1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of August 26, 2015 - L 4 AS 1023/13 B
Applicant is not entitled to additional nutritional requirements for the disease “gout and malnutrition”.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. In the case of gout, according to the new recommendations of the German Association published on October 1, 2008, only a whole food diet is necessary, which is included in the standard requirements.
2. These recommendations have the character of an orientation aid. As a rule, they can be used to determine additional needs, but do not replace an assessment that may be necessary in individual cases. In particular, they can no longer serve as the basis for a decision if, after investigations, there are indications of a different need situation in individual cases (cf. LSG Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of May 11, 2011, L 5 AS 24/08).
3. Existing underweight (BMI: 17), which is due to malnutrition or malnutrition, should also be counteracted with a complete diet. This also does not cause any additional costs within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 5 SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip: LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of February 20, 2014 - L 4 AS 935/12 NZB - legally binding - No additional requirement for nutrition in intermittent gout and rheumatism - Recommendations of the German Association as a guide; As a result, also on SGB XII: Bay LSG, judgment of August 29, 2013 - L 8 SO 157/10
1.2 - Hessian State Social Court, judgment of November 13, 2015 - L 9 AS 44/15
To reimburse the costs for the initial furnishings of an apartment you purchased yourself (here negative). The applicant did not have legal standing.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The claimant is the individual person and not the community of needs as a legal entity. For this reason, an individual member of the community of needs cannot pursue the claims of all members of the community of needs or the claim of another member of the community of needs with their own lawsuit.
2. The applicant was not authorized to assert the claims of his wife and their children for initial housing benefits. There is no case of standing in court that would give the right to assert a foreign law. In particular, the community of needs according to SGB II is not a case of legal or arbitrary procedural status (BSG, judgment of November 7, 2006 - B 7b AS 10/06 R). A legal legal guardianship for direct relatives cannot be seen in the regulation of Section 73 Paragraph 6 Sentence 3 SGG.
3. A broader interpretation of the lawsuit brought by the plaintiff in his own name in the sense of a lawsuit (also) for his wife and the two minor children is not possible, especially taking into account the principle of most-favored nation.
4. This is not contradicted by the fact that the notices were addressed to the plaintiff.
5. The television purchased by the applicant is not one of the living space-related items. In principle, this need must be met on the basis of the standard need; at best - if it cannot be denied - there can be a claim to the granting of a loan in accordance with Section 24 Paragraph 1 SGB II. The same applies to the TV table purchased, which is used solely to accommodate the television, which is not considered to be an initial apartment item.
6. Equipping an apartment with functional floor coverings with a carpet that only serves the aesthetic purpose (apartment with intact floor coverings throughout - parquet in the living room, carpet in the children's room and bedroom, laminate in the hallway, Tiles in the bathroom – equipped).
7. With regard to the household items purchased, the costs for the dishwasher and a microwave are not to be taken into account, as these are not items that are essential for orderly household management (see LSG Bavaria, decision of May 25, 2009 - L 8 SO 63/ 09 B ER on the dishwasher; VG Arnsberg, decision of May 28, 1991 - 5 K 1746/90 on the microwave in the area of application of the BSHG; OVG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of January 4, 2005 - 16 B 1953/04 on the dishwasher; Hengelhaupt in : Hauck/Noftz, SGB II, § 24 Rn. 296, as of October 2011).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – SG Munich, decision of December 22, 2015 – S 8 AS 2876/15 ER
Integration agreement or integration administrative act - participation cannot be forced, a contribution from Attorney Mathias Klose, Regensburg.
“The regulation of presenting the applicant with alternatives and trying to force him (with the possibility of sanctions) to choose an alternative is not in accordance with SGB II
...
However, when the respondent issued the integration agreement to the applicant through an administrative act, leaving it open led to In the opinion of the court, both alternatives with the (later sanctioned) obligation to choose between these two alternatives actually serve to force the applicant into a “voluntary” consent to the integration agreement (in the form of Alternative I or Alternative II). ”
Consequently, the court then ordered the suspensive effect of the objection to the sanction decision issued, as requested.
Source: Sozialrecht-aktuell.blogspot.de
2.2 – Karlsruhe Social Court, judgment of December 14, 2015 – S 11 AS 1305/15
Basic security for job seekers - claim for compensation due to the need for help being caused by socially unfavorable behavior (but in this case negative) - acceptance of illegal spear times by the Federal Employment Agency - wrongly repealed ALG 1 by the BA - duty of the job center to check - no factual effect of the decision from the Federal Employment Agency
The job center must independently examine the prerequisites for a claim for compensation in the event of socially unfavorable behavior.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. From Section 34 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, the job center has an independent obligation to check whether the recipient of the benefit can be accused of socially unfavorable behavior. A commitment to the decision of the Federal Employment Agency - and thus the lack of independent authority to examine it - would have to be expressly standardized by law - for example as in Section 31 Paragraph 2 No. 3 SGB II.
