1. Decision of the European Court of Justice on SGB II
1.1 – Judgment of the ECJ on the Alimanovic case – C-67/14 v. September 15, 2015
EU foreigners looking for work are not entitled to job center services
A Member State may exclude Union citizens who enter that State to look for work from certain non-contributory social benefits. This also includes the job center’s basic security benefits.
Source: ECJ press release No. 101/15 v. September 15, 2015: www.juris.de
Note:
Sa: Judgment of the ECJ on the Alimanovic case – C-67/14 v. September 15, 2015 (full text): curia.europa.eu
Roland Rosenow, social law in Freiburg on the ECJ, judgment of
September 15, 2015 - C - 67/14 - Case Alimanovic September 15, 2015: Exclusion of benefits for EU foreigners in SGB II and SGB XII is in accordance with European law: www.socialrecht-in-freiburg.de
ECJ denies the right of job-seeking EU citizens to Hartz IV - a contribution from legal editorial team anwalt.de Christian Günther (GUE): www.anwalt.de
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of August 5, 2015 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – BSG, judgment of August 5, 2015 – B 4 AS 46/14 R
Basic security for job seekers - integration benefits - entry-level allowance - unemployment - suitability of employment to overcome the need for help
Guidelines (beck-aktuell)
There is no entitlement to entry-level allowance according to Section 16b SGB II if there is no prospect of overcoming the need for help. The question of whether success in terms of overcoming the need for help is likely to occur through social insurance or self-employment and whether the entry allowance is likely to be necessary for integration into the general labor market is based on a prognostic ex-ante assessment at the time of the last administrative decision answer.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
3. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of April 29, 2015 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – BSG, judgment of April 29, 2015 – B 14 AS 6/14 R
Social law administrative procedure - Application for review - Unemployment benefit II - Accommodation and heating - Increase in accommodation and heating costs after an unnecessary move - Rejection of a prior promise to move - No permanent effect - Permissibility of a cap only if there is a correctly determined appropriateness limit
Guiding principles (author)
1. The refusal to agree to a move does not have a lasting effect for the future, which would have to be taken into account when checking the necessity of a later move - capping the expenses for accommodation and heating after a move in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II.
2. However, the prerequisite for capping expenses for accommodation and heating after a move in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II is - in addition to the lack of necessity of the move - the existence of an abstract appropriateness limit in the local comparison area.
3. This follows from the wording of the regulation, which requires an increase in “appropriate” expenses for accommodation and heating, as well as its meaning and purpose, because the aim is to prevent those in need of assistance from exhausting the adequacy limits for housing set by the municipal authority (see above). also BT-Drucks 16/1410 S 23). If the municipal authority has not specified such values, be it for the basic rent or the cold additional costs or the heating costs, the requirements for such a “cap” are not met. In this case, only an examination of inappropriateness can take place in individual cases in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II. To the extent that such adequacy limits exist, the scope of the “lid” and its adaptation to a change in circumstances can also be determined from them.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
4. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – LSG Bayern, resolution of February 10, 2015 (ref.: L 16 AS 48/15 B ER)
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel: 1. For an Italian applicant, the existence of employability must always be affirmed, also from a legal perspective (Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB II in conjunction with Section 8 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II) because this The person does not require a work permit because of the unrestricted freedom of movement for workers within the federal territory.
2. In the case of an Italian applicant born in 1961 who is in poor health and who has lived in Germany - albeit with interruptions - for over 20 years and also considers Germany the center of his life, was employed here subject to social security contributions in the 1990s and into the 2000s and in this context has acquired a right to a standard old-age pension from insurance periods completed in Germany, an automatic exclusion from subsistence benefits in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II is - even in the case of unemployment and homelessness - not justifiable.
4.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of July 23, 2015 – L 11 AS 681/14
Unemployment benefit II, cancellation of benefit approval, need for help
Guidelines (Juris)
1. If the value of the assets increases during an approval period, the benefit approval can only be canceled for the months in which the asset value is actually above the asset allowance. If the asset value in this case falls again due to the repayment of debts to such an extent that assistance is needed, the benefits must be retained for the following period.
