1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Social Court, decision of January 8, 2016 - L 8 AS 578/15 B ER
The owner of a house property can also receive unemployment benefit II if it cannot be used or its value does not exceed the capital allowances, even though home ownership is inappropriate according to Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB II.
Note to the court
here: The assumption of the expenses for maintenance and repairs in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II (here to cover the costs of the heating system) is not appropriate in the case of self-occupied residential property within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB II is not excluded if the home ownership cannot be taken into account as assets for other reasons.
1.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of January 25, 2016 – L 7 AS 914/15 B ER
Only the actual existence of a temporary community of needs can trigger a higher claim regarding the costs of the apartment (here negative).
For the children - according to evidence - there is usually only a reduced need for additional living space. It would not be appropriate to apply the standards of consistent communities of need, especially for weekend stays and younger children
Guiding principle (editor)
1. Visiting children only need half the space in a Hartz IV apartment.
2. A temporary community of needs with the daughter would not lead to the adequacy limits for a community of needs of two people being assumed. For a child, only half of the additional living space requirement, here 7.5 of 15 square meters of living space, must be taken into account (see LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, January 4, 2012, L 11 AS 635/11 B ER).
3. In addition, it should be noted that the BSG left it open whether the additional accommodation requirement is to be attributed to the parent or the children (BSG, judgment of June 12, 2013, B 14 AS 50/12 R).
4. Since the higher need for an apartment is ongoing, there is much to be said for granting a higher need to the parent with access rights “according to the specifics of the individual case” in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II instead of to the children who are only present occasionally. The regulation in Section 22b Paragraph 3 No. 2 SGB II also supports this assignment.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.3 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of January 27, 2016 – L 19 AS 29/16 B ER – legally binding
Greek applicants must be granted standard requirements in accordance with Section 20 SGB II - no reason for an order regarding the assumption of the costs for accommodation and heating
Entitlement to basic security benefits for both parents with custody, taking into account the right of residence as a family member of their school-age child
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The exclusion of benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II does not affect the applicants. The applicants have a material right of residence (see on the scope of application of the exclusion of benefits according to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II: BSG, judgment of December 3, 2015 - B 4 AS 44/15 R).
2. The right granted to a child to continue to attend classes in the host Member State under the best possible conditions necessarily also implies the child's right to be cared for by a person who actually has parental responsibility, and as a result, at the same time, that this person is enabled to do so while to live with the child in the Member State concerned during the child's education (cf. ECJ, judgments of February 23, 2010 Ibrahim - C 310/08 - and Teixeira - C-480/08).
3. Therefore, the applicants, as custodial parents who also exercise actual custody, have a right of residence derived from Art. 10 Regulation 492/11 Regulation.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
Also regarding this right of residence are the Senate's resolutions of January 20, 2016 - L 19 AS 1824/15 B ER - and of March 16, 2015 - L 19 AS 275/15 B ER.
1.4 - Saxon State Social Court, decision of January 27, 2016 - L 3 AS 1378/14 NZB - legally binding
On the question of whether the calculation of the amount of the reimbursement claim should be based on the payment amount or on the need for accommodation and heating included in the calculation of the entitlement to unemployment benefit II - Section 40 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB II (appeal permitted here)
Guiding principle (editor)
1. If the reference point for the reduced reimbursement amount according to Section 40 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB II is not the monthly payment amount, but rather the accommodation costs taken into account in the unemployment benefit II calculation, which are more than twice as high, the plaintiff can result in a significant reduction in the reimbursement requirement.
2. According to a view expressed in the commentary literature, the method of calculation preferred by the plaintiff's representative can also lead to no benefits being reimbursed at all (cf. Aubel, in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB II [4th ed., 2015] , § 40 para. 155; Hengelhaupt, in: Hauck/Noftz, SGB II [as of: Supplementary Serial VI/2015, June 2015], § 40 para. 720).
This should be the case if the approved benefits for the need for accommodation amounted to less than 56% of the actual or reasonable need.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
The following decision is pending at the BSG: B 14 AS 31/15 R
Lower court: LSG Celle-Bremen, L 7 AS 643/13 (The decisive factor for the reimbursement restriction according to Section 40 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1SGB 2 is the mathematically taken into account need for Accommodation (§ 22 para. 1 SGB II) and not the payment amount granted - if applicable after deduction of income)
is in the form of a reduction in the case of the limitation of the reimbursement amount to be made in accordance with § 40 para. 2 sentence 1 SGB 2 aF according to § 50 SGB 10 to base 56% of the cost of accommodation on the accommodation requirement taken into account when calculating benefits or on the payment amount after income is taken into account?
1.5 - Saxon State Social Court, judgment of March 12, 2015 - L 3 AS 360/14 - The appeal is permitted.
