1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of 04/06/2016 – L 11 AS 355/15
Women's shelter - claim for reimbursement of costs according to Section 36a SGB II
An actual stay that has been established in the meantime does not change the reimbursement obligation.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The claim for reimbursement of costs according to § 36a SGB II presupposes that a change in the local responsibility of the municipal authorities occurs due to the woman entitled to benefits fleeing from her previous usual place of residence to a women's shelter, with the municipal provider at the place of her previous usual residence outside a women's shelter (community of origin) is obliged to reimburse, the municipality in whose local area of responsibility in accordance with Section 36 SGB II the women's shelter is located (receiving municipality) is entitled to reimbursement (cf. BSG, judgment of May 23, 2012 - B 14 AS 190/11 R) .
2. The continued existence of the obligation to reimburse can essentially only be derived from the regulatory context and the meaning and purpose of the provision, which, however, suggests that at least a short-term, interim actual stay in another place alone can justify the obligation to reimburse resulting from Section 36a SGB II the municipality of origin cannot be omitted, as the defendant recently assumed. An actual stay that has been established in the meantime does not change the reimbursement obligation.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision v. April 21, 2016 – L 11 AS 174/16 B PKH
Granting of legal aid
Guiding principle (editor)
Because back pay is current income that cannot be divided over 6 months.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision v. 04/21/2016 – L 7 AS 160/16 B ER
In the expedited procedure, no living benefits according to SGB
Guiding principle (editor)
1. Although in the main proceedings against a refusal decision, with a few exceptions, only an action for annulment is available, in interim legal protection it is generally possible to provisionally award benefits (cf. LSG Bayern, decision of October 13, 2007, L 7 B 572/ 07 AS ER and LSG Bayern resolution of October 13, 2008, L 11 B 808/08 AS ER).
2. This applies in the event that the refusal notice cannot be enforced due to suspensive effect. The administrative procedure then largely corresponds to the situation when no decision has yet been made on the matter. A two-stage examination is therefore regularly required (first suspensive effect of the refusal notice, then interim order).
3. A refusal notice issued in the area of SGB This only needs to be established separately in the operative part of the expedited proceedings if the authority denies this.
4. However, there is a lack of timely objection here.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.4 – LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, judgment of. March 16, 2016 – L 6 AS 403/14
No additional need due to expensive nutrition for lactose intolerance
Guiding principle (editor)
A recipient of unemployment benefit II with lactose intolerance is able to eat a lactose-free diet without incurring additional costs due to illness compared to a healthy person.
Source: Press release from LSG Mainz 11/2016 v. May 11, 2016: www2.mjv.rlp.de
Guiding principle (Juris)
An additional need for expensive nutrition is not considered if an expert opinion that takes individual illness-related limitations into account shows that a diet with fresh (not industrially processed) products is sufficient to ensure a balanced diet.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.5 – Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, judgment of April 27, 2016 – L 6 AS 303/15
School supplies for VHS courses to prepare for secondary school graduation
The LSG Mainz has decided that recipients of basic security benefits for job seekers (“Hartz IV”) can also have school requirements for an adult education center course aimed at preparing for the acquisition of a secondary school leaving certificate.
In the opinion of the State Social Court, the plaintiff has no right to reimbursement of school fees, since such a need is not provided for within the scope of the educational needs conclusively listed in the law. However, he would at least be entitled to be provided with personal school supplies as long as he attended the day course. In this respect, a claim can be derived from the meaning and purpose of the regulation, namely to create the material basis for equal opportunities through educational and participation services and to contribute to overcoming the need for help and to future educational opportunities.
Source: LSG Mainz press release No. 13/2016 v. May 12, 2016: www2.mjv.rlp.de
For the full text: Sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
In addition, the guiding principle from (Juris)
1. A claim to personal school supplies also comes into consideration if a student is preparing to acquire the secondary school certificate in a day course at the adult education center (VHS).
This also involves attending a general education school within the meaning of Section 28 Paragraph 1 SGB II. 2. However, the basic social security provider is not obliged to pay school fees. The services for educational needs listed in Section 28 Paragraphs 2 to 6 SGB II do not provide for such a service. A claim under Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II does not exist due to a lack of inevitability, as all students can obtain secondary school leaving certificate free of charge as part of general school attendance.
1.6 - LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, decision of May 9, 2016 - L 6 AS 181/16 B ER
Integration agreement unlawful because there were no necessary preliminary negotiations between those involved - obligation to take up a job opportunity according to Section 16d SGB II
The issuance of an administrative act replacing an integration agreement should only have been issued after renewed negotiations.
