1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 17 February 2016 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 17.02.2016 – – B 4 AS 17/15 R
Basic income support for job seekers – consideration and calculation of income – self-employment – no horizontal loss offsetting for income from two businesses
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. When calculating benefits to secure subsistence under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), offsetting profits and losses from two different businesses is not permitted.
2. Under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), a so-called horizontal loss offset is not permitted, i.e., the offsetting of income and expenses – which are to be used as the basis for calculating income – within a single type of income.
3. Likewise, a requirement for horizontal loss compensation cannot be derived from Section 5 of the Alg II-V.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
Schmidt in jurisPK-SGB XII, 2nd ed. 2014, § 10 DVO§82SGBXII Rn 6.2
For the area of SGB II, the Federal Social Court (BSG) has ruled that offsetting income and losses from businesses with different locations is not permitted. The provision of § 5 Alg II-V, which (like § 10 DVO§82SGBXII) according to its wording only excludes vertical loss offsetting, also includes a prohibition on offsetting positive and negative income of the same type. The BSG derives this from the principle of subsidiarity – which also applies in social assistance – that income must first be used to secure subsistence and not to pay off debts (BSG of 17 February 2016 – B 4 AS 17/15 R).
Update from April 6, 2016
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 03.12.2015 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – BSG, Judgment of 03.12.2015 – B 4 AS 49/14 R
Unemployment benefit II – accommodation and heating – owner-occupied house property – consideration of repayment installments within the limits of reasonableness in the present exceptional case – limited reviewability of the findings of the court of first instance
Parallel decision to the BSG judgment of 7 July 2011 – B 14 AS 79/10 R.
The job center must exceptionally cover loan repayments for a home.
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. In exceptional cases, the job center must cover repayment installments for a mortgage and a building society loan.
2. According to Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), needs for accommodation and heating must also be recognized in the case of owner-occupied residential property up to the amount of the actual expenses, provided they are reasonable. According to the case law of both senates of the Federal Social Court (BSG) responsible for basic income support law, these expenses exceptionally also include mortgage repayments if they relate to the maintenance of owner-occupied residential property whose financing is already largely completed at the time of receiving basic income support benefits and the acquisition of the property occurred outside of the period of benefit receipt.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Judgment of 26 February 2016 – L 28 AS 2230/12
Unemployment benefit II – Special needs – Initial furnishing of an apartment – Vocational training – Vocational school – BAföG (Federal Training Assistance Act) – Exclusion from benefits – Subsidy for the costs of accommodation and heating according to § 27 para. 3 SGB II (German Social Code, Book II)
Trainees cannot receive benefits for the initial furnishing of their apartment from the job center.
Principle (Editor):
An apprentice is entitled to the benefits listed in Section 27 Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), but not to the requested initial equipment benefits, Section 24 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB II, which are not covered by the benefits for apprentices in Section 27 SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See also: LSG Hamburg, judgment of 08.07.2014 – L 4 AS 229/13 and LSG Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of 03.03.2011 – L 5 AS 36/09
3.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 16 March 2016 – L 11 AS 112/16 NZB
The appeal was not admitted due to a lack of grounds for admission – Constitutionality of the sanction regulations under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
Principle (Editor):
In its decision (judgment of 29 April 2015 – B 14 AS 19/14 R), the Federal Social Court (BSG) assumed the constitutionality of the sanction regulations, so that the referral decision of the Social Court of Gotha of 26 May 2015 – S 15 AS 5157/14 – is not to be given decisive importance.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See also: Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 27 October 2015 – L 11 AS 561/15 NZB
3.3 – Hamburg Social Court, decision of December 30, 2015 (Case No.: S 24 AS 4480/15 ER), confirmed by the Hamburg Higher Social Court, decision of February 11, 2016 (Case No.: L 4 AS 11/16 B ER):
Principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. The employability of a non-German applicant pursuant to Section 8 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is not precluded by the regulatory authority's refusal to extend the residence permit originally granted pursuant to Section 28 Paragraph 1 of the German Residence Act (AufenthG), as long as the legal fiction effect pursuant to Section 84 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) applies due to the legal remedies raised against this administrative act.
2. A habitual residence in Germany (§ 7 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 4 SGB II in conjunction with § 30 para. 3 sentence 2 SGB I) does not require that an applicant be lawfully and properly registered in Germany. Rather, the actual circumstances of residence are of decisive importance.
3. If, although the extension of a residence permit for a non-German person in need of assistance has been refused, a departure order issued, and deportation threatened, but the enforcement of this decision has been suspended by the regulatory authority, then there is no enforceable obligation to leave the country, which would be necessary for entitlement under Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 5 AsylbLG and a simultaneous exclusion of entitlement under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 3 SGB II.