The crediting of fictitious income is not permitted because the credit from the tax refund was never available to the applicant as ready funds at any time during the distribution period.
Guiding principle (editor)
A tax refund to be taken into account as income is not a ready means of covering one's living expenses if the tax office has made the payment at the request of the employable person in need of assistance to a third-party account that is not accessible to him.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - SG Saarbrücken, judgment of January 29, 2016 - S 16 AS 41/15
Basic security for job seekers - Requirements for the content of an integration agreement - Obligation of those entitled to benefits to provide evidence of their own efforts to the basic security provider - Lack of regulation regarding the assumption of the costs for proof
Guiding principle (editor)
1. If an integration agreement requires the employable person entitled to benefits to provide proof of their own efforts, there must also be a regulation regarding the assumption of the costs for proof of their own efforts.
2. In the judgment of December 6, 2007 in the case B 14/7 b AS 50/06 R, the Federal Social Court stated that this was the legal basis for the assumption in a case that involved the assumption of travel costs for attending a registration appointment These costs come from § 59 SGB III i. V. m. § 309 SGB III and § 16 SGB II i. V. m. § 45 Sentence 2 No. 2, § 46 Para. 2 SGB III in the version valid until December 31, 2008, which is now regulated in § 44 SGB III.
3. These considerations must also be taken into account if the beneficiary is required to provide evidence of their own efforts, as the situation is comparable. Here, too, failure to provide evidence of self-efforts has serious legal consequences through the possible occurrence of sanctions. The request to provide proof of personal efforts is also a request within the meaning of Section 309 SGB III.
4. Therefore, there should have been at least an indication of the possibility of covering the costs. To ensure secure access, sending by registered mail should have been permitted. Taking into account the postage benefits provided for in the standard rate for 2014, no trivial amount can be assumed.
2.2 – Düsseldorf Social Court, court decision dated August 31, 2015 – S 35 AS 257/15
Compensation claims from the job center - sale of condominium during non-receipt of benefits - luxurious lifestyle - expenditure of EUR 3,550 per month
Luxurious lifestyle - expenses of EUR 3,550 per month - of the non-recipient of basic security benefits does not constitute socially antisocial behavior and does not provide any reason to examine a claim for damages according to Section 34 SGB II.
The provision of Section 34 Paragraph 2 SGB II does not oblige citizens who are not in need to divide their assets in such a way that the receipt of social benefits is postponed as far as possible.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The provision must be interpreted constitutionally, taking into account the fact that there is a legal right to subsistence and needs-based benefits, which regularly exists regardless of the cause of the emergency that has arisen and any reprehensible behavior in the past (cf. Federal Constitutional Court decision v. May 12, 2005 - 1 BvR 569/05 - Berlin/Brandenburg State Social Court, judgment of March 4, 2014, Ref. L 29 AS 814/11). In addition, the provision must also be interpreted taking into account Article 2 of the Basic Law, according to which the general freedom of action may only be restricted by a corresponding law.
2. The provision of Section 34 Paragraph 2 SGB II does not oblige non-needy citizens to divide their assets in such a way that the receipt of social benefits is postponed as far as possible. This would mean that the provisions of SGB II would apply not only to those in need, but also to large parts of the population who do not fall under the provisions of SGB II and are not in need. Such a broad interpretation of SGB II is in any case incompatible with Article 2 of the Basic Law.
3. Furthermore, even if one were to assume that spending EUR 3,550 per month would correspond to a “luxurious lifestyle”, this alone would not fulfill the internal connection between the granting of social benefits and the fact of neediness caused at least through gross negligence. There is no internal connection between the plaintiff's behavior and the creation of need.
2.3 - SG Berlin, judgment of August 7, 2015 - S 149 AS 24707/14 - NZB pending at the LSG BB under the ref.: L 32 AS 2255/15 NZB
Lack of legal basis for presenting a so-called certificate of incapacity to travel - 4 missed reporting appointments - 40% sanction legal - Lack of meaningful reports from the doctor
If you miss 4 reporting dates without an important reason, you will receive a 40% penalty
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. In order to affirm an important reason within the meaning of Section 32 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II for a failure to report (Section 32 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II), sufficient proof is required that the inability to work reported to the job center at the same time an illness-related inability to be present at a registration appointment.
2. Presenting a certificate of incapacity for work is not always sufficient to objectively justify absence from a registration appointment, especially if the job center only intends to hold an interview in this context.
3. Meaningful medical reports are required, which provide expert statements on the type and severity of the illness as well as its effects on the mobility and resilience of an Alg II recipient.
2.4 – Berlin Social Court, judgment of January 27, 2016 – S 82 AS 17604/14
Guiding Principle (Juris)
1. Higher costs for accommodation and heating that a person entitled to access incurs as a result of the child's stay in their apartment as part of a temporary community of needs are only permitted in accordance with Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law in accordance with Section 38 of the SGB 2 must be taken into account by the basic security provider if the access rights result from a parental relationship based on descent or simple legal assignment. It makes no difference to the need for protection of parental rights vis-à-vis the state whether the parents are of the same or different genders.