According to the wording of the law, an assignment without a corresponding check in order to then check, so to speak, within the scope of the work opportunity, “how the person entitled to benefits performs” is not permitted (but SG Koblenz, decision of February 20, 2015 - S 6 AS 52/15 ER, the decision was repealed by the 3rd Senate of the LSG Rhineland-Palatinate for other reasons, see decision of April 28, 2015 - L 3 AS 99/15 B).
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. It is doubtful whether an administrative integration act issued in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II is legal if the obligation to take up a job opportunity in accordance with Section 16d SGB II is regulated in more detail in this order by the job center with the requirement to create a Day-structured employment is justified, but the applicant is already self-employed and has a day-structured job.
2. The purpose of the work opportunity is solely to integrate you into work. At this point, it is not enough to justify the assignment to a job opportunity by saying that the beneficiary could not be placed in a job that would prevent the need for help over a longer period of time.
3. Before making a corresponding assignment, the job center must check whether the lack of employability is actually due to subjective barriers to placement and is not based on the labor market situation.
4. An assignment without such an examination, so that “how the beneficiary is doing” can be examined within the scope of the work opportunity, is already according to the wording of Section 16d SGB II (“...maintenance or restoration of employability, which is necessary for integration into work.” is necessary…”) is not permitted.
5. The wording of the law and the genesis of Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II predominantly indicate that an administrative act replacing the integration agreement (Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II) can only be considered if the SGB II provider first approves the has attempted to conclude a corresponding agreement with the applicant or, in individual cases, there are special reasons that make the conclusion of such an agreement inappropriate.
6. Fundamental changes to an integration agreement must always be submitted to the applicant in writing by the job center in advance and the applicant must be given the opportunity to review them - if necessary also by an authorized representative.
Legal tip: Cologne Social Court, decision of December 7, 2015 (ref.: S 37 AS 3523/15 ER):
Obligation to negotiate before replacement by EC-VA
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel: 1. Before issuing an administrative integration act (Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II), a job center must always attempt to reach a consensual integration agreement with the Alg II recipient (Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II). to complete.
2. An exception is only justifiable here if there are special reasons in the individual case that make the conclusion of an integration agreement inappropriate, which must be explained in detail in the administrative act issued in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II.
3. The burden of proof for the attempt made by the SGB II provider to initially work towards the conclusion of an integration agreement lies with the job center.
1.7 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, judgment of 02/25/2016 – L 37 SF 360/13 EK AS
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. The PKH approval procedure does not constitute a separate legal procedure within the meaning of Section 198 Paragraph 6 No. 1 GVG, in any case in social court proceedings that do not require court costs.
2. If an appeal is made against a negative PKH decision by the State Social Court during the pending first-instance proceedings, the preparation and reflection period to which the Social Court is entitled, which is generally twelve months, is regularly extended by at least three months.
3. If the plaintiff makes excessive use of a jurisdiction, if not for unrelated purposes, the twelve months of preparation and reflection time regularly available to the courts can be extended (here: to 18 months for each instance).
4. Since the point of reference for the duration of the proceedings in accordance with Section 198 Paragraph 6 No. 1 GVG is the legal proceedings as a whole, it is possible to transfer preparation and reflection time not used in one factual instance to the other.
5. The number of proceedings conducted by a plaintiff, the respective subject matter of the dispute and the manner in which the proceedings are conducted can lead to the conclusion that, in the absence of psychological harm, no compensable non-material disadvantage has occurred.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.8 – LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, judgment of. September 29, 2015 – L 11 AS 1380/13 – Appeal pending at the BSG under Ref.: B 4 AS 6/16 R
Unemployment benefit II - application for review after ceasing to receive benefits - accommodation and heating benefits - continued need for help is not an unwritten criterion
Can a person no longer entitled to benefits after their need for help has ceased to claim additional payments for periods of benefit receipt through applications in accordance with Section 44 SGB 10? (affirmative)
Guiding principle (Juris)
The review of an administrative act that has become final in accordance with Section 44 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB 10 (here with regard to the benefits for accommodation and heating in accordance with Section 22 SGB 2) takes place regardless of whether the applicant is still receiving benefits in accordance with the SGB 2 is located.
1.9 – LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, decision of October 15, 2015 (ref.: L 6 AS1100/15):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. In the basic security benefit law for job seekers, the needs of even a minor child must initially be covered from existing assets (§ 12 SGB II).