3.4 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 22 March 2016 – L 19 AS 115/16 B ER – and – L 19 AS 116/16 B – legally binding
No exclusion from benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in the case of a right of residence within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 1, Sentence 2 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU.
Benefit providers may not deny subsistence benefits based on mere assumptions derived from past circumstances if these do not provide clear evidence regarding the claimant's current situation. The simple assumption that further financial resources must be available is insufficient grounds for denying benefits (see Senate decision of April 1, 2014 – L 19 AS 345/14 B ER; North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Social Court decision of January 20, 2010 – L 12 B 97/09 AS ER).
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. The applicants are entitled to the standard allowance pursuant to Section 20 Paragraph 1, 4 SGB II and the social allowance pursuant to Section 23 SGB II.
2. According to Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 Number 1, Sentence 2 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU (FreizügG/EU), employee status acquired through employment within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 2 Number 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU continues for a period of six months in the case of involuntary unemployment confirmed by the competent employment agency after – as in the present case – less than one year of employment, and confers a right of residence. Unemployment is considered involuntary if it occurred independently of the applicant's will, or not due to a reason attributable to their conduct, or is justified by a legitimate reason on their part for terminating the employment relationship (see Lower Saxony-Bremen Higher Social Court, decision of November 11, 2014 – L 8 SO 306/14 B ER).
3. The fact that confirmation of unemployment by the responsible employment agency is not yet available is irrelevant in this respect. According to the guidelines on Section 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (Federal Employment Agency's Technical Instructions on Section 7 SGB II, as of January 20, 2016, loc. cit. 2.4.3, para. 7.11) and on Section 2 para. 3 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU (Section 2.3.1.2 of the General Administrative Regulations on the Freedom of Movement Act/EU), the right of residence under Section 2 para. 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU remains in effect for an employee for the period between the commencement of involuntary unemployment and the confirmation of involuntary unemployment by the employment agency.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.5 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 12 November 2015 – L 6 AS 415/14 – Appeal on points of law is granted
Regarding the question of whether child benefit should be counted as income of the custodial parent in the case of dependent children exceeding half of the child benefit amount
Guiding principle (Editor):
1. According to the principles of child benefit law, parents are entitled to child benefit (§ 62 EStG). Under basic income support law, it is considered income of the child's parents (§ 11 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB II), insofar as the child benefit is not needed to secure the livelihood of the respective child (§ 11 para. 1 sentence 3 SGB II in the version applicable until 31 December 2010 (aF)). Based on the wording of this legal provision, the job center considered the child benefit not needed for the daughter's livelihood as income of the mother.
2. The fact that a daughter entitled to maintenance lives in the household of the mother in need of assistance does not lead to a different assessment. An interpretation of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentences 2 and 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (old version), to the effect that in these cases half of the child benefit, which is considered sufficient to cover maintenance needs under maintenance law, is always allocated to the child and then at most the other half can be considered as income for the mother, is not possible.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.6 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, judgments of 27.01.2016 – L 12 AS 1180/12 and L 12 AS 673/14
LSG North Rhine-Westphalia confirms coherent concept of analysis & concepts for the Aachen city region.
Source: www.analyse-konzepte.de
Full text for L 12 AS 1180/12: dejure.org
3.7 – LSG Thüringen, Judgment of April 2016 – L 7 AS 1540/13
The city of Gera has a coherent concept.
Source: www.analyse-konzepte.de
3.8 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 23 February 2016 – L 9 AS 2108/13
Provision of vehicle use – cost reduction – increased needs due to expensive diet, kidney failure – sole shareholder
Principle (Juris)
1. The provision of a motor vehicle to an employee for use does not constitute income of monetary value for the employee.
2. The profits of a sole shareholder and sole managing director of a one-person limited liability company are to be attributed to him as income from a business operation, even without profit distribution.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – Social Court Hannover, decision of 24 March 2016 – S 70 AS 641/16 ER
Unemployment Benefit II – Accommodation and Heating – Adequacy Assessment – Single-Person Household in Hanover – Lack of a Coherent Concept – Incomprehensible Cap of 33% of the Rent Range for Determining Basic Housing Standards and Lack of Availability Check – Application of the Average Rent Index Value without Further Availability Check – Insufficient Evidence of Own Efforts in Finding Housing – Time of Application of the Average Rent Index Values
Principle (Juris)
1. Although the burden of proof for the concrete availability during the cost reduction period lies with the respondent, the applicant must first demonstrate in which media he searched for housing offers, how he searched for apartments in detail during the cost reduction period and how the landlords contacted reacted.
