1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of June 16, 2015 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgments of June 16, 2015 – B 4 AS 44/14 R and B 4 AS 45/14 R
Unemployment benefit II - Accommodation and heating - Adequacy of accommodation costs - Lack of a coherent concept - Lack of knowledge - Use of the housing benefit table - Determination of the rent level in communities with a population of less than 10,000
Principle
1. Job centers must take rent differences into account.
2. The rent level in a surrounding community can be the same as or higher than that of the neighboring city. The job center cannot only use average values to check which rent is appropriate.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
socialcourtsabilty.de
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of April 29, 2015 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – BSG, judgment of April 29, 2015 – B 14 AS 8/14 R
Unemployment benefit II - subsidy for private health insurance contributions - treatment costs due to agreed deductible - temporary additional requirement due to an unavoidable ongoing special need - catching up on advice - reasonableness of switching to the basic tariff
Guiding principle (author)
Costs of medical care are exceptional as long as there has been a lack of sufficient advice from the responsible basic insurance provider about the options for changing to the basic private health insurance tariff and the change has therefore not been made initially and as long as costs of the same amount would have been incurred under the statutory health insurance , eligible to be taken over in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
For § 32 SGB XII see Juris PK SGB XII 2nd edition./ Holzhey Rz. 60
The standard does not cover medical care expenses that fall within the deductible….
However, they can lead to an increase in the standard rate in accordance with Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB AS 8/14 R, paragraph 19).
3. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of July 23, 2015 – L 7 AS 594/14 – pending at the BSG under the reference number B 14 AS 40/15 R
Special hardship case according to Section 27 Paragraph 4 SGB II
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. If the employment promotion agency supports a pre-vocational training measure with boarding school accommodation in accordance with Sections 112 ff SGB III, it is not obliged to cover the costs of the previous apartment.
2. There may be a claim against the provider of basic security for job seekers to cover the expenses of the previous apartment in the form of a loan in accordance with Section 27 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB II due to a particular case of hardship if the exclusion of benefits already results in a tangible improvement in opportunities threatened with self-supporting employment.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 - Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of July 23, 2015, L 7 AS 546/14 - Appeal is permitted,
action for a declaration of invalidity, application for review, notice of review
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. An action for a declaration of invalidity with regard to final approval notices is inadmissible.
2. An action for a declaration of invalidity against final review notices is possible.
3. An action for a declaration of invalidity against non-final decisions is generally inadmissible.
4. Section 44 (4) SGB
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.3 - Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of July 23, 2015 - L 7 AS 547/14 - Appeal is permitted
Deductions, legal action for rescission, grounds for invalidity
Guiding Principle (Juris)
1. In the context of an action for annulment, grounds for invalidity presented must also be examined.
2. In the area of SGB II, only payments for ongoing, titled maintenance are to be deducted from income from self-employment, but not payments for maintenance arrears, even if these are titled.
3. Arrears for possible legal fees and for saving for a car cannot be deducted from income from self-employment in the area of SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.4 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of July 29, 2015 (ref.: L 12 AS 2369/13):
Adequacy of the costs of accommodation - City of Cologne does not have a coherent concept - Housing benefit table - If the cost reduction request is incorrect, the actual KdU must be taken over
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. Exceeding the appropriate apartment size (for a single-person household up to 50 square meters) is irrelevant in terms of basic security law if the product of the apartment size and the apartment standard, expressed in the amount of the rental price, is nevertheless appropriate within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II would be.
2. The apartment must meet simple and basic needs in terms of furnishings, location and building structure and must not be of a higher standard.
3. The rent in the spatial comparison area, limited to the appropriate rent upper limit, for simple standard apartments in the entire urban area of Cologne must also be determined here.
4. The prerequisite for reducing accommodation costs to an appropriate level is the implementation of a cost reduction procedure in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II. This is necessary to inform the person in need of assistance of the inadequacy of their accommodation and heating costs and to initiate the six-month period under this standard.