2. The state benefits of both child benefit and basic security for job seekers both serve to guarantee a humane minimum subsistence level, which is not violated by the full crediting of child benefit in accordance with Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 SGB II.
1. 10. SGB II: Contributions for motor vehicle liability insurance deductible from income - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of November 27th, 2015 - L 11 AS 941/13 - legally binding
The LSG Celle-Bremen has decided that motor vehicle liability insurance from income of a basic security recipient must be deducted even if he is only the owner of the vehicle.
Source: Press release from LSG Celle-Bremen No. 10/2016 v. May 12, 2016: www.landessocialgericht.niedersachsen.de
1.11 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision v. April 21, 2016 – L 6 AS 389/16 B ER legally binding
Greek citizens are entitled to assistance with living expenses according to SGB XII.
Guiding principle (editor)
In the proceedings for the granting of interim legal protection, the Senate considers it necessary, on the basis of a consideration of the consequences, to oblige the party invited to provide provisional services in accordance with SGB 15 B ER; op .2016 - L 9 AS 1335/15 B ER; LSG North Rhine-Westphalia resolution of March 7, 2016 - L 12 SO 79/16 B-).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.12 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of 04/11/2016 – L 19 AS 555/15
Romanian citizens are entitled to assistance with living expenses without benefits for accommodation and heating in accordance with the third chapter of SGB XII
Guiding principle (editor)
The applicant is entitled to assistance with living expenses as a discretionary benefit in accordance with Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB /15 R -, B 4 AS 43/15 R - and from January 20, 2016 - B 14 AS 35/15 R - ; aA LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision from January 22, 2016 - L 29 AS 20/16 B ER -; LSG Rhineland-Palatinate - L 3 AS 668/15 B ER -; LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, resolution of February 22, 2016 - L 9 AS 1335/15 B ER -; LSG NRW, resolution of March 7, 2016 - L 12 SO 79/ 16 B ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.13 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of May 21, 2016 – L 6 AS 532/14
Basic security for job seekers - Income consideration and calculation - Compensation for voluntary work as a carer - No income earmarked according to public law regulations - Annual payment in the form of a lump sum - Deduction of the monthly allowance only once in the inflow or following month
Compensation for expenses from voluntary work as a carer (§ 1835a BGB) is creditable income that must be taken into account on a monthly basis.
Appeal pending at the BSG under Ref.: B 4 AS 9/16 R
When paying reimbursement of expenses in accordance with Section 1835a BGB (annual flat rate), is the one-off income to be spread over several months as an exception?
Guiding principle (editor)
1. Expense allowances for carers (§ 1835a BGB) are - not - earmarked income that is excluded from being taken into account as income.
2. The expense allowance according to §§ 1908i Paragraph 1 Sentence 1, 1835a Paragraph 1, 1835 Paragraph 1 BGB is not granted with an express purpose, since no further purpose emerges from either the wording of the regulation or the justification for the law .
3. Section 1835a of the German Civil Code (BGB) is intended to save volunteers the trouble of documenting and accounting for even minor expenses. The provision therefore serves solely to compensate for the expenses incurred for the purpose of providing care. No other purpose than the general compensation of expenses, such as the recognition of voluntary work, can be identified (see also Schmidt in: Eicher, SGB II, 3rd edition 2013, § 11a Rn. 19).
4. In view of the wording, according to which an amount of EUR 200.00 is to be taken into account “monthly”, there is no room for an interpretation in favor of an annual allowance. If the legislature had wanted to create an annual allowance for the benefit of volunteers, the regulation in Section 11b Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 SGB II would have been unnecessary.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
a. A. Dortmund, judgment of April 30, 2015 (ref.: S 30 AS 986/13) and SG Cottbus, judgment of August 20, 2014 - S 2 AS 3428/12
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - SG Berlin, judgment of February 15, 2016 - S 27 AS 3369/14
On the assumption of additional operating costs and the amount of the hot water surcharge, a contribution from Attorney Kay Füßlein, Berlin
As a rule, the JobCenters do not cover additional operating costs if the rent has been limited to what is “appropriate”, that is, if the rent has been reduced.
This is not always correct.
According to the opinion of the SG Berlin (judgment of August 26, 2015 - S 142 AS 3780/14), additional operating costs must be claimed despite a reduction in rent during the billing period if the JobCenter has granted adequate accommodation and heating requirements that are too low and exceed the actual accommodation costs Residual adequacy remains.
With its judgment of February 15, 2016 - S 27 AS 3369/14, the SG Berlin once again confirmed this opinion (legally binding).
