1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of April 20, 2016 on social assistance (SGB XII)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of April 20, 2016 – B 8 SO 5/15 R
Social assistance - Basic security in old age and in cases of reduced earning capacity - Reimbursement of travel costs for visits to a sick parent - Determination of individual needs deviating from the standard rate - Help in other life situations - Creation and coverage of the need before the social assistance agency becomes aware of it. The social welfare agency
is not in the dark about investigations reasonable.
Note Court
1. The requirement of knowledge of the social welfare provider anchored in law and case law also applies to basic security benefits in old age and in cases of reduced earning capacity as social assistance benefits of SGB XII (Section 18 SGB XII).
2. The application provided for in Section 41 SGB XII, in contrast, only represents a special form of obtaining information.
3. In the case of special needs, such as an individual need that inevitably deviates from the standard rate (Section 27a Paragraph 4 SGB It is unreasonable for him to investigate in the dark. This applies in the same way to the alternatively asserted claim to benefits in other life situations (Section 73 SGB XII).
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of. July 4, 2016 – L 9 AS 310/16 B ER
Standards: Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II - Keywords: costs of accommodation, appropriateness limits in Göttingen, security surcharge, F+B report, comparison room
Hartz IV: The Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court overturns accommodation costs for Göttingen - In the proceedings for interim legal protection, the Senate determines the appropriateness limit for KdU in consistent case law based on the values in the table in Section 12 Paragraph 1 of the Housing Benefit Act, present in the since The version of the law reforming housing benefit law applicable on January 1, 2016.
Notes Herbert Masslau
1. In the proceedings pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 SGG, the Senate asks the question of what period of time can be covered by an interim order in cases in which the disputed legal relationship has already been resolved in terms of time by the job center has been coined, depends on the approval section determined in this way; Periods before applying for interim legal protection from the SG are usually not taken into account.
2. In relation to each other, the two applicants are comrades in arms who pursue their requests together through subjective accumulation of applications. The claims asserted by them must be added together in accordance with Section 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), since the disputed items are not economically identical. Only those requests that were already the subject of the first instance proceedings and that were denied to an appellant by the SG are relevant. If a party involved refrains from presenting before the SG in such a way that the Senate is able to determine the value in the cases of the lawsuits listed in Section 144 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGG with due effort, even though he would be able to do so, he must allow himself to be treated as if the value limit of 750 euros had not been exceeded.
3. In the proceedings for interim legal protection, the Senate determines the adequacy limit for KdU in permanent case law based on the values in the table in Section 12 Paragraph 1 of the Housing Benefit Act, here in the version of the Act to Reform Housing Benefit Law that has been in force since January 1, 2016. According to the case law of the BSG, the table values must be increased by a safety margin of 10 percent (see, for example, judgment of December 12, 2013 - B 4 AS 87/12 R). The Senate assumes that the principles mentioned there also apply to the changes that came into force on January 1, 2016, so that the new values in Section 12 Paragraph 1 WoGG 2016 must also be increased by the safety surcharge (as already stated in the LSG Bavaria, decision of January 18, 2016 – L 7 AS 869/15 B ER).
4. The city of Göttingen is assigned to rent level IV. [Note: The LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen thus contradicts the opinion of the Göttingen district and its A&K report, according to which the city of Göttingen (rent level IV) together with the surrounding municipalities of Rosdorf (rent level III) and Bovenden (rent level II) forms a comparison area, without this However, it must be said directly.] This means that a two-person household is entitled to €578.60 in accommodation costs for the city of Göttingen instead of the €402.00 that the Göttingen district, as an Oprionskommune, grants based on the report from Analysis & Concepts.
Source: www.herbertmasslau.de
2.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision v. July 1, 2016 – L 7 AS 350/16 B ER
The applicant is not excluded from SGB II benefits because he was unsuccessfully asked to apply for an early old-age pension.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The possibility of receiving a retirement pension is not sufficient for the exclusion of benefits according to Section 7 Paragraph 4 SGB II.