5. The corresponding information letter does not constitute an administrative act within the meaning of Section 31 Sentence 1 SGB X, as there is no legal basis for this.
6. This cost reduction request only has a warning function.
7. The individual person in need of help should receive clarity about what the job center considers to be the appropriately high costs of accommodation and heating, as well as information about the legal situation.
8. If a job center does not meet these requirements, then an incorrect cover letter cannot have any negative consequences for an applicant.
Legal tip 1: See also: SG Karlsruhe, judgment of 07/29/2015 - S 17 AS 2154/14 - Cost reduction measures are unreasonable if the basic security provider informs the aid recipient of incorrect guidelines in the cost reduction request and the aid recipient therefore cannot find suitable accommodation.
Legal tip 2: SG Cologne, judgment of February 10, 2015 - S 7 AS 2502/13 - The city of Cologne does not have a coherent concept for determining abstractly reasonable accommodation costs.
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – SG Hannover, decision of. July 27, 2015 – S 48 AS 2399/15 ER
Basic security for job seekers - income consideration - differentiation of current income from one-off income - no exception to the accrual principle or consideration in the following month if only late payment or additional payment of a current income - additional sick pay payment
SG Hannover decides in an expedited procedure: Additional payments of social benefits (in this case sick pay) are not to be viewed as one-off income, but are to be credited in the month of inflow and become assets in the following month if the capital allowance is not exceeded.
Guiding principle (author)
1. The additional payment of sick pay is a current income (based on BSG, judgment of April 24, 2015, B 4 AS 32/14 R).
2. Sickness benefit payments must be defined as ongoing benefits and are therefore only counted as income in the month in which they are received. After that, they are considered assets. This means that asset allowances apply when calculating Hartz IV allocations.
3. It is also irrelevant for the distinction whether the legal relationship on which the payment is based still existed at the time of payment or had already ended (cf. BSG, judgment of April 24, 2015 - B 4 AS 32/ 14 R).
4. Since sick pay is usually a recurring benefit, the one-off additional payment of sick pay is also to be qualified as ongoing income (see also specifically BSG, judgment of December 16, 2008 - B 4 AS 70/07 R with regard to sick pay). ).
Legal tip 1: also for ALG I: SG Duisburg, judgment from April 28, 2014 – S 49 AS 2522/13; SG Augsburg, judgment of June 6, 2014 - S 15 AS 58/14, on widow's pension: SG Augsburg, judgment of March 10, 2015 – S 11 AS 1263/14 – Appeal pending at BAY LSG Ref. L 9 AS 247/15; on backpayment of Polish pension: LSG NRW, decision of. April 1, 2015 - L 19 AS 2233/14 B and currently on additional sick pay - Bay LSG, decision of July 15, 2015 - L 11 AS 389/15 NZB
Legal tip 2: a. A. on back payment of parental allowance: SG Augsburg, judgment of August 21, 2015 - S 8 AS 126/15
S.a. Lawyer brings job center to its knees – victory in social court – verdict could affect many others:
The Bad Nenndorf lawyer Sandra Glitza has fought a new legal claim against the Job Center Schaumburg on behalf of a client. This is about a benefit entitlement for recipients of Hartz IV, which, according to Glitza, can still be asserted retroactively until January 1, 2014.
In the case of the 55-year-old from Bad Nenndorf, the Hanover Social Court has now decided in an expedited procedure in accordance with the case law of the BSG and awarded the client the disputed Hartz IV payments. According to Glitza's assessment, there are likely to be a number of Hartz IV recipients who have corresponding requirements. According to the specialist lawyer, these can be asserted from now on and also retroactively up to January 1, 2014 through an application for review.
According to district social affairs officer Klaus Heimann, the district's job center has changed its practice since August in accordance with the BSG ruling. Previously, in this matter, one dutifully referred to “binding technical information from the Federal Employment Agency”. The BSG's clarification is now very helpful, added the head of the social affairs department.