2. The application of case law on the distribution of a one-off income and the irrelevance of any other use of the income cannot be transferred to the asset test.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of July 22, 2015 – L 16 AS 502/14
Partial repeal of an administrative act providing benefits to secure livelihoods and for accommodation and heating as separate orders.
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. If the partial cancellation of a benefit approval only changes the benefits for securing a living, but not the benefits for accommodation and heating, the latter are not the subject of dispute in a subsequent legal dispute regarding the cancellation and reimbursement.
2. The decision to directly transfer health and nursing care insurance subsidies to the insurance company is a separate decision that is made independently of the benefit approval.
3. When accounting for income from an inheritance, inheritance costs (funeral costs) according to SGB II can only be taken into account in the month of the inflow.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
LSG NSB, decision of February 9, 2015, L 11 AS 1352/14 B ER - When taking into account income from an inheritance that accrued during the current SGB II benefit receipt, the necessary expenses associated with generating the income must be deducted. This also includes the funeral costs borne by the benefit recipient (Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 5 SGB II in conjunction with Section 1968 BGB).
4.4 – LSG BB, judgment by 08/25/2015 – L 37 SF 29/14 EK AS
Social court proceedings: Compensation due to the excessive duration of a social court procedure - complaint of delay was unnecessary here -
Guiding principle (Author)
Due to the excessive length of the procedure (29 months), the applicant is compensated in the amount of: H.v. 2900 euros granted.
4.5 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of July 29, 2015 (ref.: L 32 AS 1688/15 B ER):
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. The repayment for several loans (according to Section 24 Paragraph 1 SGB II and Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 3 SGB II) is a total of ten percent. H. limited to the relevant standard requirement (Section 42a Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II).
2. If loans are reclaimed by the job center, offsetting can only take place in accordance with the more specific provision of Section 42a SGB II (loan) and not in accordance with Section 43 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 and Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II (offsetting).
3. Even if several loans are granted, the amount of repayment must be limited to a maximum of ten percent. H. the relevant standard requirement remains limited in order to leave the person concerned sufficient funds to cover the necessary living expenses, so that further loans are prevented and only a temporary monthly reduction in the standard requirement is made possible.
4. If a loan is of the same age - in compliance with § 42a SGB II and § 366 Para. 2 BGB - each liability must be repaid proportionately, i.e. the repayment claims from two loan notices must each be repaid with five percent. H. to satisfy standard needs.
4.6 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of February 24, 2012 – L 18 AS 367/12 B ER
Interim order granting assurances regarding the expenses for an apartment in connection with benefits under SGB II - necessity of a move - child of crawling age - housing deficit
Guiding principle (author)
1. An interest worth protecting in having the costs clarified before the move through an interim legal protection procedure aimed at obliging the job center to provide a provisional assurance of the expenses of the new accommodation arises from the guarantee of effective legal protection.
2. If the person seeking help could be referred to the necessity of the move and the appropriateness of the costs of the new apartment and the resulting amount of the costs of accommodation to be taken into account only after the apartment has been rented in one on (higher) benefits to secure a living In order to clarify the interim legal protection proceedings directed at SGB II, the right to assurance in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 4 SGB II could not generally be enforced in court.
3. Because the granting of an assurance regarding the future costs of the accommodation in the interim legal protection proceedings would then be ruled out from the outset, waiting for the decision in the main proceedings would usually be in vain, as the (future) landlord usually does not keep the apartment for that long and after it is no longer available of the housing offer there is no longer any entitlement to assurance.
4.7 - LSG Schleswig-Holstein, resolution of January 30, 2015 (ref.: L 3 AS 192/14 B ER):
Deductions for accommodation costs are also not permitted in preliminary legal protection proceedings.
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel: 1. Especially in the case of accommodation costs (§ 22 SGB II), which were due to the landlord in full every month in advance, it is not necessary to order a deduction in relation to the actual accommodation costs, even in preliminary legal protection proceedings.
