1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of December 3, 2015 – L 4 AS 466/12 – legally binding
Guiding principle (editor)
On the enforcement of maintenance expenses (Section 22 Paragraph 2 SGB II) in the event of mold infestation (here negative).
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. Whether specialist companies can be commissioned to carry out maintenance measures within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 2 SGB II or whether work has to be carried out in-house depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
2. Expenses for eliminating mold infestation in the accommodation are generally part of essential maintenance within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 2 SGB II, but the associated cosmetic repairs (painting work) are not.
3. If the SGB II benefit recipient does not provide concrete, verifiable information about the claimed interest burden from a private loan during the legal proceedings and does not name the number of residents in the home during the period in dispute, further KdU benefits will not be granted due to a lack of identifiable need for help.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen 15th Senate, decision of August 4th, 2016 - L 15 AS 166/16 B ER
Guiding Principle (Juris)
1. The institution involved as the respondent is against a so-called hanging order of the social court (also: postponement or interim order). of benefits in accordance with SGB II, the appeal to the State Social Court is only permitted if it does not merely shape the progress of the procedure as a procedural measure, but also directly interferes with the rights of the unsuccessful respondent.
2. Such a decision is to be repealed if the postponement of a court decision resulting from the necessary clarification of complex factual and legal questions does not entail existential or similarly serious legal consequences for the applicant and the decision does not differ in terms of both time frame and content limited to the most urgent measures.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
1.3 - Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court 7th Senate, decision of June 30, 2016 - L 7 AS 414/16 B ER
§ 31 SGB 2, § 31a Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB 2
Within the framework of a graduated sanctions system, the validity of a first or second sanction decision does not prevent a judicial review during legal proceedings against the subsequent sanction decision if it is asserted in these further proceedings that the first sanction was already unjustified (cf. Senate resolution from June 22, 2009 - L 7 AS 266/09 B ER, but left open here).
Guiding principle (Juris)
Instructions on legal remedies as a prerequisite for a 100% sanction after a further repeated breach of duty (Section 31a Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II) is only concrete, complete and case-specific if it precisely describes the relevant preliminary sanctions according to sentences 1 and 2 become.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.4 - Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of August 17, 2016 - L 6 AS 113/16 B ER SH
LSG on the “necessity” of a move according to Section 22 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 SGB II, a contribution from RA Helge Hildebrandt, Kiel
The decision to get married is a reason for moving.
Source: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
1.5 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, judgment of July 28, 2016 – L 25 AS 2819/15 WA
Failure to report - reduction - notices of change - type of action - request to report - discretion - incident review - error of judgment at 21 reporting dates in 9 months
Guiding principle (editor)
A request to report is an administrative act and the decision to issue such a request is at the discretion of the job center. The legality of the request to report must be examined incidentally as a preliminary question for the determination of a failure to report, because the request to report as such has been resolved due to the passage of time (cf. BSG, judgment of April 29, 2015 - B 14 AS 19/ 14 R). Here, the reporting requests at issue are unlawful because they each contain errors of discretion.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
On this aspect, see also LSG Rheinland-Pfalz, judgment of December 16, 2015 Ref.: L 6 AS 503/13, nv
1.6 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, judgment of July 28, 2016 – L 25 AS 535/16
Basic security for job seekers - additional need for decentralized hot water generation - instantaneous water heaters - atypical individual case - concrete determination of a higher need
If there is no concrete recording of the expenses for decentralized hot water production, the flat rates regulated by law must be granted. In particular, the law does not provide for an estimate of the additional requirement, especially since, since the basis for the estimate requires full proof, there is already a lack of a sufficient basis for the estimate, i.e. that can be assumed without reasonable doubt (cf. Berlin Social Court, judgment of March 26, 2014 - p 205 AS 11970/13 -; State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of January 30, 2014 - L 6 AS 1667/12).