2. If the applicant does not apply for the early retirement pension himself despite being asked to do so, the job center has the right to intervene in accordance with Section 5 Paragraph 3 SGB II.
3. If simply applying for a pension would result in the entitlement to unemployment benefit II being extinguished, the regulatory system with Sections 5, 9, 12a and 13 Paragraph 2 SGB II would be superfluous. In addition, fictitious income cannot be taken into account.
4. The SGB II provider is referred to other options for action: * He can appeal against a rejection notice or refusal notice from the pension insurance company. Against a complete denial of the old-age pension, he can object that a lower pension should be granted if there are unexplained pension periods dependent on participation and only a partial denial is allowed (according to the BA's technical instructions on Section 5 SGB II, Rn. 5.13). *
5. A distinction must be made with regard to a denial of unemployment benefit II.
6. Refusal to submit a pension application cannot lead to a denial of unemployment benefit II because the SGB II benefit provider can submit this application themselves in accordance with Section 5 Paragraph 3 SGB II. It is controversial whether a (partial) denial of unemployment benefit II is possible due to a subsequent lack of cooperation in the pension process. This is partly affirmed in the literature (Knickrehm/Hahn in Eicher, SGB II, 3rd edition 2013, § 5 Rn. 37; Luthe in Hauck/Noftz, § 5 Rn. 165 SGB II), insofar as the SGB II provider Requirements according to Section 66 Paragraph 3 SGB I have been met, i.e. unsuccessfully set a deadline with the threat of failure. According to the aforementioned technical instructions from the BA, such a refusal is not possible (ibid., para. 5.11). * In addition, there is a claim for reimbursement in accordance with Section 104 SGB
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Current legal tip:
State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of. April 22, 2016 - L 19 AS 423/16 B ER - legally binding - No exclusion from basic security benefits if an application for the granting of an early old-age pension is refused.
2.3 – LSG Munich, decision by. June 16, 2016 – L 11 AS 348/16 B ER
Subsistence benefits for Romanian citizens
Guiding principle (editor)
According to the established case law of the BSG (judgments of December 3rd, 2012 - B 4 AS 44/15 R and B 4 AS 59/13 R - and of December 16th, 2015 - B 14 AS 13/14 R -, confirmed by Judgment of January 20, 2016 - B 14 AS 35/15 R), Romanian citizens have a right to an order within the framework of interim legal protection based on Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB XII.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.4 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision v. June 27, 2016 – L 7 AS 2320/14 B – legally binding
The action seeking to change the provisional decisions is inadmissible.
Note Court
1. The need for legal protection for a lawsuit with the aim of receiving higher provisional benefits is missing if the relevant benefit period has expired, because the application for the final determination of benefits then represents an easier way to receive higher benefits retroactively (Saxon LSG , decision of January 23, 2013 - L 7 AS 1033/12 B PKH). This applies if – as here – the reason for the provisional status no longer applies due to the end of the performance period.
2. Only if a final determination for the expired approval period is actually not yet possible is a lawsuit for higher provisional benefits also permissible for this period (Aubel, in: JurisPK, SGB II, § 40 Rn. 69).
3. In the judgment of August 19, 2015 - B 14 AS 13/14 R, the BSG stated that if a final determination of benefits is possible at the time of the court decision, a decision may not be made on a provisional, but rather on a final determination of benefits. If the specific requirements for a provisional approval are not met, there is no reason for a court decision on provisional benefits instead of a final resolution of the dispute. This confirms the inadmissibility of the legal action expressly aimed at the approval of higher provisional benefits. However, it cannot be concluded from the BSG's decision that the permissible subject of the legal proceedings is then the approval of final (higher) benefits. A combined challenge and benefit action aimed at a final approval of benefits is not fundamentally inadmissible if provisional benefit notices are available. However, this only applies if provisional benefits have been approved in the administrative act and the administration has at least implicitly rejected a final granting of benefits through a separate ruling (BSG, judgment of April 6, 2011 - B 4 AS 119/10 R Rn. 21). This is not the case here.