2. The local market prices determined on the basis of the rent index for the state capital Hanover 2015 for the size categories relevant according to the SGB II can be applied from the reference date of the rent index (April 1, 2014).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.2 – Bremen Social Court, judgment of October 27, 2015 (Case No.: S 28 AS 1545/12):
The Bremen Social Court confirms the rent limits applicable in Bremerhaven within the framework of receiving SGB II benefits ("Hartz IV").
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. A rent index established in accordance with § 558c of the German Civil Code (BGB) constitutes a sufficient data basis that meets the requirements for a conclusive concept for determining the appropriateness of accommodation costs within the meaning of § 22 para. 1 sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), provided that the values resulting therefrom are based on a sufficient number of data obtained from the residential value characteristics of comparable apartments in the municipality concerned or a comparable residential community.
2. It is also justified here to base the determination of the reasonableness limit on the average value of the rent range and not the upper value of the range, if the rent range used in detail covers not only the lower segment of the apartments in the comparison area that are suitable in terms of size, but also apartments up to 80 square meters in size and apartments that correspond to a high standard of living in terms of equipment and location.
3. The appropriateness of a utility bill adjustment can only be determined by considering the costs incurred monthly during the billing period. A claim for reimbursement of the adjustment based on Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is precluded if the eligible persons have already been granted accommodation costs of an appropriate amount throughout the billing period.
Appeal pending before the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, case number L 15 AS 19/16
See also: Press release from the Bremen Social Court dated April 12, 2016
The Bremen Social Court has confirmed the rent limits applicable in Bremerhaven for recipients of SGB II benefits ("Hartz IV"): www.sozialgericht-bremen.de
4.3 – Social Court Halle (Saale), Judgment of 16.02.2016 – S 7 AS 4358/14 – legally binding
Consideration of the preliminary or actual average income in the final decision
Consideration of average income in the final decision on the granting of social benefits
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. After a provisional approval with an average income, the actual average income must first be calculated for the final approval (sentence 2).
2. Secondly, if there is a significant deviation of more than 20 euros per month, this actual average income must be used as the basis for the final approval (sentence 3; cf. Söhngen in Juris-PK SGB II, § 11 para. 66, LSG North Rhine-Westphalia of 31 October 2012 – L 12 AS 691/11 – juris para. 28, LSG Saxony-Anhalt of 30 January 2013 – L 5 AS 487/10; SG Dortmund of 13 July 2015 – S 31 AS 3733/13).
3. The opposing view (cf. Social Court Nordhausen, judgment of September 12, 2013 – S 22 AS 7699/11; Social Court Leipzig, judgment of February 5, 2015 – S 18 AS 2159/11; Social Court Berlin, judgment of March 23, 2015 – S 197 AS 355/12), according to which the described regulations do not provide a legal basis for a final approval based on average values, is unconvincing. According to this view, the wording of Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the Second Book of the Social Code (SGB II) implies that the provision only regulates the case of the practical non-implementation of a change due to its insignificance, but not the implementation in the case of a significant deviation. Consequently, if the difference between the assumed average income and the actual average income exceeds 20 euros, the statutory regulations on the accrual principle would apply.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See also: SG Berlin, judgment of 20 January 2016 – S 100 AS 9940/15 and SG Altenburg, judgment of 25 November 2015 – S 24 AS 145/15 – appeal pending before the Thuringian State Social Court under file number: L 7 AS 82/16
4.4 – SG Gießen, Judgment of 23.02.2016 – S 22 AS 1015/14
Request for information from the job center to the partner of an employable benefit recipient
Guiding principle (Editor):
The partner of an employable person entitled to benefits is not obliged to fill out forms for the job center that are only aimed at those persons who themselves claim benefits to secure their livelihood.
Source: Press release from the Gießen Social Court dated April 14, 2016: www.juris.de
4.5 – Social Court Karlsruhe, Judgment of 23 February 2016 – S 17 AS 2853/15
Additional needs according to § 21 para. 4 SGB II; other assistance to obtain a suitable place in working life; “HöSchBo”; “Impuls”.
Guiding principle (Editor)
: 1. The applicant is entitled to additional needs allowance for disability according to § 21 para. 4 SGB II.