2. Purely social parenthood is not in itself a sufficient prerequisite for constitutional parenthood. Family ties through a social parental role are only taken into account through the family protection of Article 6 Para. 1 GG. However, Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law does not oblige the legislature to precisely trace the family communities actually found and to reflect them in social law claims. This also applies to access rights in accordance with Section 1685 of the German Civil Code (BGB). This cannot be inferred to mean a significantly more prominent status that requires special financial support compared to other basic security recipients. The situation of a merely social reference and confidant without legal or biological parental status differs significantly from the situation of a parent living separately from the child.
3. If particularly frequent and long visiting contacts are necessary for reasons of the child's well-being, it would not be a special situation of the social parent that would be causal, but rather an atypical situation of the child. Accordingly, any special costs incurred would also have to be allocated to the child, but could not lead to a higher individual claim for the merely social parent.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.5 – Berlin Social Court, judgment of January 21, 2016 – S 26 AS 26515/13
Basic security for job seekers - exclusion of benefits for those entitled to benefits according to § 1 AsylbLG - - standard requirements for single parents for the spouse
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. Even for periods after the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 18, 2012 (Az: 1 BvL 10/10, 1 BvL 2/11), an employable person in need of assistance who receives benefits to secure a living in accordance with SGB 2 and lives in a community of needs with someone entitled to benefits according to Section 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act, is initially still entitled to unemployment benefit II, taking into account the standard requirement from Section 20 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB 2. An analogous application of Section 20 Paragraph 4 SGB 2 is not justified in these cases.
2. A different assessment should only be considered if and to the extent that the application of the single parent standard needs rate from Section 20 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB 2 in a mixed community of needs leads to a better situation compared to the case regulated in Section 20 Paragraph 4 SGB 2, because in this way the partners together have more than 180 percent of the standard requirement rate from Section 20 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB 2 available (here: not the case).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
Likewise: Dortmund Social Court, decision of February 5, 2014 - S 32 AS 5467/13 ER
2.6 – Leipzig Social Court, judgment of September 24, 2015 – S 25 AS 2228/14
In particular to answer the question of whether and under what conditions a comparison area differentiation based on rent-determining factors satisfies the requirements of supreme court case law for a coherent concept (affirmative).
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The concept is based on a comprehensible and unobjectionable determination of the comparison area.
2. There is currently no BSG case law regarding the formation of the comparison area across the entire district. According to the resolution of June 5, 2014 - B 4 AS 349/13 B, the entire district is in any case not excluded as a comparison area.
3. The relevant comparison area when determining the appropriate rent is the spatial area of the entire district of Northern Saxony.
4. The concept presented is coherent in the sense of the case law of the Federal Social Court.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 - State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of February 1, 2016 - L 20 SO 517/15 B ER - legally binding
Examination of earning capacity - conflict of responsibility between the service provider according to SGB XII and the job center with regard to the provision of basic security -
The applicant's ability to work - which excludes benefits under SGB
The social welfare provider must provide benefits for the applicant in accordance with Chapter 3 of SGB XII, because the SGB
Note Court
1. Even if the SGB II provider were obliged to provide seamless benefits beyond the wording of Section 44a SGB II even without the existence of a contradiction, if it assumes that there is no ability to work, but the responsibility does not correspond to that according to it In any case, this cannot apply if - as here - the SGB II provider is denied clarification with the SGB XII provider in advance because, on the one hand, the person in need of help has not given the necessary data protection consent, and on the other hand, the SGB
2. In this respect, it should be taken into account that the “acceleration requirement” regulated in Section 17 Paragraph 1 No. 1 SGB I also includes the rapid clarification of responsibility between two social service providers. The SGB II service provider also has a legitimate interest in this; because, in accordance with Section 44a Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 SGB II, his claim for reimbursement against the social welfare agency only begins on the day of the objection from the social welfare agency. In any case, the service providers are obliged to work closely together when carrying out their tasks (see Section 86 SGB X).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Detmold Social Court, decision of November 5th, 2015 – S 2 SO 340/15 ER – legally binding
Entitlement to the granting of cooperative shares as a loan
Guiding principle (editor)
Just as the right to repayment of the usual rental deposit can be assigned to the office that grants the service, this also applies to the right to repayment with regard to the cooperative shares. According to the case law of the LSG NRW, cooperative shares are the same as rental deposits (cf. LSG NRW dated April 26, 2007 on file number L 9 SO 25/06).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip on SGB II:
The following legal question is pending before the BSG: B 4 AS 24/15 R
Lower court: LSG Essen, L 7 AS 1451/14
If the costs for cooperative shares that must be purchased when renting new accommodation are housing acquisition costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 SGB 2 or expenses comparable to a rental deposit, which apply accordingly to Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 3 SGB 2 should only be taken over as a loan?