Source: www.schaumburger-zeitung.de
4.2 – SG Cologne, decision of. September 4, 2015 – S 35 AS 2632/15 ER
10% penalty - reporting date was changed due to illness. Applicant not noticed – constitutionality of sanctions
Guiding principle (author)
1. No urgent legal protection with (only) a 10% sanction.
2. Inability to work claimed by a person entitled to benefits who is fit for work does not in every individual case mean an inability to attend a registration appointment as instructed by the job center due to illness.
3. In the court's opinion, the right to sanction according to Sections 31 ff. SGB II does not violate the provisions of Article 1 of the Basic Law i. A humane minimum subsistence level derived from the welfare state principle (Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law).
4. The fundamental right to a humane subsistence level does not guarantee a claim to a level of performance that is independent of obligations to cooperate and personal activities, with the result that sanctions should in principle be permissible. Accordingly, the constitutionality of the sanction law has not yet been thoroughly questioned in case law (cf. BSG, judgment of April 29, 2015 - B 14 AS 19/14 R; judgment of November 9, 2010 - B 4 AS 27/10 R; LSG NRW, decision of September 9, 2009 - L 7 B 211/09 AS ER).
Legal tip 1: SG Halle (Saale), decision of June 12, 2015 - S 32 AS 1942/15 ER - according to which an interim order can be approved with a 10% penalty.
Legal tip 2: a. A. SG Dresden, judgment of August 10, 2015 - S 20 AS 1507/14 - The concerns expressed by the Gotha Social Court in the decision of May 26, 2015 (S 15 AS 5157/14) about the fundamental constitutionality of the sanction regulations of SGB II are taken into account by the recognizing chamber divided.
Legal tip 3: also SG Halle (Saale), decision by. August 26, 2015 – S 5 AS 2835/15 ER; SG Aachen, resolution of June 16, 2015 - S 14 AS 513/15 ER; SG Leipzig, judgment of June 16, 2015 - S 24 AS 2264/14 and Bay LSG, decision of July 8, 2015 - L 16 AS 381/15 B ER - The Gotha Social Court in the decision of May 26, 2015 (S 15 AS 5157 /14) expressed concerns about the fundamental constitutionality of the sanction regulations of SGB II are not shared (see also judgment of the Bay LSG of March 19, 2014, L 16 AS 383/11, on the previous regulation of § 31 SGB II).
4.3 – Berlin Social Court, decision of July 16, 2015 (ref.: S 175 AS 13627/15 ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. The exclusion norm resulting from Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 1 SGB II does not apply if applicants have moved to Germany for the purpose of family reunification (expressly permitted by the authorities).
2. The legality of the stay for family reunification must be taken into account here, which is why family reunification with a family member living legally in the federal territory with an unclear nationality must also be recognized here.
4.4 – Halle (Saale) Social Court, decision v.
August 26, 2015 - S 5 AS 2835/15 ER Matters according to SGB II (AS), breach of duty, integration agreement, important reason, constitutionality of sanctions
Guiding Principle (Juris)
1. In addition to the determination of a reduction in the payment claim due to a sanction, there is no need for a separate notice of cancellation in accordance with Section 48 SGB X.
2. There is no important reason within the meaning of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II if a further training measure (here: obtaining a driving license) is canceled with the claim that the travel costs incurred cannot be paid if the service provider is obliged to reimburse travel costs under the integration agreement and the beneficiary did not indicate when concluding the integration agreement that they would not be able to cover the travel costs until they were reimbursed.
3. There are no indications that the sanctions provisions of SGB II are unconstitutional. There is no objection if the level of subsistence benefits for employable people is linked to reasonable obligations to cooperate with a view to overcoming the need for help.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.5 – SG Karlsruhe judgment of July 29, 2015, S 17 AS 2154/14
reasonableness of the cost of accommodation; no coherent concept available; housing benefit table; incorrect cost reduction request; Takeover of the actual KdU.
