1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – 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
Guiding principle of the court:
Exclusion of benefits if the child of a Union citizen entitled to freedom of movement has a right of residence to attend school.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision v. August 30, 2016 – L 6 AS 1549/16 B ER and L 6 AS 1550/16 B – legally binding
On the legality of a 2 house ban against the benefit recipient (here affirmative).
Note from court
In terms of substantive law, the issuance of the ban on entering the premises requires a lasting disruption to business operations (on the ban on entering the premises see LSG NRW decision of March 11, 2013 - L 19 AS 30/13, juris, ban on entering the premises lasting 5 months, see also Günther, DVBl. 2015, 1147 ff., 1149, 1150, with further references as well as Hammel, ZfF 2011, 223 ff., each on the ban on entering the JobCenter), whereby the basic security provider must make special efforts to overcome impending or already arising conflicts.
There is no overwhelming evidence that the decision is illegal. This is the second ban against the applicant in less than three months.
In addition, this further house ban is also designed with certain details for the applicant for potential contact with the respondent. This leaves the applicant with the option of contacting the respondent by post or telephone regarding benefit matters in accordance with SGB II. For any evidence or specifically documents needed to process the reimbursement of travel expenses when exercising access rights to his underage son, the applicant could then send the necessary documents to the respondent via his home mailbox.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - SG Karlsruhe decision from July 27, 2016 - S 17 AS 1318/16
Health insurance - right to choose health insurance company - no switching to the German health insurance company
Guiding principle (Juris)
German health does not fall under any of the case groups of Section 173 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB V.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – Munich Social Court, decision of March 21, 2016 (ref.: S 40 AS 555/16 ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel An important reason within the meaning of Section 32 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II for failing to attend a registration appointment is usually when attendance at the job center is either impossible for an employable person entitled to benefits or is made so difficult that any other behavior is considered unreasonable has to become.
In principle, benefit recipients must initially cover the travel costs incurred when attending a reporting appointment in accordance with Section 59 SGB II in conjunction with Section 309 Paragraph 1 SGB III based on their standard requirements (Section 20 SGB II).
Section 59 SGB II in conjunction with Section 309 Paragraph 4 SGB III makes it clear that the job center can reimburse travel costs at its discretion.
However, if benefit recipients credibly assert the economic impossibility of purchasing the necessary ticket to the job center in advance of the reporting date, then the SGB II provider who has been informed in this way can respond to this in an appropriate manner and, if necessary, issue a ticket (as a benefit in kind). or provide a voucher for the trip.
An important reason for missing the reporting date may be if the job center is unable to respond in a timely manner or has not acted due to the short time until the reporting date or for other reasons.
2.3 – Aachen Social Court, judgment of August 9, 2016 – S 14 AS 175/16
No offsetting of income and losses from multiple businesses.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. The SGB II does not allow horizontal loss compensation when calculating the income from two commercial operations on which the granting of benefits is based (based on BSG, judgment of February 17, 2016 - B 4 AS 17/15 R).
2. Only half of the cost of a monthly ticket for local public transport within the Aachen city region can be deducted as a business expense from the plaintiff's business income from her self-employed work as a learning therapist.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.4 – Stuttgart Social Court, judgment of January 14, 2016 – S 21 AS 3791/13
In the case of so-called hypokalemic periodic paralysis (ICD 10: G72.3), there is no entitlement to additional nutritional requirements within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 5 SGB II. The need for expensive nutrition has not been proven according to the current scientific status.
Source: www.kostenlose-richter.de
2.5 - SG Kiel, decision of August 9, 2016 - S 33 AS 193/16 ER
Additional living space requirement of 5 square meters when exercising access rights to a child, a contribution from RA Helge, Hildebrandt, Kiel
Source: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
2.6 - Bayreuth Social Court, court decision of August 16, 2016 - S 13 AS 941/15 - Appeal admitted
Costs for accommodation and heating: SG Bayreuth once again confirms the lack of conclusiveness of a report from the company Analysts and Concepts
SG Bayreuth is overturning the upper rent limits adopted by the Hof district/Hof Land job center (and thus of course also for the entire district in SGB XII).
Comment and guiding principles from lawyer Regine Deterding:
The Bayreuth Social Court for the Hof district/Hof Land job center has now confirmed in a court decision dated August 16, 2016, Ref.: S 13 AS 941/15, that the company's analysis and concepts The report drawn up for the appropriateness limits of rents is not a coherent concept in the sense of the Federal Social Court.