Guiding principle (editor)
The recognition of a higher demand that deviates from the flat rates legally standardized for decentralized hot water generation requires a concrete determination of the additional demand through separate recording.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.7 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision v. July 27, 2016 – L 25 AS 1511/16 B ER – legally binding
Basic security for job seekers - application for an order of suspensive effect - sanction notice - complete loss of entitlement to unemployment benefit II - repeated breach of duty - requirements for offers of measures / letters of assignment | § 31 paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 3 SGB 2, § 31a paragraph 1 sentence 3 SGB 2, § 86b paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 2 SGG
Guiding principle (editor)
A sanction according to Section 31 SGB II can only occur if the offer or assignment to an integration measure is sufficiently specific to enable the recipient of the benefit to check the formal and substantive requirements.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of November 24, 2015 - Ref.: L 7 AS 1519/15 B ER
1.8 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision v. August 11, 2016 – L 25 AS 1611/16 B ER – legally binding
Order of the suspensive effect - further training measure - withdrawal of certification - incident characteristics when examining the cancellation of an approval of further training benefits - no administrative act quality of the approval of a measure - securing the financing of the measure - no requirement to secure the livelihood for those entitled to benefits of the SGB 2 - securing the Course costs through the European Social Fund - balancing of interests
Note Court
1. The view that secured financing must also cover subsistence is largely represented in the literature on Section 180 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 SGB III (e.g. Schaumberg in jurisPK-SGB III, 1st edition, 2014, para 47 on § 180; Voelzke in Hauck/Noftz, SGB III, K § 180 Rz 18). However, there should be no reason to transfer this to those entitled to benefits under SGB II.
2. The current regulation was initially adopted from Section 92 Paragraph 2 SGB III old version in Section 85 Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 SGB III and supplemented solely to the effect that financing should be secured on the basis of federal or state regulations so that the case law Partially approved private financing of the last third of training no longer leads to the measure being eligible for funding. The prerequisite of securing financing at the start of the measure, which was envisaged from the outset, has not been modified by this. The purpose of this requirement was to avoid the measure being canceled for financial reasons when the funding ended (BT-Drs. 14/6944 page 35).
3. In this respect, in order to achieve this legitimate legal purpose, a recipient of benefits under SGB III is actually concerned that the further training will not be completed if the livelihood in the last third of the training is not otherwise ensured at the beginning of the measure. In the case of a person entitled to benefits according to SGB III whose entitlement to unemployment benefit for further vocational training regularly expires in the foreseeable future with the end of the funding of the measure in accordance with Section 148 Paragraph 1 No. 7 in conjunction with Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 SGB III, the relevant one exists Possibility that there is no willingness to use your own resources to finance living expenses for the remaining period of further training.
4. Recipients of unemployment benefit insurance benefits cannot normally be assumed to be in need and are therefore entitled to unemployment benefit II anyway.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.9 – LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, decision of. 08/08/2016 – L 3 AS 376/16 B ER
BSG case law is not convincing.
No basic security for families of EU foreigners looking for work
The LSG Mainz has clarified that the exclusion of basic security benefits under SGB II or SGB
Source: LSG Mainz press release No. 17/2016 v. August 23, 2016: www2.mjv.rlp.de
Legal tip:
Probably a different opinion: Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of. 01.07.2016 - L 26 AS 1421/16 B ER (mwH) - Greek applicants are entitled to ALG II. A right of residence for the parents can be derived from Article 10 of Regulation 492/11 EU if the child is born during the right to freedom of movement under EU law parent has started attending school regularly after an involuntary job loss.
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – SG Stuttgart, court decision v. December 30, 2015 – S 12 AS 5038/15
Basic social security providers do not have to reimburse the costs of purchasing reading glasses, a contribution from lawyer Philipp Adam
According to the judges, the plaintiff has no right to reimbursement of costs.
There is no corresponding basis for the claim. In the present case, the judges believe that the costs do not represent ongoing additional requirements. For this reason, reimbursement of costs by way of Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II is particularly excluded. Rather, there are needs that relate to medical treatment in general. S. of Section 27 SGB V, primarily covered by statutory health insurance. For this reason, the right to receive a subsidy for the purchase of reading glasses only concerns the relationship with the health insurance company and not that with the service providers according to SGB II.
There is an appeal against this decision.
Source: www.anwalt.de
2.2 – Berlin Social Court, decision v. 08/22/2016 – S 37 AS 10926/16 ER 08/22/2016
Heavily pregnant Polish applicant does not have to return to her homeland because “a person's basic life needs must be met the moment they arise.”
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. Section 7 Paragraph 4 SGB 2 in the version of the 9th SGB 2ÄndG clarifies that employable people who are excluded from SGB 2 benefits may be able to claim social assistance. The exclusions from benefits in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB 2 and Section 7 Paragraph 4 SGB 2 do not show any systematic differences.
2. In a household with SGB 2 members in need of help, a sublease agreement is not required to establish a claim to proportional benefits for accommodation and heating.
3. As long as EU citizens are not subject to an obligation to leave the country, an acute need for help cannot be denied by referring to a return to the country of origin.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – Berlin Social Court, decision v. June 27, 2016 – S 96 AS 25231/15 – legally binding
To reimburse the costs of two of the branch. Objection proceedings conducted as a natural party without legal representation in the form of a flat rate of EUR 20 each (here negative).