The calculation is roughly as follows: The advance payments taken over by the JobCenter must be compared with those that should actually have been taken over. The remaining “remainder” must be taken over.
Furthermore, according to the ruling, the hot water tanks must be calculated differently. According to this, the heating level should not be taken into account, but rather the values stated in the Berlin operating cost overview.
This means that the 27th chamber agrees with the view of the 126th chamber (see: Calculation of hot water costs and the impossibility of moving).
Judgment of the SG Berlin from February 15, 2016 - S 27 AS 3369/14: www.ra-fuesslein.de
2.2 – Berlin Social Court, court decision dated April 14, 2016 (ref.: S 130 AS 29169/14):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. When assessing the question of whether there is single parenthood within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 3 SGB II, the actual circumstances must be taken into account.
2. Additional needs due to single parenting must be taken into account in full if the parent entitled to benefits is not supported by the other parent, partner or another person during the care period to an extent that justifies sustained relief from the care burden and raising the child.
3. Such a case occurs if the common child only regularly stays with the father for a total of eight days a month since the parents separated. This does not provide any lasting relief for the child's mother.
4. In such circumstances, the parent who is not supported sustainably by the other - e.g. B. by taking on approximately half of the care of the shared child for longer periods of time - the parenting tasks are relieved, you are entitled to the recognition of an undiminished additional need in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 3 SGB II.
2.3 – Berlin Social Court, judgment of April 18, 2016 – S 135 AS 3966/12
According to the case law of the Federal Social Court, in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II, Union citizens excluded from benefits under SGB II may have a claim under SGB XII (see BSG, judgments of December 3, 2015, Ref: B 4 AS 59/13 R, B 4 AS 43/15 R, B 4 AS 44/15 R, dated December 16, 2015, B 14 AS 15/14 R, B 14 AS 18/14 R, B 14 AS 33/ 14 R, dated January 20, 2016 B 14 As 15/15 R, B 14 AS 35/15 R).
However, the chamber does not follow this case law.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. According to § 21 sentence 1 SGB XII, those who are able to work are excluded from receiving benefits according to SGB
2. The Chamber is convinced that the legal obligation under Article 20 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law prevents it from interpreting the exclusion of benefits under Section 21 Sentence 1 SGB XII in such a way that an employable person in need of assistance can receive benefits under SGB SG Dortmund, decision of February 11, 2016, Az: S 35 AS 5396/15 ER, LSG Rheinland-Pfalz, decision of February 11, 2016, L 3 AS 668/15 B ER, SG Berlin, decision of February 23, 2016 , S 95 SO 146/16 ER; decision of February 22, 2016, S 95 SO 3345/15 ER, SG Berlin, judgment of December 11, 2015, S 149 AS 7191/13, LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of December 22. January 2016, L 29 AS 20/16 B ER, LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, decision of February 22, 2016, L 9 AS 1335/15 B ER, decision of March 7, 2016, L 15 AS 185/15 B ER, LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of March 7, 2016, L 12 SO 79/16 B ER; aA SG Berlin, decision of January 4, 2016, S 128 AS 25271/15 ER).
3. Unlike the Federal Social Court (BSG, judgment of December 3, 2015, B 4 AS 44/15 R), the Chamber does not assume that the regulated exclusion of benefits constitutes an interference with Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Art. 20 Paragraph 1 GG is given.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.4 – Berlin Social Court, decision v. December 22, 2015 – S 96 AS 20946/15 ER – legally binding
In principle, the beneficiary can only use the condominium if he or she uses the apartment alone or with relatives. However, due to the special constellation of the present case, “own” use is also to be affirmed if a member of the community of needs who lives separately lives in the apartment.
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. A condominium within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB 2 is generally self-used if the beneficiary lives in it alone or with relatives. However, the connection of the spouses to a community of needs relevant to basic security law makes it necessary in certain constellations to interpret Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB 2 in such a way that a “self-used” condominium is also one that is used spatially by the spouse without the desire to separate separated spouse lives as a member of the community of needs.
2. The extension of the protection of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB 2 must apply in particular if the spouse contributes to covering the living expenses of the other members of the community of needs and his or her income is deducted from the needs of the other members .