2. People in need of help have no savings options in this regard.
3. The aspect of provisionality is thus sufficiently taken into account by the fact that the decision on the granting of benefits in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II is subject to the outcome of the main proceedings.
4. Any repayment of overpayments is not excluded from the outset. Remaining economic risks of the SGB II provider must be accepted by the public sector, especially in the area of basic living security.
4.8 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of March 19, 2015 (ref.: L 6 AS 1926/14):
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. The necessary travel costs for a partially inpatient, employable beneficiary for methadone treatment and to clinic appointments are ongoing needs within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 SGB II: These travel costs incurred within the approval period were - also prognostic From the perspective of the time – recurring, long-term and permanent.
2. These expenses arise from an atypical need situation, since the travel costs for doctor's visits with this frequency significantly exceed what usually applies to recipients of benefits according to Sections 19 ff. SGB II.
3. The trips to the methadone outpatient clinic and the clinic are not normal everyday trips, but can be traced back to the applicant's special situation. As an addict, he has to carry out the substitution on a daily basis and regularly visit a hospital far away every fortnight for his hepatitis C and HIV treatment.
4. Medical treatment is essential within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 SGB II if the applicant is absolutely dependent on it because of his health, which has already been reduced by the effects of his long-term illnesses.
5. The use of public transport is essential if the applicant cannot reach the treatment locations within walking distance of several kilometers.
6. The standard requirement includes transport expenses (6.3% of the standard requirement), but this does not cover the monthly costs for a social ticket (EUR 29.90). An Alg II recipient cannot typically be expected to purchase a monthly pass, even with a social tariff.
4.9 - State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of August 21, 2015 - L 5 AS 432/15 B ER - legally binding
Basic security according to SGB II – request to apply for a pension
The reasons why early claim of the old-age pension is unfair are conclusively regulated in the Unfairness Ordinance (State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of May 27, 2015, L 5 AS 42/15 B ER)
Guiding Principle (Author)
1. According to the will of the legislature, early use is reasonable even if the need for help can only be reduced. The reasons that can lead to the unfairness of early claim of the pension have been conclusively regulated (BSG, judgment of August 19, 2015, B 14 AS 1/15 R, only available as deadline report No. 38/15).
2. The need for additional social benefits when drawing an early retirement pension does not lead to unfairness. Only for the necessary discretionary decision is it necessary to include the expected social benefit claims in the weighing process (cf. 2nd Senate of the State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of June 16, 2015, L 2 191/15 B ER).
3. Reasons that must be taken into account in detail when exercising discretion must be presented by the end of the objection procedure or must be apparent to the authority based on the files.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.10 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of. September 7, 2015 – L 7 AS 1793/13 NZB – legally binding
Appeal permitted because there is neither a supreme court decision by the Federal Social Court on the interpretation of Section 28 Paragraph 5 SGB II nor has it been clarified what the essential learning objectives are in the Free State of Saxony according to the school law provisions.
Guiding principles (author)
1. It must be clarified whether the failure to achieve essential learning objectives within the meaning of the regulations can only be assumed if there is currently a concrete risk of being transferred. The published case law also states that not only moving to the next grade level is an essential learning goal, but also achieving a sufficient level of performance, for example in order to maintain sufficient performance (according to the Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court (LSG), decision of March 26, 2014 – L 6 AS 31/14 B ER; Dresden Social Court, judgment of January 6th, 2014 – S 48 AS 5789/12; Dortmund Social Court, judgment of December 20th, 2013 – S 19 AS 1036/12; Darmstadt Social Court, judgment of December 16th, 2013 – S 1 AS 467/12; LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, decision of February 28, 2012 – L 7 AS 43/12 B ER).