There is no legal basis for a flat-rate reimbursement of expenses without proof of the specific costs incurred.
Note Court
1. A flat-rate reimbursement of costs in accordance with No. 7002 VV of the Law on the Remuneration of Lawyers (RVG) or on the basis of other cost laws, such as the Law on the Remuneration of Experts, Interpreters, Translators and the Compensation of Honorary judges, witnesses and third parties (JVEG) and the Court Costs Act (GKG) are not considered because the plaintiff does not fall within their personal scope of application.
2. If the Frankfurt am Main Social Court, through the non-judicial decision of the clerk of the office of March 11, 2014, S 24 AS 1074/10, grants a party not represented by a lawyer a flat rate for his expenses in accordance with No. 7002 VV RVG, can which is not followed. The decision ignores the scope of application of the RVG without convincing justification.
3. The justification that granting a flat rate for postage, fax and telephone costs of EUR 20 is also “appropriate” for plaintiffs has no legal basis.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
Also negative SG Aachen, decision of April 20, 2015 - S 11 SF 11/15 E
2.4 – SG Bayreuth, court decision v.
02/18/2016 - S 17 AS 808/14 - The appeal is admitted Unemployment benefit II - Accommodation and heating - Appropriateness test for heating costs - Determination of the limit value as an indication of unreasonable heating costs for electric heating based on the nationwide heating level
On the question of how the appropriateness of heating costs for energy sources not mentioned in the nationwide heating index can be determined.
Guiding principle (editor)
When recording electricity consumption with just one meter, in order to differentiate between electricity costs included in the standard rate (household electricity) and electricity costs as accommodation costs (heating costs), an estimate can be made ((following the BSG ruling of August 20, 2009 - B 14 AS 41/08 R; LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of March 2, 2011, L 2 SO 4920/09; SG Karlsruhe, judgment of April 28, 2015, p. 17 AS 599/14).
2.5 – Munich Social Court, judgment of June 22, 2016 – S 52 AS 538/13 – legally binding
1. The scope of the obligation to reimburse costs according to Section 36a SGB II. The primary issue here was to assess whether costs actually incurred should be covered or whether the calculation and appropriateness of the women's shelter's costs can be verified by the court or the person liable for reimbursement.
2. Right to reimbursement of costs for the stay of a 17-year-old in a women's shelter.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion (SGB III)
3.1 – Stade Social Court, judgment of June 15, 2016 – S 16 AL 92/12
For the granting of a start-up grant on the occasion of taking up self-employment as a consultant (investment advice without sales) and seminar provider (rejected here) - basic law not sufficient - specific claim to payment - dormant claim to unemployment benefit - exercise of discretion when examining one's own performance - severance payment
Guiding principle (editor)
No approval of start-up grants after receipt of severance pay.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See Hessisches LSG, judgment of March 18, 2016 - L 7 AL 99/14
3.2 – Marburg Social Court, judgment of
May 30, 2016 - S 2 AL 58/14 - pending at the LSG Hessen Ref.: L 7 AL 66/16 No unemployment benefit blocking period after partial retirement for a pension without deductions.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
S. a. Even after partial retirement, employees can still secure a pension without deductions by continuing to work for additional months. If you initially register as unemployed, the employment agency may not impose a blocking period on unemployment benefits.
Source: www.juraforum.de
4. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of April 14, 2016 – L 7 SO 1119/10
To help with integration by purchasing a motor vehicle that has been converted to suit disabled people
Guiding Principle (Juris)
1. With regard to the individual, person-centered benchmark to be applied when assisting with the procurement of a motor vehicle, a minimum frequency of vehicle use cannot be determined schematically. Rather, the focus should be on the individual case, taking into account the individual living conditions of the disabled person as well as the type and severity of the disability.
2. The social welfare provider's discretion regarding the type and extent of service provision.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of 02/25/2016 – L 7 SO 2468/13
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. As part of the reasonableness test of Section 74 SGB XII, the spouse's economic circumstances must also be taken into account.
2. On the application of Section 44 SGB
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the social courts on asylum law
5.1 – Landshut Social Court, decision v. 08/10/2016 – S 11 AY 69/16 ER
The applicant requests, by way of an interim order, that he temporarily continue to be granted benefits in accordance with Section 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) without any restrictions on entitlement (here negative).
Unsuccessful application for benefits without eligibility restrictions.