3. The protection of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB 2 already takes effect before the spouse moves in if it is certain that they will move in in the near future. The other spouse cannot be required to sell the apartment that they solely own if it is certain that the spouse will move in there in the foreseeable future.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.5 – SG Berlin, decision by. April 25, 2016 – S 167 AS 4707/16 ER, nv
Suspensive effect of the objection to the administrative act replacing the integration agreement - obligation to provide evidence of at least six application efforts per month - no regulation to cover the applicant's costs associated with the application efforts
The complete lack of a cost regulation for application costs makes the administrative act illegal
Guiding principle (editor)
1. There are no concerns regarding the obligation to make at least six application efforts per month and to provide evidence of these on the 1st of each month, as there is no unreasonableness in this regard. The obligation to submit appropriate evidence results from the general obligation of the person concerned to cooperate in presenting all the facts necessary for a decision by the service provider, Section 60 SGB I (cf. on this and on the appropriateness of eight application efforts per month, State Social Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 12 June 2013 – L 7 AS 40/13 B).
2. However, the job center has not included any provision for covering the applicant's costs associated with the application efforts.
3. Similar to how the person in need of help's own efforts are to be specified in accordance with Section 15 Para. 1 No. 1 SGB II must be designated in a binding and concrete manner (SG Aachen, decision of August 5, 2015 - S 14 AS 702/15 ER -, Rn. 31). In this respect, it is not sufficient if the employable person in need of assistance is obliged to provide evidence of specific, bindingly determined applications, but the related financing regulations remain vague.
4. In the present case, the regulation on reimbursement of costs remains not only vague, it is even completely missing. It is therefore not sufficiently clear to the applicant whether and to what extent the costs for his obligation to undertake six application efforts resulting from the agreement will be covered.
5. There is a lack of sufficient specification of the respondent's benefits in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 1 SGB II.
6. Whether, on the other hand, the mere reference in an integration agreement to the effect that the reasonable costs for application activities can be covered in accordance with Section 16 Paragraph 1 SGB II in conjunction with Section 44 SGB III is sufficient (rejecting SG Aachen, aaO; LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen , decision of April 4, 2012 - L 15 AS 77/12 B ER-; affirmative LSG NRW, decision of June 12, 2013 - L 7 AS 40/13 B), can remain open in the present case, as there is already such a thing here The respondent's only general regulation is missing and therefore the illegality already follows from the complete lack of a cost regulation.
7. Any incorrect information on the legal consequences does not mean that the EGV-VA is illegal, as this is only relevant for a sanction that would be imposed because of a violation of the EGV-VA (Bayerisches LSG, decision of March 24, 2014 - L 7 AS 217/14 B ER).
8. Due to the lack of regulation on the assumption of costs, the EGV-VA is also to be viewed as illegal overall, so that the suspensive effect must be ordered entirely.
9. An administrative integration act is not a divisible administrative act (LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, decision of April 4, 2012 - L 15 AS 77/12 B ER).
Legal tip:
Likewise SG Aachen, decision of August 5, 2015 - S 14 AS 702/15 ER, Rn. 31: www.justiz.nrw.de and Bay LSG, decision v. 03/24/2016 – L 7 AS 140/16 B ER
2.6 – Berlin Social Court, decision v. December 21, 2015 – S 96 AS 23231/15 ER – legally binding
No assumption of rent debts - repeated and months-long inappropriate use of rent funds - no self-help efforts on the part of the applicant - alternative living space - living together with an underage child
The concept of justification is to be interpreted as an indefinite legal concept, taking into account the special circumstances of the individual case.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. This repeated and months-long inappropriate use of funds is to be viewed as a case of abuse with the deliberate creation of rent arrears despite the full payment of the rental costs by the JC.
2. The applicant has not made any effort to rent alternative living space.
3. As long as the options for finding alternative accommodation have not been exhausted, in the case of consciously inappropriate behavior, the mere fact of living with a minor child cannot lead to the assumption of rent debts.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.7 – SG Lüneburg, decision by. – S 23 AS 103/16 ER
Additional child benefit payments are ongoing income - additional payments for social benefits (here: child benefit) are not to be spread over 6 months.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. For employable beneficiaries, the job center is not to distribute additional child benefit payments over six months as a one-off income in accordance with Section 11 Paragraph 3 SGB II, but rather as ongoing income in accordance with Section 11 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II only needs to be taken into account in the month of the capital inflow.
2. For an income to be qualified as current income to be taken into account in the month of inflow, it is sufficient if it would have had to be provided regularly according to the legal basis on which it is based, even if it is actually only provided in a total amount after the termination of the legal relationship (BSG, judgment dated April 24, 2015, B 4 AS 32/14 R).
Legal tip:
Likewise BSG, decision of March 17, 2016 – B 4 AS 694/15 B
2.8 - Schleswig Social Court, decision of December 30, 2015 (ref.: S 16 AS 288/15 ER):
If the service provider doesn't pay!