4. If the final decision is issued, the corresponding decision becomes the subject of the legal proceedings in accordance with Section 96 SGG (BSG, judgment of August 19, 2015 - B 14 AS 13/14 R Rn. 16 f), an obligation to suspend an administrative procedure due to non-implementation However, there is no inadmissible legal action.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.5 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of June 27, 2016 – L 1 AS 4849/15
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The decision on the final approval of benefits not only replaces the decision on the provisional approval of benefits, but also a decision on the cancellation of the provisional approval of benefits. Even if a lawsuit is only directed against the latter (no dispute over the amount), the decision regarding the final approval of benefits in accordance with Section 96 SGG becomes the subject of the proceedings as far as the cancellation period is concerned.
2. The back payment of child benefit is not a one-off income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 3 SGB II, but rather ongoing income, which is to be credited in full in June 2015 and not in accordance with Section 11 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 SGB II period of 6 months must be divided equally.
3. Classic additional payments as in the present case are not subject to the regulation of Section 11 Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 SGB II, but only current income that is paid regularly, but not in consecutive months (LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of November 9th. 2015 – L 19 AS 924/15).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Current legal tip:
Likewise for back payments of child benefit: BSG, decision of March 17, 2016 - B 4 AS 694/15 B - confirmation for LSG NRW, judgment of November 9, 2015 - L 19 AS 924/15 - back payments on social benefits (here: child benefit). not to be spread over 6 months.
2.6 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision v.
June 6, 2016 - L 31 AS 662/16 B - legally binding fine - order to appear in person - absence without excuse - discretion
Guiding principle (editor)
The fine decision was repealed.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Cologne, decision v. July 4, 2016 – S 15 AS 2459/16 ER, nv
Order the suspensive effect against the administrative integration act, because there are at least serious doubts about the legality of the integration decision.
Willy Voigt's guiding principle
1. Sending a “draft” of the integration agreement is not sufficient.
Concluding an integration agreement is not just a matter of presenting a draft of an integration agreement and, if it is not signed, then executing it as an administrative act.
2. An integration agreement must be negotiated before it is issued as an administrative integration act.
3. A consensual solution always takes precedence over sovereign action through an administrative act.
4. The deadline set by the respondent had to be adhered to. Issuing the administrative integration act before the self-imposed deadline has expired is unlawful.
5. The integration administrative act must make it clear which individual, concrete and binding support services are provided for the application efforts required by the applicant (cf. BSG, judgment of June 23, 2016 - B 14 AS 26/15 R).
6. The presentation of a medical certificate along with a certificate of incapacity for work due to depression was not recognized (taken into account).
Legal tip: See
SG Cologne, decision of. December 7, 2015 – S 37 AS 3523/15 ER
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel Before issuing an administrative integration act (Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II), a job center must always attempt to consensually conclude an integration agreement (Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II) with the Alg II recipient.
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.
The job center bears the burden of proof for the attempt made by the SGB II provider to initially work towards the conclusion of an integration agreement.
SG Cologne, judgment of May 20, 2016 - S 37 AS 3940/15 - Appeal pending at LSG Essen, Ref.: L 12 AS 1119/16
Principles Dr.
Manfred Hammel According to the wording of Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 SGB II, the job center must always attempt to reach a consensual integration agreement with a recipient of unemployment benefit II before issuing a corresponding administrative integration act (Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II) to complete.
There is no equal status between the forms of action “agreement” and “administrative act”, since Section 15 SGB II is also characterized by the principle of active participation of those entitled to benefits in the joint development of an integration concept.
An administrative act replacing the integration agreement can only be considered if the SGB II provider has previously attempted to conclude an agreement with applicants in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II or, in individual cases, there are special reasons that conclusion of such a public law contract appears to be inappropriate. This must be explained in detail in the replacing administrative act. The job center bears the burden of proof for carrying out the relevant negotiations.
3.2 – SG Heilbronn, judgment by. June 23, 2016 – S 15 AS 2759/12
Job center has to pay Hartz IV recipients additional heating costs.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The “Heikos 2.0” program used by the job center to calculate appropriate heating costs is unsuitable for determining appropriate heating costs in individual cases.