Guidelines (Juris)
Cost reduction measures are unreasonable if the basic social security provider informs the aid recipient of incorrect guidelines in the cost reduction request and the aid recipient therefore cannot find suitable housing.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.6 – Berlin Social Court, court decision dated September 14, 2015 (S 127 AS 32141/12):
Hartz IV couple receives no money for artificial insemination
Guiding principle (court)
The job center is not obliged to grant a couple who receives subsistence benefits (“Hartz IV”) a loan for the costs of artificial insemination. The proportion of costs that the health insurance company does not cover must be covered from your own resources, for example through savings.
Source: Press release from SG Berlin v. September 22, 2015: www.berlin.de
4.7 - SG Aurich, decision of March 18, 2015 - S 55 AS 43/15 ER
Interim legal protection - reduction in unemployment benefit II - failure to register - requirement to provide proof of good cause in the event of illness
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. To prove an important reason within the meaning of Section 32 SGB II for not appearing at a registration appointment, a certificate of incapacity for work is sufficient, in any case in the context of interim legal protection proceedings, without any special circumstances in the individual case.
2. If a qualified certificate of inability to report is required, an express request from the service provider to the beneficiary before illness is required.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Sat: Basic security for job seekers (Hartz IV): Hartz IV sanction despite sick leave - Frankfurt am Main Social Court, judgment of June 11, 2015, Ref.: S 26 AS 795/13
A Hartz IV recipient may, in exceptional cases, have their benefits reduced , if he does not appear at an appointment with the authorities and only presents a sick note, but not the required certificate of incapacity to travel.
Source: sg-frankfurt-justiz.hessen.de
4.8 - SG Aurich, decision of January 16, 2014 - S 55 AS 241/13 ER
Unemployment benefit II - accommodation and heating - inappropriateness of accommodation costs - requirements for demonstrating the lack of a specific accommodation alternative - unsuccessful inclusion in the customer files of several brokerage companies - interim legal protection
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. Regarding the requirements for demonstrating the lack of a specific housing alternative within the framework of Section 22 SGB II.
2. Unsuccessful inclusion in the customer files of several brokerage companies confirms the lack of an alternative accommodation if the service provider cannot show an appropriate apartment in return.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
5. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, resolution of August 27, 2015 (ref.: L 8 SO 177/15.B.ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. A severe food allergy, especially in children, is regularly viewed as a significant physical disability within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB IX in conjunction with Section 53 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB XII.
2. Benefits for the use of an integration assistant for the purpose of attending kindergarten can be claimed using the standard set out in Section 55 Paragraph 2 SGB IX if the provision of a personal assistant for attending kindergarten is suitable and necessary in order to fulfill the special task of the To fulfill integration assistance in accordance with Section 53 Paragraph 3 SGB XII, in particular to enable and facilitate participation in life in the community (Section 53 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 SGB
3. If you are affected by a severe food allergy, it must be clear that constant observation and support by a person who has been trained in the matter is necessary to ensure that you do not come into contact with prohibited foods.
4. Particularly for a disabled child, attending kindergarten represents a significant contribution to early childhood development.
6. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
6.1 – SG Aurich, judgment of March 17, 2015 - S 13 SO 71/10
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. Day and night care within the meaning of Section 54 Paragraph 3 SGB Absences during free time or school time.
2. As a rule, in the case of any mental or physical disability, full-time admission to a disability assistance facility is avoided by being accepted into a foster family within the meaning of Section 54 Paragraph 3 SGB XII.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
6.2 – Aurich Social Court, judgment of February 26, 2014 – S 13 SO 18/13
Social assistance - Integration assistance - Participation in life in the community - Provision of other aids - Motor vehicle assistance - Procurement and conversion of a motor vehicle to suit disabled people - Being dependent on the use of the motor vehicle - Comparison with non-disabled people
Guiding Principle (Juris)
A disabled person is entitled to receive motor vehicle assistance benefits as integration assistance to participate in community life, both for the purchase of the vehicle and for its conversion, provided the conditions are the same. Whether a disabled person is dependent on a motor vehicle within the meaning of the law is determined by comparing them with the possibilities of a non-disabled person. In particular, a comparison must be made with a person in the same life situation without a disability and without receiving social assistance benefits.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
7. LSG Bavaria: Refusal of an inheritance by a recipient of social benefits can be immoral, contrary to the highest court case law on renunciation of inheritance - note by JR Dr.