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. On the conditions for compulsory enforcement and the threat of a penalty payment against the job center due to the due payment of benefits according to SGB II.
2. The required title can also exist in the final decision from the interim legal protection procedure, unless the authorities can prove that benefits in the corresponding amount were actually ordered to the applicant.
2.9 – Reutlingen Social Court, judgment of March 23, 2016 – S 4 AS 114/14
French citizens are not entitled to assistance with living expenses according to Chapter 3 of SGB XII.
Employable EU citizens who are only in Germany to look for work are not entitled to benefits under SGB II or SGB XII.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. According to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II, employable Union citizens who are excluded from benefits under SGB II are generally not entitled to assistance with living expenses under SGB XII. § 21 S. 1 SGB XII as well as § 23 para. 3 S. 1 SGB ).
2. The chamber follows the case law of the 149th and 95th chambers of the Berlin Social Court (judgment of December 11, 2015, p. 149 AS 7191/13 and decision of February 22, 2016, p ), the 35th chamber of the Dortmund Social Court (decision of February 11, 2016, S 35 AS 5396/15 ER) and the 9th Senate of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court (decision of February 22, 2016, L 9 AS 1335/15 B ER) at.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
See also guiding principles from Juris:
Basic security for job seekers - Exclusion of benefits for foreigners when staying to look for work - Applicability to Union citizens - Social assistance - Exclusion of benefits for those entitled to benefits according to SGB II - Free movement of workers - Personal responsibility - EFA
Guiding principle
1. Persons who are excluded from receiving benefits under SGB II due to Section 7 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II are also excluded from receiving benefits under SGB XII due to Section 21 S. 1 SGB XII.
2. The BSG's different opinion leads to a result that is incompatible with the “system delimitation” between SGB II and SGB XII.
3. The BSG's approach that every non-expelled foreigner must be supported in some way by the country of residence during a permanent stay ignores the nature of the free movement of workers under EU law.
4. The de-formalized and de facto almost unlimited right of freedom of movement of employees and job seekers can only be implemented and maintained if, in order to avoid undesirable and unintended misuse and deadweight effects, the requirements for receiving social benefits when exercising this right are tied more closely than the right of freedom of movement itself.
5. There are no constitutional concerns due to the limited scope of the exclusion of benefits and considering the advantages that job seekers gain through freedom of movement.
6. Part of the idea of human beings underlying Article 1 of the Basic Law is personal responsibility. If your job search is unsuccessful, this may include returning to your home country.
2.10 – Detmold Social Court, decision of April 26, 2016 (ref.: S 23 AS 587/16 ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. An administrative integration act issued in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II violates the requirement of certainty in Section 33 Paragraph 1 SGB ) emerge. Stating the area of application of “garden and landscape maintenance” is not sufficient here unless there is a further description of the activity content, working hours and other important data and facts.
2. Facts that only arise after the delivery or announcement of this administrative act cannot be used to understand it.
2.11 – SG Heilbronn, judgment by. April 28, 2016 – S 11 AS 4362/15
No reduction in benefits after alleged failure to report - dispute over almost €120: Job center wrongly sanctions Hartz IV recipients in Heilbronn - court rejects adjournment and request for evidence to interrogate various employees of the job center!
Guiding principle (editor)
A response from the Hartz IV recipient that is not recorded in the job center's files and the detailed questioning of witnesses from an acquaintance (who is not a Hartz IV recipient) must not lead to a reduction in benefits.
Source: Press release from SG Heilbronn v. May 9, 2016: www.sg-heilbronn.de
2.12 – Dortmund Social Court, decision of. May 10, 2016 – S 37 AS 780/16 ER
Requirements for the legality of an administrative integration act
Guiding principle (editor)
Administrative act is unlawful if there has not been a sufficient negotiation phase regarding the EC Treaty (cf. only LSG NRW, decision of December 21, 2015 - L 12 AS 1884/15 B ER).
3. Decisions of the administrative courts on SGB II
3.1 - VG Berlin: If you receive social benefits, the ID card fee can be waived at VG Berlin, judgment of April 23, 2016 - VG 23 K 329.15
Anyone receiving social benefits may be entitled to an exemption from the ID card fee. Whether and, if so, to what extent such a claim exists is a question of the individual case.
The decisive factor is whether the person in need had enough time to save the fee amount from the standard needs rate.
Source: www.berlin.de
In addition, guiding principle from Juri's
guiding principle
1. Anyone who receives benefits in accordance with the Second or Twelfth Book of the Social Security Code is considered to be in need within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 6 of the PAuswGebV.