2. The computer program “Heikos 2.0” is a model developed by the city of Heilbronn to calculate appropriate heating costs. “Heikos 2.0” does not record the specific heat needs of an apartment, but rather improperly sets general values for ideal heating behavior.
3. According to the case law of the BSG - the appropriateness of heating costs must be determined according to the “Nationwide Heating Mirror”.
Source: Press release from SG Heilbronn v. July 4, 2016: www.datev.de
Legal tip:
Likewise, Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of May 21, 2015 – L 7 AS 980/12
3.3 – SG Bremen, decision by. June 29, 2016 – S 21 AS 1258/16 ER
Ordering the suspensive effect of the objection - Basic security for job seekers - Integration agreement - Illegality of individual provisions of a replacement decision - Duration of validity - Covering travel costs to job interviews - Covering costs relating to the measure
EGV unlawful, because the person concerned must know approximately what they will be reimbursed if they submit a corresponding application before the costs are incurred.
Integration agreement by administrative act is unlawful due to the extension of the period of validity with regard to the measure, both the clause regarding the assumption of travel costs for job interviews and the one regarding the assumption of costs that arise in connection with participation in the measure are not sufficiently specified.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The connection of the period of validity of an integration agreement by administrative act with the duration of an integration measure generally appears to be an irrelevant consideration insofar as this is accompanied by an extension of the period of validity. There is no legally relevant need for the job center to extend the period of validity to the (longer) duration of the measure.
2. A clause aimed at assuming reasonable costs leaves completely open, using the vague legal concept of reasonableness, whether and, if so, to what extent the costs will be reimbursed.
The addressee of a corresponding administrative act is: This does not enable him to determine the requirements and the amount of the claim to which he is entitled (see LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, decision of April 4, 2012, file no. L 15 AS 77/12 B ER).
3. Before the costs are incurred, the person concerned must know approximately what they will be reimbursed if they submit a corresponding application. The applicant always bears the cost risk for carrying out the necessary personal efforts, especially in the case of the travel expenses clause, which expressly requires a prior application (cf. LSG NSB, decision of April 4, 2012, ref. L 15 AS 77/12 B ER).
4. The illegality of the individual clause ultimately results in the illegality of the integration agreement at issue here as an administrative act as a whole.
4. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision v. June 27, 2016 – L 2 SO 1273/16
Guiding principle (Juris)
If the existing and basically usable assets are not yet available as “ready resources” at the time of the need for social assistance due to a decision of the person obliged to utilize them, the assets cannot be taken into account at this point in time.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision v. June 22, 2016
There is already no entitlement to an order; rather, the exclusion applies according to Section 23 Paragraph 3 SGB XII. According to Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB XII, foreigners who have entered the country to obtain social assistance are not entitled to social assistance. From the wording of the offense “in order to obtain social assistance” it follows that there must be a final connection between the decision to enter the country and the use of social assistance (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg judgment of September 10, 2009 - L 23 SO 117/06).
Guiding principle (Juris)
The decisive factor for the immigration of a foreigner into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany is the receipt of social assistance in the sense of the exclusion according to Section 23 Paragraph 3 SGB due to public holidays - is five working days, the foreigner had only entered the federal territory a year earlier and had already applied for social assistance the next day after moving in (but then left the federal territory again) and finally the family member (here the Daughter) to whom the move should take place is itself receiving benefits in accordance with SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.3 – Saxon State Social Court, judgment of 03/16/2016 – L 8 SUN 10/14
What is disputed is the assumption of moving costs if the applicant is not entitled to ongoing benefits to secure a living according to Sections 27 ff. SGB XII or Sections 41 ff. SGB
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The assumption of the moving costs fails here not because of the ability to consent to the move, but because of the plaintiff's lack of need for help.
2. The impossibility of remaining in the previous apartment due to termination by the landlord represents a compelling reason for a change of apartment, while the self-termination by the person in need of help does not in itself justify the need to move (cf. Sächsisches LSG, decision of March 12, 2012 - L 7 AS 985/11 B ER; decision of October 26, 2015 – L 7 AS 932/15 B ER).