2. It could also prove to be in need of clarification whether and, if so, under what conditions the service provider is allowed - as here - to ignore the assessment of the teachers teaching the plaintiff, who had confirmed the need for learning support and a threat to the achievement of essential learning goals. although the legislature assumed that learning support needs would be identified as part of the diagnostic tasks that school teachers are required to perform anyway. The official investigation by the performance authority (and the social court) must take place with the involvement of the school and the teachers, as they have the necessary expertise to make a prognosis possible and expert witness information must be obtained from the teaching teachers.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
5.1 – SG Schleswig, decision of. 02/17/2015 – S 9 AS 9/15 ER
Costs of accommodation according to SGB II in Dithmarschen, a contribution from lawyer Dirk Audörsch
In the Dithmarschen district, too, the accommodation costs provided by the job center in accordance with SGB II could be too low. In this regard, the court decided the following in an urgent procedure, which was conducted by the Audörsch law firm, to grant the assurance of the move by order on February 17, 2015 (file number: S 9 AS 9/15 ER):
Source: www.rechtundschlichtung.de
Note:
The decision deals with the provisional assurance of the expenses for the new accommodation (Section 22 Para. 4 SGB II) in the provisional legal protection (here affirmative); it refers to SG Itzehoe, decision of September 10, 2014, ref. : S 12 AS 195/14 ER.
An interest worth protecting in having the costs clarified before the move through an interim legal protection procedure aimed at obliging the respondent to provide a provisional assurance of the expenses of the new accommodation also arises from the guarantee of effective legal protection (see SG Frankfurt (Oder), decision of October 29, 2012 - S 21 AS 2212/12 ER -, juris Rn. 41 with reference to the Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of February 24, 2012, Ref.: L 18 AS 367/12 B ER, not published; a. A.: Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of February 17, 2014, L 3 AS 226/13 B ER).
5.2 – Detmold Social Court, decision of August 31, 2015 (ref.: S 9 AS 1080/15 ER):
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel: An objection raised by the job center to Section 66 SGB I (consequences of lack of cooperation) is not covered by the exception to immediate enforceability resulting from Section 86a Paragraph 2 No. 4 SGG in conjunction with Section 39 No. 1 SGB II. For this purpose, there must be a reference to the legal terms of the SGB
5.3 – Berlin Social Court, decision of August 20, 2015 (ref.: S 99 AS 7893/15 ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel: A processing time of more than three weeks is to be viewed as unjustified given that an applicant's personal and economic circumstances have not changed compared to the immediately preceding approval period.
5.4 – Wiesbaden Social Court, decision of July 30, 2015 (ref.: S 20 AS 855/15 ER):
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel: For applicants from another EU state who can claim a right of residence to look for work in the Federal Republic of Germany, the exclusion norm resulting from Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II applies due to the priority of application Art. 45 Para. 2 in conjunction with Art. 18 and 21 TFEU and an interpretation of Art. 24 Para. 2 EGRL 2004/38 that complies with primary law only apply to a limited extent.
5.5 - SG Dresden, judgments from September 4, 2015 - S 40 AS 2451/13, S 40 AS 670/14, S 40 AS 1270/13, S 40 AS 4473/13
Model proceedings for reasonable accommodation costs in Dresden were decided
The SG Dresden has decided that Hartz IV recipients in one- and two-person households in Dresden can claim higher maximum housing costs.
In the opinion of the social court, the plaintiffs' argument can be partially followed. In principle, there is no objection to the scientific method used by the IWU Institute to determine appropriate housing costs. However, methodological changes need to be made to individual calculation steps and calculation parameters to take vacancies and availability of living space into account. This would lead to slightly higher adequacy limits in the years 2012 to 2014 for one- and two-person households. For 2012, however, the SG Dresden's decision remains below the limits set by the LSG Chemnitz (see LSG Chemnitz, judgment of December 19, 2013 - L 7 AS 637/12).
The SG Dresden has approved the appointment to the LSG Chemnitz.