2. Whether and to what extent a fee reduction or exemption is actually granted or denied to a fee debtor who is in need in this sense - especially in cases in which needy persons have only been able to save a very small part of the ID card fee - is at the dutiful discretion of the ID card authorities.
Source: dejure.org
4. Decisions of the state social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 – LSG Hessen, judgment from March 23, 2016 – L 7 AL 149/14
No bridging allowance for diving instructors in Spain
The LSG Darmstadt has decided that there is no entitlement to bridging allowance if you have your place of residence and habitual residence abroad.
Source: Press release from LSG Darmstadt 7/2016 v. May 11, 2016
Here is a guiding principle from Juris:
If you have your place of residence and habitual residence abroad, there is no entitlement to bridging allowance (assignment of Senate jurisprudence, judgment of September 23, 2011, L 7 AL 104/09).
For the full text: Sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
5. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of 12/16/2015 – L 2 SO 5064/14
What is in dispute is the extent of the reimbursement of expenses to be paid from the compulsory portion obtained for integration assistance provided (Section 19 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 SGB XII).
Guiding principle (Juris)
The obligation under insolvency law to hand over half of the compulsory share from an inheritance in the context of a private insolvency only arises when it is received in the debtor's account, because the insolvency creditors have a right to the claim that had already arisen with the inheritance (§ 2317 para . 1 BGB) did not insist on the compulsory portion. At this point in time, however, the debtor is no longer entitled to the full amount because the claim to the compulsory portion is already covered by the claim of the social welfare provider (reimbursement of expenses according to Section 19 Paragraph 5 SGB XII - extended assistance, so-called fake social assistance against reimbursement of expenses) " was burdened”. The social welfare provider's claim to reimbursement of expenses had already arisen ipso jure when the benefit was granted; The performance was already inextricably linked to the creation of the obligation to repay it later.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5.2 – Social welfare office does not have to reimburse funeral costs for partners – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of
02/25/2016 - L 7 SO 3057/12 The Baden-Württemberg State Social Court has rejected the appeal of an (alleged) partner of a deceased person regarding reimbursement of funeral costs. Ultimately, the appellant would not have been obliged to cover the funeral costs. He entered into the financial obligations to the funeral home and cemetery voluntarily.
continue: www.aeternitas.de
6. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
6.1 – Dresden Social Court, decision of December 18, 2015 (ref.: S 54 SO 344/15 ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. An integration measure in the form of the assistance of a sign language interpreter in a daycare center constitutes a service for a child with a significant hearing impairment as part of the integration assistance for disabled people in accordance with Sections 53 and 54 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB XII in conjunction with Section 55 Paragraph 2 Nos. 2 and 4 SGB IX if this assistance ensures the applicant's continued participation in group life in the daycare center and also helps to enable the applicant to later attend school within the framework of general compulsory schooling.
2. The same applies especially if the applicant has integrated well into the daycare center he has previously attended.
7. Decisions of the social courts on asylum law
7.1 – Mainz Social Court – Foreigners without legal papers can also be entitled to social assistance
People without legal residence documents can also be entitled to social benefits. This was decided by the Mainz Social Court. The judges decided in the case of a Serbian family that the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act also applies to foreigners who are required to leave the country.
Under certain conditions, people without residence documents in Germany are also entitled to social benefits to secure their existence. In a current case, the Mainz Social Court decided in an expedited procedure in favor of a family from Serbia. (AZ: S 13 AY 1/13 ER).
The decisive factor for the granting of aid is that a foreigner is actually in the federal territory. The regulations of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act therefore cover not only asylum seekers, but also people who are “enforced to leave the country”.
Source: www.migazin.de
8. General information from various law books
9. Hartz IV – new standard rates will not be determined until January 1, 2017
Hartz IV
Contrary to the legal requirements, the federal government did not fundamentally recalculate the standard Hartz IV rates as of January 1, 2016. This will now only happen on January 1, 2017.
It has now become known how the Federal Ministry of Labor (BMAS) imagines the process for deriving rates from the spending behavior of low-income households.
In principle, the derivation should be made using the same poor and extremely critical procedure as the last time in 2011 under the CDU/CSU/FDP government.
Specifically, it is planned: The rates for single people and couples should continue to be determined from the expenses of the bottom 15 percent (before 2011: 20 percent).
Households with an income below the Hartz IV requirement should not be removed from the comparison group in advance, which would drag down the standard rates.