2. The measures “HöSchBo” and “Impuls” can be classified as “other assistance” within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which are listed alongside the benefits under Section 33 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) within this additional needs provision. A causality requirement, in the sense that a measure triggering additional needs under Section 21 Paragraph 4 of the SGB II would only exist if it, even in its abstract design, were specifically tailored to the needs of disabled people, is not applicable (Federal Social Court, Judgment of August 5, 2015 – B 4 AS 9/15 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.6 – Social Court Magdeburg, Judgment of 10 March 2016 – S 14 AS 2455/13
Principle by Attorney Michael Loewy: If
the benefit provider covers the full amount of accommodation costs for the entire benefit period and simultaneously announces in another letter that it intends to reduce the accommodation costs for part of the approved benefit period, it is acting inconsistently. In this case, the benefit recipient can invoke the protection of legitimate expectations under Section 45 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), so that it is entitled to the full amount of accommodation costs for the benefit period already approved. [not yet legally binding]
Source: anwaltskanzlei-loewy.de
4.7 – Berlin Social Court, decision of 02.03.2016 – S 205 AS 1365/16 ER
No social assistance for EU citizens (contrary to the case law of the Federal Social Court).
Principle (Juris)
1. Section 7 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 2 SGB 2 is applicable by analogy to Union citizens without substantive freedom of movement rights (following BSG 3.12.2015 – B 4 AS 44/15 R).
2. Employable Union citizens with a right to freedom of movement for the purpose of seeking employment or without a substantive right to freedom of movement are excluded from social assistance benefits for subsistence pursuant to Section 21 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (contrary to the Federal Social Court ruling of 3 December 2015 – B 4 AS 44/15 R).
3. Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) also excludes claims for social assistance to the proper exercise of discretion (contrary to the Federal Social Court's decision of December 3, 2015 – B 4 AS 44/15 R).
4. Social assistance may not be provided by the social welfare provider as a discretionary benefit pursuant to Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (contrary to the Federal Social Court ruling of December 3, 2015 – B 4 AS 44/15 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 13 April 2016 – L 15 SO 53/16 B ER – legally binding
EU citizens – temporary injunction – social assistance – benefits to secure livelihood – discretionary benefits – right of permanent residence
Polish nationals are entitled to benefits to secure their livelihood in accordance with Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), as a discretionary benefit.
Principle (Juris)
1. In preliminary legal protection proceedings, based on the case law of the Federal Social Court (cf. e.g. B 4 AS 44/15 R) on the question of granting assistance for subsistence under the SGB XII as a discretionary benefit, it must be assumed that there is a claim for an order.
2. In contrast to the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court, it cannot be assumed in every case that discretion is reduced to zero after a stay of at least six months in Germany. The social welfare agency must clarify the circumstances of the individual case and make a discretionary decision.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
6.1 – Social Court Münster, decision of 16.03.2016 – S 15 SO 37/16 ER
No entitlement to social assistance for criminals wanted on an arrest warrant.
Principle (Editor)
1. The conditions for issuing a preliminary injunction were not met.
2. Because existing self-help options – as evidenced by the broad wording “from one’s own strength and resources” and the systematic connection with Section 2 Paragraph 1 SGB XII (principle of subsidiarity) – preclude a claim for assistance in principle without restriction.
3. Here, the applicant can easily secure his livelihood by complying with the summons to begin his prison sentence. This is because, during imprisonment, the needs covered by Section 27a Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) are fully met, especially since prisoners – unlike those in pretrial detention or those detained under Section 126a of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) (see Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, Judgment of May 7, 2012 – L 20 SO 55/12) – are granted a supplementary allowance or the opportunity to earn income.
4. The reference to serving a prison sentence as a means of self-help is also not disproportionate.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See also LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, 30.09.2015 – L 15 SO 103/12 –
6.2 – Social Court Dortmund, judgment of March 15, 2016 (Case No.: S 2 SO 259/15):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. On the granting of integration assistance (§§ 53 ff. SGB XII) in the form of the assumption of costs for a sign language interpreter as an integration assistant for an additional five hours per week of attendance at the rhythmized primary school, namely also the off-peak hours of the care and meal times at this educational institution.
2. This is assistance for appropriate schooling within the meaning of Section 54 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB XII in conjunction with Section 12 EinglHVO.
3. In the model of the rhythmic all-day school, participation in these before- and after-school hours is mandatory for students. A disabled student does not have the option of spending this time elsewhere, as these before- and after-school hours are an integral part of the school's concept, an expression of state-mandated structures, which in any case – even with necessary individual support from the social welfare agency – must not be questioned to the detriment of disabled students.
7. Decisions of the administrative courts in connection with the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
7.1 – Bavarian Administrative Court, decision of July 7, 2015 (Case Nos.: 4 CE 15.1275, 4 CE 15.1421):
Elimination of involuntary homelessness as a disturbance of public safety
Guiding principles of Dr. Manfred Hammel:
1. Whether and to what extent the state of homelessness is attributable to the fault of the homeless person is not to be examined from a security law perspective.