2. The job center cannot assert its claim for compensation against the person in need of help in accordance with Section 34 SGB II, because the failure to take legal action against the blocking times, some of which were incorrectly determined by the Federal Employment Agency, does not justify the accusation of socially antisocial behavior. In principle, there is no obligation on the part of the benefit recipient to defend themselves against a decision that has been wrongly issued (cf. Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of March 21, 2012, L 16 AS 616/10).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – Karlsruhe Social Court, judgment of December 16, 2015 – S 12 AS 4451/14
Income from self-employment - income adjustment - sales tax collected must be taken into account - additional income tax payment is not a business expense.
Sales taxes to be paid to the tax office in the future cannot be taken into account as business expenses. This only comes into consideration if the submission actually took place during the approval period.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The sales tax collected as business income must also be taken into account, even if this is a continuous item from a purely tax perspective. Even if this has to be handed over to the tax office, it cannot be deducted from income as a business expense.
2. Only sales tax payments actually made during the approval period can be deducted from the self-employed person's income (BSG, judgment of August 22, 2013 - B 14 AS 1/13 R).
3. The additional income tax payment cannot be taken into account as a business expense, because this is not a business-related expense, but rather a personal expense.
4. Furthermore, outstanding debts are not to be deducted from income, because the income should be used primarily to secure one's livelihood.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.4 - SG Karlsruhe, judgment of December 22, 2015 - S 17 AS 3817/14
No assumption of electricity debts if ALGII recipients cause arrears in a socially unfriendly manner.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. Despite the court's advice at the hearing, the applicant made no effort to enter into an installment payment agreement with the previous energy supplier or to conclude a contract with another electricity provider.
2. He also had to accept the argument that his situation was his own fault. The court had doubts that the creation of new electricity debts would be reliably avoided in the future, because the origin of the electricity debts goes back to 2012. The behavior of the AsT. over such a long period of time suggests that payment was accepted or not paid in confidence that the job center would prevent or eliminate the power cut. In such a case of socially unfavorable creation of arrears, granting assistance is not justified.
Source: www.socialcourt-karlsruhe.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 - SG Karlsruhe court decision from November 15, 2015 - S 5 AL 1322/15
vocational training allowance; total requirements; livelihood; travel costs; vocational school lessons; care costs; income of the trainee; approval period; Flat rate for taxes and social security contributions; recognition of parental income; entitlement to maintenance; appropriate deductible; Consumer bankruptcy proceedings
Guiding principle (Juris)
When calculating entitlement to vocational training allowance, the income of the trainee's parents must also be taken into account if consumer insolvency proceedings were opened against their assets before the start of the approval period.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 - SG Karlsruhe judgment of July 20, 2015 - S 5 AL 488/15
Unemployment benefit for continuing vocational training; period of funding; teaching events; Test; duration of claim; maintenance allowance
Guiding principle (Juris)
If an insured person has received unemployment benefit during further vocational training, they are entitled to unemployment benefit for at least another month following the subsidized further training. This additional month begins when the funding period in accordance with Section 81 SGB III ends - regardless of whether an examination is still due after the funded period.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 - Karlsruhe Social Court, decision of December 21, 2015 - S 1 SO 4091/15 ER
Social assistance - interim legal protection - final decision - assumption of electricity debts - entitlement to an order - credible evidence - self-help by changing provider
Social welfare providers do not have to take over electricity debts, even if the applicant and her son have been without electricity since March 2015 - self-help options - no efforts to find other electricity providers - assumption of electricity costs is not justified within the meaning of Section 36 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB XII
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The application for interim legal protection is inadmissible if the job center has already made a final decision rejecting the asserted claim.
2. The recipient of services in accordance with SGB 1442/12 B ER).
3. The applicant made no specific effort to find another electricity provider.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.2 – Karlsruhe Social Court, judgment of December 15, 2015 – S 1 SO 1709/15
Social assistance - Emergency assistance - Reimbursement of costs for inpatient medical treatment - Reimbursement of expenses to the extent required - Application of the remuneration regulations of the GKV - Remuneration of hospital services according to flat rates per case - Limitation of the hospital provider's claim to reimbursement of costs due to the social welfare provider's knowledge of the need for assistance - Reimbursement “pro rata temporis”
Guiding principle (Juris)
If an urgent case ends during the duration of the inpatient hospital treatment, which is paid with a flat rate per case, as a result of the social welfare provider's knowledge of the need for assistance, the hospital provider, as an emergency helper, is only entitled to reimbursement “pro rata temporis” (connection to BSG SozR 4-3500 § 25 No. 5).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.3 – Karlsruhe Social Court, decision of December 3rd, 2015 – S 1 SO 3310/15 December 3rd, 2015
Accommodation costs for a condominium - house money - there is no necessary connection in the case of a loan following the purchase or construction of a property 13 years later - repayment payments - no credit is taken into account. Blind allowance
Neither the monthly interest expenses nor the repayments associated with the repayment of the loan balances are to be taken into account as additional accommodation costs.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. Interest on debts and permanent charges within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Ordinance Implementing Section 82 SGB XII only include interest on loans if they were taken out to acquire or repair the property . If, on the other hand, the loans were not used to purchase or repair the property or condominium, but also for other reasons (e.g. debt restructuring), they cannot be taken into account as accommodation costs.