A general withdrawal of the arbitrary, factually unfounded deductions is also not planned. Only for young people, the previously overstated reduction amount for alcohol and tobacco should be reduced and the comparison group should be slightly improved in mobility.
The main cuts - tobacco and alcohol for adults, Christmas trees and flowers as well as visits to restaurants and canteen meals - should remain.
In 2011, the procedure was heavily criticized by Andrea Nahles from the SPD side. The current Federal Labor Minister complained at the time that the standard rates had been “artificially reduced”. But now the Federal Ministry of Labor, which is under her leadership, is succinctly justifying its plans by pointing out that the Constitutional Court declared the procedure admissible in 2014.
This is doubly bold: Firstly, the constitutional judges had only “barely” declared the standard rates to be constitutional. And: There is no justification for leaving a situation as it is just because it is barely compatible with the constitution.
At that time, the constitutional judges also criticized the risk that the subsistence level would not be covered when purchasing durable consumer goods and glasses.
The government apparently wants to continue to ignore this requirement: According to the BMAS, there should be no one-off subsidies for refrigerators, washing machines and glasses in the future.
From: A-Info April 2016 of the Coordination Office for Trade Union Unemployment Groups Berlin
Source: www.neues-deutschland.de
10. Make unemployment insurance fairer and improve access - strengthen the protective function of unemployment insurance Bosch, Gerhard: Make
unemployment insurance fairer and improve access - strengthen the protective function of unemployment insurance. Statement on the motions in documents 18/5386 and 18/7425 of the German Bundestag. Internet document. Duisburg: Inst. Work and Qualification, IAQ Position, No. 2016-02
Full text
information on the content
www.iaq.uni-due.de/publikation.php
11. DAV statement on the regulation of claims of foreign persons according to SGB II and SGB XII
The German Lawyers' Association (DAV) has commented on the federal government's draft law "to regulate the claims of foreign persons in basic security for job seekers according to SGB II and in social assistance according to SGB XII".
The DAV considers the planned exclusion of benefits for Union citizens without employment status to be incompatible with the right to secure a humane minimum subsistence level, which is a human right enshrined in the constitution that German and foreign citizens are equally entitled to.
Further information
DAV statement No. 22/2016 (PDF, 110 KB)
Source: DAV press release v.
May 10, 2016 www.juris.de
12. BGH comments on the judgment requirements in cases of social benefit fraud, a contribution from Attorney Mathias Klose, Regensburg
In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) agrees with the strict legal opinion adopted by the Higher Regional Courts (OLG) with regard to the necessary judgment findings Cases of social benefit fraud, specifically in the area of SGB II (Hartz IV):
“In cases of so-called social benefit fraud, the trial court must independently examine, in accordance with the principles of the regulations applicable to the granting of benefits, whether and to what extent there was actually no entitlement to the benefits applied for... In order to prove the occurrence of damage, the findings must emerge in a comprehensible manner that and to what extent, based on the actual circumstances, there was no entitlement to social benefits; The judgment cannot be content with a general reference to official damage statements... In cases like the present one... specific explanations would have been necessary, particularly with regard to the regulations for the consideration and, if necessary, distribution of inflows in Section 11 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 and 3 SGB II , what the income to be taken into account was in the respective months.” (BGH, March 22, 2016, Ref. 3 StR 517/15).
Source: Sozialrecht-aktuell.blogspot.de
13. Pressure on older unemployed people – job centers should enforce compulsory pensions
Long-term unemployed people have to accept deductions when they take advantage of an early pension.
In the future, job centers should threaten to refuse services in order to force those affected to cooperate. There is a hail of harsh criticism. Despite criticism of early “forced retirement” of the long-term unemployed, the coalition wants to give job centers more opportunities to put pressure on Hartz IV recipients.
In the future, job centers should cancel Hartz IV benefits if those affected do not submit the necessary documents for early retirement. This is provided for in a planned amendment to a law currently being discussed in the Bundestag on legal simplifications for Hartz IV, which is available in Berlin. Social associations, trade unions and the opposition have been calling for an end to the practice of “compulsory retirement” for a long time.
Source: www.n-tv.de
Note:
The prevailing opinion raises considerable doubts about the possibility of a refusal according to Section 66 SGB I. There are concerns, among other things, because the person entitled to participate and the sanctioning body are not identical. This question has not yet been decided by the highest court (see the state of opinion and concerns Sächsisches LSG dated February 22, 2016 - L 3 AS 990/15 B ER and jurisPK-SGB II 4th ed. / Karl, Rz. 52.1).
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