2. A regulatory authority cannot argue that homeless people could apply to the job center for the necessary funds to independently obtain accommodation if the SGB II provider causes difficulties in granting the required benefits.
3. A request for accommodation is not an abuse of rights simply because the applicants lack a secure legal status under immigration law.
4. It is not the task of the regulatory authority to effectively enforce any obligations to leave the country by withholding dignified accommodation, especially when there are no enforceable residence permits.
8. Decisions of the social courts regarding the child supplement
8.1 – SG Osnabrück, Judgment of 10.02.2016 – S 27 BK 6/14
Principle (Juris)
1. There is only one uniform entitlement to child supplement. The amount of the child supplement for individual children is not a severable subject of dispute.
2. If the family benefits office decides in separate notices on the rejection of child supplement for one child and on the child supplement for the rest of the household, these notices form a single unit.
3. Housing benefit must be fully taken into account when determining whether the need for assistance under Section 9 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) can be avoided. If the total needs under Sections 7 et seq. and 19 et seq. of the SGB II are covered by income including housing benefit, then there is no entitlement to child supplement.
4. An average income is not regularly to be calculated when determining child supplement.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
9. Decisions of the social courts on asylum law
9.1 – Bremen Social Court, decision of July 27, 2015 (Case No.: S 15 AY 81/15 R):
Principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. Indigent persons who initially entered the Federal Republic of Germany from Macedonia for a visit, who intended from the outset to stay in Germany for longer than 90 days, and who do not have a valid residence permit, are residing here illegally and are likely to meet the requirements for entitlement to benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 5 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
2. Even in such a case, the minimum subsistence level must be guaranteed at all times, without a short duration of stay or prospect of stay justifying the right to a dignified minimum subsistence level being limited to securing only physical existence.
10. Coalition agrees on integration law.
Coalition Committee.
Merkel: First federal law on integration.
The governing coalition has launched packages of measures on integration and combating terrorism, as well as other legislative proposals. Chancellor Merkel hailed the agreement on an integration law as a major step forward in the refugee debate.
Demanding and supporting: Coalition agrees on integration law
www.sueddeutsche.de
11. The Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act as amended by the Asylum Procedure Acceleration Act (Part 2) by Dr. Dagmar Oppermann
Re: The Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act as amended by the Asylum Procedure Acceleration Act (Part 1)
www.juris.de
Here: The Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act as amended by the Asylum Procedure Acceleration Act (Part 2)
www.juris.de
12. hib No. 202, Wed., April 13, 2016, 7:07 a.m.: Legal simplifications for Hartz IV
Legal simplifications for Hartz IV
Labor and Social Affairs/Draft Law – April 13, 2016
Berlin: (hib/CHE) Basic income support benefits under Book Two of the German Social Code (SGB II) will in future be granted for a full year instead of just six months. With this and numerous other changes, the Federal Government aims to simplify and restructure the regulations of SGB II. In the draft law (18/8041) for a Ninth Act Amending SGB II, which it has now presented, it largely refers to proposals from a joint federal-state working group on simplifying benefit and procedural law.
The new regulations address, among other things, issues of income crediting and benefit principles, advising beneficiaries through specifications of the integration agreement and improved opportunities for educational support.
Recipients of unemployment benefit II (ALG II) or social assistance who are privately or voluntarily insured in the statutory health insurance system will in future receive a subsidy towards this contribution for the duration of their benefit receipt.
The introduction of a so-called overall reasonable rent limit (gross rent including utilities) covers both aspects of accommodation and heating. If a recipient of unemployment benefit II (ALG II) moves to a more expensive, unreasonably priced apartment without prior approval from their responsible agency, only their previous expenses will be reimbursed. This also applies to moves to apartments deemed reasonable. The transfer of cooperative shares through loans is also being redefined. These shares will now be treated as equivalent to a rental deposit.
The provision for preliminary decisions regarding basic income support benefits is being newly introduced. Advance payments and preliminary decisions are being combined into a single regulation. Even with a preliminary decision, the coverage of basic needs must be guaranteed.
Receipts in kind are no longer considered income and are exclusively allocated to the assets of the benefit recipient. Gift vouchers or benefits in kind should therefore generally be exempt from being counted as income.
Furthermore, in the future, trainees will be able to receive supplementary unemployment benefit II (ALG II), taking into account their training allowance and training support. Even without entitlement to training support, ALG II can be applied for. This is intended to make it easier to begin an apprenticeship.
Author of the legal news ticker: Willi 2 from Tacheles – alias Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
