Welfare Organizations denounces the Stuttgart Job Center's "inhumane" loan repayment practices. Sometimes, those affected are left with only 70 percent of their subsistence level.
The Stuttgart Job Center is facing fierce criticism: The League of Welfare Organizations and its legal experts are complaining that the agency's handling of Hartz IV loans makes a "dignified existence" impossible. The reason for this criticism is the repayment practice. Critics say that the Job Center withholds up to 30 percent of basic benefits each month when multiple loans are taken out. However, a maximum of ten percent is permitted, emphasized Angela Riße of the League's working group on poverty at a press conference on Friday. "From our perspective, it is unlawful that the subsistence level is being undercut in this way."
No direct agreement
Read more: www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de
Legal tip:
Limitation of monthly offsetting for the repayment of multiple loans – The total repayment for multiple loans is limited to 10% of the relevant standard benefit rate (see LSG BB, decision of 29 July 2015 – L 32 AS 1688/15 B ER; SG Karlsruhe, decision of 25 February 2014 – S 4 AS 1/14 ER; Burkiczak in: jurisPK-SGB II, 3rd ed. 2012, § 43 para. 34 ff. with further references; SG Dortmund, decision of 16 May 2014 – S 32 AS 484/14 ER and LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of 18 September 2013 – L 3 AS 5184/12).
Author of the legal news ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