3. Due to the landlord's termination, this move was necessary within the meaning of Section 35 Paragraph 2 Sentence 6 SGB XII. Contrary to the defendant's opinion, this does not conflict with the fact that the plaintiff himself may have been responsible for the termination through behavior that violated the rental agreement. Because social assistance is generally provided without taking into account the cause of the need for assistance. The social welfare provider's obligation to provide benefits therefore exists even if the need for help was caused culpably. The intentional or grossly negligent creation of the need for assistance can only justify an obligation to pay compensation on the part of the person responsible in accordance with Section 103 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB XII.
4. Only within the framework of basic security in old age and in cases of reduced earning capacity can the socially unfavorable creation of the need for assistance lead to exclusion of benefits (Section 41 Para. 4 SGB XII); But then instead, the moving costs would be covered as part of assistance with living expenses (according to Section 19 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Section 35 Paragraph 2 Sentences 5 and 6 SGB XII).
5. The claim to reimbursement of moving costs depends on whether the plaintiff is actually entitled to benefits to secure his or her livelihood (cf. BSG, judgment of May 6, 2010 – B 14 AS 7/09 R).
6. Section 31, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 of the SGB When determining your need for help, however, according to Section 31 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 SGB
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – SG Gießen, judgment by. June 7, 2016 – S 18 SO 108/14
Unreasonable hardship when using death benefit insurance
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The use of appropriate financial provisions in the event of death for those entitled to basic security in old age and in the event of reduced earning capacity represents an unreasonable hardship if the earmarking is binding.
2. Assets that have been saved to cover the costs of an appropriate funeral are protected by the hardship regulation of Section 90 Paragraph 3 SGB XII. This privilege is justified if it is ensured that the saved assets are actually used for funeral costs. This is the case with earmarked death benefit insurance.
3. The mere intention of the person concerned to use saved assets for funeral costs in the event of death, without separating a corresponding part of his assets from the other assets, is not sufficient.
4. Furthermore, the court found the utilization of the death insurance to be obviously uneconomical.
Source: Press release from SG Gießen v. June 27, 2016: www.juris.de
Legal tip:
See the earmarking of death benefit insurance: LSG Thuringia, judgment of May 23, 2012 - L 8 SO 85/11
6. Decisions from other areas of law
6.1 – OVG Lüneburg 13th Senate, judgment of June 23, 2016, 13 LB 144/15
No guarantee of naturalization if the use of funds under SGB II is justified
Guiding principle (Juris)
A naturalization applicant is responsible for claiming resources under SGB II if she refuses to take up work, although it would be possible for her to leave her husband to look after their child at least temporarily, even if this child is still three years old has not completed.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
7th Federal Council on July 8, 2016: Changes to Hartz IV procedures and insolvency law:
Changes to Hartz IV procedures and insolvency law
On July 8, 2016, the Federal Council approved simplifications in the processing of Hartz IV applications. In the future, benefit recipients will be able to obtain clarity more quickly and easily about the existence and scope of their entitlements. The law simplifies the sometimes very complex procedural regulations and procedures for employees in the job centers. This applies in particular to the numerous connections between Social Security Code II and other areas of law. This affects, among other things, regulations on the recognition of income and assets, the eligibility requirements and the requirements for accommodation and heating. The interface between training funding under BAföG and basic security for job seekers has also been improved to make it easier to start training.
Active job promotion through job centers
continue to the source: www.bundesrat.de
8. Federal Council wants to reduce the number of complaints before the social courts - change the SGG
Federal Council wants to reduce the number of lawsuits
Work and social affairs/Draft law - July 4th, 2016
Berlin: (hib/CHE) By amending the Social Courts Act, the Federal Council wants to ensure that the social courts are relieved of the burden. To this end, the regional chamber has presented a draft law (18/8971) in which it points out that the burden on the courts remains high, particularly in the first instance. In 2014 alone, the social courts received more than 370,000 complaints in main proceedings, according to the draft. The Federal Council expects that changes to social procedural law will reduce the burden.
Source: www.bundestag.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