4.2 – Fulda Social Court, decision of January 28, 2016 – S 7 SO 55/15 ER
District has to pay costs for help with meals in kindergarten
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. If a disabled child requires constant supervision at mealtimes due to a congenital disease (here: malformation of the trachea and esophagus), the costs for the necessary personal assistance of the child while attending kindergarten are covered by the integration assistance services for disabled people according to the sixth chapter of SGB XII and not the benefits of statutory nursing care insurance.
2. Integration assistance services for disabled people according to SGB XII are not subordinate to nursing care insurance (Section 13 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 SGB The disabled child cannot therefore be asked to claim the care allowance granted by the care insurance fund in full or in part to cover the costs of personal assistance.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Sa: District has to pay costs for help with meals in kindergarten: osthessen-news.de
5. Hartz also gets the most out of it - those affected should reimburse benefits if they have one? Don't accept the job
It should be the big deal: anyone who refuses to accept a job offer or is fired in the future will have to prepare for long-term and consequential reductions in the standard rate.
Next: www.neues-deutschland.de
Bernd Eckhardt, Nuremberg, Social Pedagogical Advice in Social Law Justament 1/2016, p. 24 – www.socialrecht-justament.de
In the future, not only the creation of the need for help, but also the maintenance or failure to reduce it should be socially unfriendly (Section 34).
To a certain extent, the new regulation provides the central programmatic legal norm of Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 with a legal consequence. Section 2 of SGB II states that those in need of help must do everything possible to reduce their need for help. To date, the sanctions paragraph has represented the only specification and restriction of this programmatic demand. The legislature has so far seen it explicitly in the justification for the law.
The delimitation of § 34 SGB II now makes any action that does not reduce the need for help, at least in principle, sanctionable as socially unfriendly action. The following examples are given in the justification for the law, which now lead to a claim for compensation:
These include, among other things, cases in which employment that does not meet the needs is given up without an important reason while receiving benefits (the increased benefit payments can be asserted as a claim for reimbursement), in which employment is rejected without an important reason and the need for assistance is thereby maintained, or in which the Switching to a more favorable tax bracket is refused.
The authors of the bill are apparently not aware of the practical consequences of the reformulation and its political reach. The revised Section 34 SGB II consolidates a totalitarian activation postulate. In addition to the sanctions according to Section 31 SGB II, a claim for compensation - i.e. whether gross negligence or even intent is to be accused - would now always have to be examined if the need for help was not reduced through behavior.
The new Section 34 SGB II doubles the sanction options, so to speak. It remains completely unclear how the increased benefit payments should be calculated. The problem of permanent under-coverage of needs is significantly exacerbated by the new Section 34 SGB II, as these compensation claims can be offset against the benefit entitlement at 30% of the standard requirement.
6. Hartz IV: Early integration agreements do not always help - IAB study
Early integration agreements do not always help
Integration agreements document both the employment agencies' support activities in the job search and the job seekers' own efforts. Your degree is required by law. A team of researchers from the Institute for Labor Market and Occupational Research (IAB) and the University of Mannheim examined whether concluding the integration agreement as early as possible improves employment opportunities. The result is: in some cases yes, but not always.
In particular, male unemployed people in need of support, for example who require further training to improve their chances on the labor market, benefit from early conclusion of integration agreements. You will be able to get back to work more quickly if the integration agreement is concluded as early as possible and not after six months of unemployment.
However, an early integration agreement is not helpful for men who have very good chances on the labor market from the outset, but also for men who are unlikely to start work within a year due to several placement barriers. For women looking for work, the timing generally plays little role.
Based on the research results, the Federal Employment Agency has made the previous regulation of concluding integration agreements with all unemployed people before unemployment occurs or shortly afterwards more flexible.
The IAB study is available on the Internet at doku.iab.de.
Source: Press release from the Institute for Labor Market and Occupational Research from February 9, 2016 www.iab.de
7. Unemployed people get money as a gift Flood of lawsuits is supposed to revolutionize Hartz IV
You cannot live on less than 404 euros a month. The legislature calls this the “subsistence minimum” and has therefore set the Hartz IV standard rate at exactly this 404 euros. Nevertheless, around five percent of all unemployed people have to live with less because the job center reduces their benefits - for example for a missed appointment. This is not compatible with the Basic Law, says the new initiative “sanktionsfrei.de”. She wants to trigger a flood of lawsuits and lures the unemployed with gifts of money.
by Ludwig Bundscherer, MDR INFO
further: www.mdr.de
Author of the case law ticker: Willi 2 von Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