Three main aspects were criticized:
1. Comparison area: The comparison area was not clearly determined based on the definition of the BSG as a homogeneous living space, as this probably cannot extend over the entire Hof district. Due to the “cluster analysis” carried out, with which the individual housing market types are determined, the Federal Social Court's requirements for the formation of the comparison area were not met.
2. Lack of representativeness of the data: The relationship between commercial landlords on the one hand and private landlords on the other, whose information was included in the report, does not reflect the conditions on the housing market.
3. Operating costs: The cold operating costs determined differ significantly from the average costs determined by the German Tenants' Association for the Free State of Bavaria (0.88 € - 1.19 € instead of 1.58 € per square meter of living space), without a comprehensible explanation being given becomes.
The decision should also be transferred to other cities and districts, at least with regard to points 1 and 3.
3. Decisions of the state social courts and administrative courts on asylum law
3.1 – Hessian State Social Court, decision v. 08/23/2016 – L 4 AY 4/16 B ER and L 4 AY 5/15 B
The prerequisites for a restriction of the entitlement to benefits according to Section 1a AsylbLG do not exist because, according to the legislature, the expiry of a period of departure should not be sufficient to reduce benefits.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 – VG Stuttgart decision of August 20, 2016, A 11 K 730/16
threat of deportation; week period; Rejection of subsidiary protection as clearly unfounded
Guiding principle (Juris)
A deportation threat setting only a one-week deadline for voluntary departure in accordance with Section 36 (1) Asylum Act constitutes a rejection of the asylum application as obviously unfounded due to the changes to the Asylum Act through the Integration Act of July 31, 2016, not only with regard to the recognition that may have been applied for as a person entitled to asylum and the granting of refugee status, but also with regard to the granting of subsidiary protection status. This can also be assumed in asylum disputes if the disputed decision was made by the BAMF before the changes to the Asylum Act brought about by the Integration Act came into force.
Source: lrbw.juris.de
3.3 – VG Freiburg decision of August 12, 2016, A 3 K 1639/16
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. An application in accordance with Section 80 Paragraph 5 VwGO against a threat of deportation does not lack the need for legal protection because of the possibility of applying for readmission in accordance with Section 33 Paragraph 5 Sentence 2 AsylG.
2. The instruction according to Section 33 Paragraph 4 AsylG requires a qualified reference to the consequences of non-participation in the hearing according to Section 33 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 1 AsylG.
Source: lrbw.juris.de
3.4 - VG Schwerin 3rd Chamber, decision of August 24, 2016, 3 B 2176/16 As SN
Dublin procedure; transfer to Hungary; fugitive asylum seekers
Guiding principle (Juris)
A rejected asylum seeker is also a fugitive within the meaning of Article 29 Para. 2 Dublin III Regulation if he is only temporarily staying outside the area of his immigration authority for a period of more than three days and does not do so in accordance with Section 50 Paragraph 3 Residence Act. In this case, the respondent is not responsible for the failure of the transfer attempt due to the absence of the asylum seeker. The notification to the responsible member state in accordance with Article 9 Para. 2 Dublin III Regulation must be made before the expiry of the six-month period set out in Article 29 Para. 2 Dublin III Regulation. Otherwise, responsibility passes to the requesting state.
4. General information and worth reading about parental leave, SGB II and other legal codes
4.1 – Bavarian Administrative Court Regensburg, judgment of July 26, 2016 (ref.: RO 4 K 16.405):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel A claim to accommodation under homeless law cannot be asserted if it is unclear at the time of the decision whether the applicant is actually still homeless and still lives at the place of his or her previous habitual residence.
An important indication here can be the fact that the previously responsible social benefit provider is also not aware of the applicant's current availability.
4.2 – LSG Rheinland-Pfalz, judgment of August 30, 2016 – L 1 AL 61/14
Parental leave after the child is three years old can exclude entitlement to unemployment benefits,
Source: LSG Mainz press release No. 18/2016 v. August 31, 2016: www2.mjv.rlp.de
4.3 – New version of § 39 SGB II makes legal protection for SGB II recipients more difficult, a contribution from Attorney Mathias Klose, Regensburg
As of August 1, 2016, the legal situation for Hartz IV recipients has deteriorated significantly. Section 39 No. 1 SGB II was redrafted and the scope of application was also expanded to include withdrawal of benefits (Section 66 SGB I): socialrecht-aktuell.blogspot.de
4.4 – Hartz IV: Where should this end?
A comment on the “anti-social behavior” that the job centers should sanction: aktuell-socialpolitik.blogspot.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