Further information from the court
The appropriateness limits at a glance:
Period 12/01/2010 to 12/31/2012
City council resolution of November 24, 2011 Judgment of the LSG Chemnitz of December 19, 2013 Judgments of the SG Dresden of September 4, 2015
One-person household
276.00 euros
294.83 euros
290.91 euros
Two-person household
347.00 euros
359.22 euros
354.65 euros
Period from January 1st, 2013 to December 31st, 2014
City Council resolution from May 30th, 2013 Judgments of the SG Dresden from September 4th, 2015
One-person household
304.79 euros
307.41 euros
Two-person household
377.61 euros
378.32 euros
Source: Press release from SG Dresden No. 7/2015 v. September 14, 2015: www.juris.de
6. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
6.1 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of. 08/06/2015 – L 8 SO 24/15 B ER – legally binding
Matters according to SGB XII (SO)
Principle
1. There is no ground for interim legal protection if the service provider has offered to provide services on a loan basis. If it is reasonable for the beneficiary to accept the offer, in order to avert the emergency situation, priority should be given to making use of the loan-based grant (also: LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, B dated April 5, 2006 - L 23 B 19/06 SO ER - and LSG Baden-Württemberg, B v February 22, 2008 – L 2 SO 233/08 ER -).
2. The lack of a target agreement in accordance with Section 4 in conjunction with Section 3 Paragraph 4 BudgetV already precludes a claim to the issuance of an interim injunction. This results from the general need to agree on targets for the personal budget (see BSG, U v January 31, 2012 - B 2 U 1/11 R - juris RN 36).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6.2 - Saxon State Social Court, judgment of June 10, 2015 - L 8 SO 22/11
Subsistence benefits according to SGB
Guiding principle (author)
1. No granting of additional needs according to Section 30 Paragraph 4 SGB
2. A corresponding application of Section 30 Paragraph 4 SGB July 28, 2008 – L 20 SUN 13/08).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6.3 – State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of August 27, 2015 – L 8 SO 177/15 B ER
Interim legal protection - social assistance - integration assistance - disabled child (food allergy) - participation in community life - integration helper - attendance at an integrative daycare center - personal budget
For a handicapped child over three years of age, the official reference to care by a day care worker or the claim of disproportionate additional costs must not generally lead to the child being denied attendance at a kindergarten because of the rejection of integration assistance.
By way of an interim order, social welfare providers are obliged to cover the costs of personal assistance for the daycare center for the disabled child, who suffers from a severe food allergy.
Personal assistance for kindergarten child with peanut allergy.
Guiding principle (author)
1. Social assistance providers must provide services for the use of an integration assistant for the purpose of attending kindergarten.
2. Even if a significant disability within the meaning of Section 53 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB Due to the lack of care alternatives, as things currently stand, only granting benefits would be discretionary (discretionary reduction to zero).
3. The provision of additional costs pursuant to Section 9 Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 SGB According to the Senate's consistent jurisprudence, this reservation presupposes the existence of (at least) one alternative to meeting needs, which must also be reasonable for the person entitled to assistance (see recent Senate ruling of July 23, 2015 - L 8 SO 197/12), which is not the case here is.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
S.a. : Personal assistance for kindergarten child with peanut allergy
The LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen has decided as part of an urgent procedure that a social welfare provider must provisionally cover the costs of personal assistance to care for a small child with a severe food allergy (peanut allergy) while attending a daycare center.
Source: Press release from the LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen No. 12/2015 v. September 18, 2015: www.juris.de
6.4 - Thuringian State Social Court, decision of July 29, 2015 - L 8 SO 855/15 B ER - legally binding
Failure to observe the suspensive effect of an administrative act
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. The suspensive effect of an appeal must be determined in accordance with Section 86 b Paragraph 1 No. 2 SGG if the administration does not take the suspensive effect into account.
2. However, there must be a special interest in making a determination, which already exists if the authority shows through its behavior that it is disregarding the suspensive effect.
3. In the area of SGB In particular, an inadmissible discontinuance order cannot be reinterpreted as an order for immediate execution, because an administrative practice that is unlawful in this respect may not be “cured” retrospectively.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
7. Decisions of the state social courts on employment promotion (SGB III)
7.1 - Hessian State Social Court, judgment of August 5, 2015 - L 6 AL 6/13 - The appeal is permitted.