Note to court
1. The restriction occurs if measures to end the stay cannot be carried out for reasons for which the applicant is responsible. The latter includes all legal and actual actions that are necessary to bring about the foreigner's departure (cf. Wahrendorf in Grube/Wahrendorf, SGB XII 5th edition 2014, § 1a AsylbLG, Rn. 22ff mw N.). Must represent i. S. of § 1a No. 2 AsylbLG exists if the reasons in question have their sole origin in the area of responsibility of the foreigner and he can be accused of having prevented or delayed departure through his behavior.
2. Representing must i. S.v. § 1a No. 2 AsylbLG a. F. or Section 1a Paragraph 3 AsylbLG is linked to the beneficiary's own behavior in the sense that the behavior must be generally suitable for evading his obligation to leave the country. It is therefore necessary, but also sufficient, that the result of the non-implementability of the measures ending the stay is based on circumstances that are attributable to the area of responsibility of the person acting. However, it is not important whether you have to represent someone in a civil sense or whether you are responsible in a criminal sense. If the foreigner has the appropriate will, he or she must be able and legally obliged, or it must be reasonable to expect him or her, to refrain from a behavior or to take an action (Oppermann in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 2nd ed. 2014, § 1a AsylbLG as amended on October 20, 2015, paragraph 67).
3. These requirements are met here. The applicant who is obliged to leave the country did not cooperate in obtaining the replacement passport documents because of missing passport documents, even though this obligation arises from Section 48 Paragraph 3 of the Residence Act and he was asked to do so several times by the respondent with reference to the legal consequences.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5.2 – Landshut Social Court, decision v. 08/16/2016 – S 11 AY 64/16 ER
On the obligation of the service provider to grant the applicants (Syrian nationals) further cash benefits by means of an interim order in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 5 of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act (AsylbLG) (here affirmative)
A deduction of the costs for message transmission is not to be made in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 AsylbLG.
Public WiFi access in initial reception centers does not exempt asylum seekers from telecommunications services
Guiding principle (editor)
1. In accordance with the legal requirements (Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 AsylbLG), the court considers it fundamentally possible for positions that relate to necessary personal needs to be granted through benefits in kind.
2. If these are then to be offset against the flat-rate sum of money, it must first be ensured whether the benefit in kind was used at least in the amount taken as a basis in the EVS 2008. Only then would it be possible to credit the amount stated there (including the update) against the necessary personal needs.
3. The complete exclusion of expenses for Department 8 solely because of the provision of WLAN is excluded.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. Note on: BGH 8th Civil Senate, judgment of June 29, 2016 - VIII ZR 173/15, author: Dr.
Dietrich Beyer, RiBGH (ret.) Immediate and regular termination due to late rent payments from the job center
Guiding principles
1. An authority that provides state transfer services as part of public services does not act as vicarious agent of the tenant if it pays the rent to the landlord on his behalf (confirmation of the Senate judgments of October 21, 2009 - VIII ZR 64/09 - NJW 2009, 3781 Rn. 27 ff.; as well as from February 4, 2015 - VIII ZR 175/14 - BGHZ 204, 134 Rn. 20).
2. An important reason for termination without notice within the meaning of Section 543, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) can also - regardless of any fault on the part of the tenant - lie solely in the objective breach of duty of unpunctual rent payments and the resulting negative consequences for the landlord, if the overall consideration is taken into account shows that a continuation of the rental agreement is unreasonable for the landlord. In the assessment - which is the responsibility of the judge - it may be important whether numerous delays have occurred, whether these each affect a considerable period of time and significant amounts, or whether the landlord is particularly dependent on receiving the rent on time, for example because he makes his living from it or has to service loans with it. It can also play a role whether the tenancy agreement has so far been trouble-free apart from the unpunctual payments or whether a justified termination without notice had already been given a short time before, which only became ineffective when payment was made within the grace period during the eviction process.
Source: www.juris.de
7th Social Court Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 04/29/2015 - S 30 SUN 14/12
Social assistance: The obligation to provide information no longer applies if there are formal errors, a contribution from lawyer Markus Karpinski
If the parents of a benefit recipient are requested to provide information about their income, assets and living situation, then this request must be based on the correct legal basis.
If the job center relies on an incorrect legal basis, the request for information is incorrect and therefore unlawful. It must be repealed. This applies to the entire request for information and not just to the incorrect part. This means that the parents of a benefit recipient do not have to provide information about their income and financial circumstances if the request for information is incorrect in any way.
Source: www.anwalt.de
8. Almost no one knows about this benefit for poor families
The child allowance is available to help families on the poverty line. But only 30 percent of all those eligible receive the money: the benefit is hardly known and very difficult to apply for.
Source: www.welt.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