2. Repayment installments are generally not recognized as expenses for accommodation and heating (cf. BSG SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 78, marginal no. 17 with further references).
3. The benefits according to SGB With regard to the protection of the basic need “housing”, which is also stated in SGB BSG SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 78 and Hess. LSG dated October 29, 2014 – L 6 AS 422/12).
4. This is not the case here.
5. The blind person's allowance does not constitute income to be taken into account within the meaning of Section 82 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB 3151/11).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.4 – Detmold Social Court, judgment of November 3rd, 2015 – S 8 SO 214/13
The social welfare provider must grant the SGB II recipient integration assistance in accordance with SGB and other ways to organize your everyday life privately, such as visiting the university library.
Motor vehicle assistance can also be considered as participation in community life.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The starting point is the wishes of the disabled person (BSG, judgment of February 2nd, 2012, Ref.: B 8 SO 9/10 R and judgment of August 23rd, 2013, Ref.: B 8 SO 24/11 R to Section 9 Paragraph 2 No. 11 Integration Assistance Regulation).
2. The Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), ratified on March 26, 2009, must also be taken into account in the interpretation.
3. In this case, Article 20 of the Convention must be taken into account in particular, according to which the contracting states shall take effective measures to ensure personal mobility with the greatest possible independence for people with disabilities by ensuring the personal mobility of people with disabilities in the manner and manner at the time of their choice and at an affordable cost. Against this background, the concept of being dependent cannot be understood as simply providing basic disability-related security in the sense that only absolutely vital mobility needs are covered. Rather, what is crucial is that the disabled person is enabled to take part in life in the community, taking into account their life situation and their individual wishes, comparable to non-disabled people of the same age.
4. The AsT. She doesn't have to be told that she should visit her parents less often or that they should come visit her.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the state social courts on child allowances according to Section 6a BKGG (BK)
5.1 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, resolution of November 25, 2015 – L 5 BK 2/15 B
Matters according to § 6a BKGG (BK) - Regarding the requirements for the child allowance (there was no entitlement here)
Guiding principle (editor)
1. When checking whether the parents can cover their needs with services outside of SGB II, any housing benefit paid must not be taken into account. The child supplement should only be paid if the parents are not dependent on housing benefit or SGB II benefits to cover their needs (BSG, judgment of May 6, 2010, B 14 KG 1/089 R (14)).
2. The KdU are to be based on the actual costs and not based on the amount taken into account by the service provider (BSG, judgment of March 14, 2012, B 14 KG 1/11 R). Contrary to the principles of SGB II, the KdU are not to be distributed according to head parts between the plaintiff and her son. Rather, they are to be determined as a percentage based on the ratio that results from the corresponding costs for single people, married couples and children determined in the Federal Government's last report on the level of the subsistence minimum for adults and children (BSG, judgment of March 14, 2012, B 14KG 1/11 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. Basic security – Hartz IV rates are worth less today than they were 11 years ago
Although the Hartz IV standard rates were raised slightly at the beginning of the year, Hartz IV recipients still have less money to live on today than when the Hartz system started in 2005. Prices have risen significantly more since 2005 than the Hartz rates . This is shown by a DGB analysis.
Next: www.dgb.de
Analysis-DGB-Hartz-IV-Rules-rates-today-less-worth-than-11-years-ago (PDF, 199 kB)
www.dgb.de
For more information: www.berthold-bronisz.de
ALG II - Standard rates for 2016 incorrectly calculated
Cologne - Many ALGII recipients recently received the new notifications of the standard rate increase for 2016, almost as a Christmas present from the job centers. However, these statements are likely to be entirely wrong.
7. Claims for compensation according to § 34 SGB II - from 2016 punishment paragraph against forced pensioners, a contribution by Herbert Masslau
It is not the author's approach to write an article about changes in the law that have not yet come into force. However, the author believes it is important, especially with regard to the following essay, to provide information to those affected by compulsory retirement in 2016.
It is not clear when the SGB II Law Tightening Act, known as the SGB II Law Simplification Act, will come into force - due to the scheduling of the Bundestag and Bundesrat, this is not expected before April 1, 2016 - and the author does not know the reason for the postponement entry into force planned for January 1, 2016. However, if there are any changes, the following article will be updated accordingly. (Herbert Masslau, January 2, 2016).
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