Wolfgang Litzenburger LSG Bayern, decision by. July 30, 2015 – L 8 SO 146/15 B ER – dejure.org
LSG Bavaria: Refusing an inheritance from a recipient of social benefits can be immoral, contrary to the highest court case law on renunciation of an inheritance
SGB XII § 93; BGB §§ 1942, 2346
1. For the transfer of a claim to be effective in accordance with Section 93 SGB
2. What is important is not whether an entitlement actually exists, but rather that the transfer takes place for a period for which social assistance benefits were actually granted.
3. The standards to be applied when rejecting an inheritance (§ 1942 I BGB) do not necessarily correspond to those of a renunciation of an inheritance.
4. In the case of a legal renunciation of an inheritance (§ 2346 II BGB), the person who renounces usually knows neither how high the inheritance will be nor whether he or she will be socially needy at the time and death of the testator.
5. Waiver and refusal as civil law means of shaping a person in need of help at the expense of the general public are not to be accepted in every case. (Guidelines of the Court)
Source: rsw.beck.de
8. LSG RPF: No offsetting by the BA against legal fees - note from Attorney Martin Schafhausen
To: LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, judgment of May 6, 2015 – L 6 AS 288/13 – dejure.org
LSG Rhineland-Palatinate: The BA does not offset legal fees
SGB X § 63; BGB §§ 389, 387, 257, 249
1. If the objector has not made any payment on the cost invoice of an authorized representative, he can only demand exemption from the authorized representative's fee claim in accordance with Section 63 SGB X, but not payment.
2. In this case, the job center's offsetting of its own payment claims fails due to the assumed similarity of the claims made for offsetting. (author's principles)
Source: rsw.beck.de
9. Handbook for voluntary refugee assistance
You can order the manual here free of charge.
Please note that all currently available copies have already been taken. A reprint is in the works and will be available from mid-October. We ask for your understanding for the longer delivery times.
Order here: www.fluechtlingshilfe-bw.de
Download: The manual as PDF:
Print-optimized version
10. Disenfranchisement by law: Federal government plans comprehensive disintegration program for refugees. (Claudius Voigt, GGUA)
Yesterday the federal government presented a draft law on the so-called “Asylum Process Acceleration Act”. Contrary to its name, it is actually a law preventing integration that cancels out many of the laboriously achieved improvements that only recently came into force. The draft law is a roll backwards, cast in paragraphs - as if the years of discussions about a culture of welcome and paradigm shifts had passed the federal government by without a trace.
Source: ggua.de
11. Overview: Access to SGB II and to employment for foreigners who are third-country nationals depending on the residence status of Claudius Vogt, GGUA
Access to SGB II for foreigners who are third-country nationals, as of August 2015
12. Judge reprimands Dresden job center
Dresden – Anyone who ignores letters or appointment suggestions from the job center can quickly be sanctioned. If, on the other hand, the authority receives mail itself, it apparently sees the deadlines more loosely: even the social court has been waiting in vain for a response from the job center for months. The judge has had enough now...
Next: mopo24.de
13.
SGB
_ The Federal Council had the bill as item 16 on its agenda for the meeting on September 25, 2015. At this meeting, the Federal Council passed a resolution on this [BRatDrs. 344/15 (B)], which expresses requests for changes on other aspects, but not on those dealt with in this article, so it can be assumed that the government draft in this regard will be passed unchanged by the government majority in one of the next sessions of the Bundestag. This means that new regulations will come into force on January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2017, respectively, which will have far-reaching consequences. Because these changes have such serious consequences and it can be assumed that the law...
read more: www.herbertmasslau.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