Regarding the question of whether, according to the established case law of the Federal Social Court, the suspension of the entitlement to unemployment benefit in the event of two refusals to work at the same time, which occurs by law with the event that establishes the blocking period, is two “first” blocking period offenses within the meaning of Section 144 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB III in the version valid in 2010 or a first and a second blocking period offense within the meaning of Section 144 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Nos. 1 and 2 SGB III in the version valid in 2010 (word identical to Section 159 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Nos. 1 and 2 SGB III applicable version).
Guiding Principles (Juris)
If there are two job rejections at the same time in response to two placement offers made at the same time, two “first” blocking period offenses occur within the meaning of Section 144 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB III in the version applicable in 2010 (Section 159 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No . 1 SGB III) and not a first and a second blocking period within the meaning of Section 144 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Nos. 1 and 2 SGB III in the version applicable in 2010 (Section 159 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Nos. 1 and 2 SGB III) a.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
8. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion (SGB III)
8.1 - SG Karlsruhe judgment of August 28, 2015 - S 7 R 1978/14
suspension of unemployment benefits; Blocking time due to abandonment of work; Conclusion of a partial retirement contract in the block model; important reason; omission of the important reason; relevant time; subsequent change in the legal situation
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. An important reason within the meaning of Section 159 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB III does not exist if the insured person who has concluded a partial retirement contract and originally planned to receive a pension with deductions immediately after completing partial retirement Due to a better pension option that now exists due to a change in the law, you decide to first receive unemployment benefit and only later apply for a pension without deductions.
2. When determining whether there is an important reason, the later behavior of the insured person must also be taken into account.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
9. Note on: BSG 8th Senate, judgment of September 25, 2014 - B 8 SO 6/13 R - Author: Prof. Dr. Guido Kirchhoff
No reimbursement of health and nursing care insurance contributions by the social welfare provider compared to the basic security provider in “seamless cases”
Guiding principle
The reimbursement claim of a job center for the period of receipt of unemployment benefit II until the joint conciliation board decides on the existing incapacity of the benefit recipient (so-called seamless case) does not include the compulsory contributions to statutory health and social care insurance.
Source: www.juris.de
10. SG Gelsenkirchen, S 40 SF 141/15 E v. 09/09/2015 – Cost determination decision –
Costs for postage and envelopes (even without receipts) - printing costs - estimate according to Section 287 Paragraph 1 ZPO in conjunction with Section 202 SGG - Fees for postal and telecommunications services according to No. 7002 W RVG cannot be applied as a flat rate of a maximum of EUR 20.00 are made by private individuals (see SG Aachen, decision of April 20, 2015, Ref.: S 11 SF 11/15 E).
read more: https://www.elo-forum.org
Legal tip: a. A. SG Frankfurt v. March 11, 2014 – S 24 AS 1074/10
11. ECJ: No “Hartz IV” despite looking for work Germany is allowed to exclude poor EU citizens from social assistance - contribution by.
Prof. Dr. Constanze Janda The ECJ ruled on Tuesday that the welfare state may differentiate between “its own” and “foreigners” when it comes to social assistance. With dubious justification and absurd consequences, says Constanze Janda.
Next: www.lto.de
(The author Prof. Dr. Constanze Janda is a professor of social law, European labor law and civil law at the SRH University of Heidelberg. She is co-founder of the Migration Law Network and has been dealing with the legal issues of social security for migrants for many years.)
12. Going stupid: program “Frauentausch” reveals landlord love (to VG Berlin, judgment of September 8th, 2015 – 21 K 285.14)
VG Berlin, judgment of 09/08/2015 – 21 K 285.14 – dejure.org/2015,24511
Anyone who hides their partnership with their landlord from the housing benefit office cannot claim housing benefit subsidies due to abuse. The Berlin Administrative Court decided this in a judgment announced on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 (AZ: VG 21 K 285.14). It dismissed the lawsuit brought by a participant in the TV reality show “Frauentausch”.
13. Asylum seekers, recognized refugees and tolerated persons - Who can be employed in a mini-job - Mini-job headquarters
Asylum seekers, recognized refugees and tolerated people – who can be employed in a mini-job?
Asylum seekers, recognized refugees and tolerated people – who can be employed in a mini-job?
www.minijob-zentrale.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
