1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, decision of 08.08.2016 – L 3 AS 376/16 B ER
The BSG's case law is not convincing.
No basic income support for families of EU foreigners seeking work
Guiding principle of the court:
Exclusion of benefits in the case of the right of residence of the child of a Union citizen entitled to freedom of movement for the purpose of attending school.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 30 August 2016 – L 6 AS 1549/16 B ER and L 6 AS 1550/16 B – legally binding
Regarding the legality of a second ban on entering the premises against the benefit recipient (affirmed here).
Note from the court:
Substantive law requires that the issuance of a ban from the premises demonstrates a sustained disruption of operations (regarding bans from the premises, see LSG NRW decision of March 11, 2013 – L 19 AS 30/13, juris, ban of 5 months duration; see also Günther, DVBl. 2015, 1147 ff., 1149, 1150, with further references, as well as Hammel, ZfF 2011, 223 ff., each regarding bans from the premises in the Job Center), whereby the basic income support provider must make special efforts to overcome emerging or already existing conflicts.
There are no compelling indications that the decision is unlawful. This is because it is already the second ban from the premises issued against the applicant within less than three months.
Furthermore, this additional restraining order also includes specific provisions regarding potential contact between the applicant and the respondent. The applicant retains the option of contacting the respondent by mail or telephone regarding his benefit matters under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). For any necessary documentation, specifically for processing travel expense reimbursements related to exercising his visitation rights with his minor son, the applicant could also submit the required documents to the respondent via the house mailbox.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – SG Karlsruhe decision of 27 July 2016 – S 17 AS 1318/16
Health insurance – right to choose health insurance provider – no switching to the German Health insurance provider
Principle (Juris):
The German health insurance company does not fall under any of the categories of cases in Section 173 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book V.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – Social Court Munich, decision of March 21, 2016 (Case No.: S 40 AS 555/16 ER):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel:
An important reason within the meaning of Section 32 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for failing to attend an appointment regularly exists if it is either impossible for an employable benefit recipient to be present at the job center or it is made so difficult that any other behavior must be considered unreasonable.
In principle, the travel expenses incurred by benefit recipients in connection with attending a reporting appointment pursuant to Section 59 SGB II in conjunction with Section 309 Paragraph 1 SGB III must first be covered from the standard allowance (Section 20 SGB II).
Section 59 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in conjunction with Section 309 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) clarifies that the job center may, at its own discretion, reimburse travel expenses.
However, if benefit recipients credibly assert to the job center in advance of the appointment that they are unable to purchase the necessary ticket due to financial hardship, the SGB II provider, thus informed, can react appropriately and, if necessary, provide a ticket or voucher for the journey (as a benefit in kind).
An important reason for failing to appear at the appointment may be if the job center is unable to react or has not acted in time due to the short time remaining before the appointment or for other reasons.
2.3 – Aachen Social Court, Judgment of 09.08.2016 – S 14 AS 175/16
No offsetting of income and losses from multiple businesses.
Principle (Editor)
1. The German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), does not allow for horizontal loss offsetting when calculating the income from two businesses on which the granting of benefits is based (in accordance with the Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of 17.02.2016 – B 4 AS 17/15 R).
2. Only half of the cost of a monthly ticket for public transport within the Aachen city region may be deducted as a business expense from the plaintiff's business income from her self-employed activity as a learning therapist.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.4 – Stuttgart Social Court, Judgment of 14 January 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 needs within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). The necessity of a costly diet is not proven according to current scientific knowledge.
Source: www.kostenlose-richter.de
2.5 – SG Kiel, decision of 09.08.2016 – S 33 AS 193/16 ER
Additional living space requirement of 5 square meters when exercising visitation rights with a child, a contribution by attorney Helge Hildebrandt, Kiel
Source: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
2.6 – Social Court Bayreuth, judgment of 16.08.2016 – S 13 AS 941/15 – appeal allowed
Costs for accommodation and heating: SG Bayreuth confirms once again the lack of conclusiveness of an expert opinion by the company Analyse und Konzepte
SG Bayreuth overturns the rent ceilings adopted by the district of Hof/Jobcenter Hof Land (and thus, of course, also for the entire district under SGB XII).
Comment and guidelines by lawyer Regine Deterding:
Now the Social Court of Bayreuth for the district of Hof/Jobcenter Hof Land has also confirmed in a court ruling dated August 16, 2016, file number: S 13 AS 941/15, that the expert opinion prepared by the company Analyse und Konzepte regarding the limits of reasonable rents is not a conclusive concept within the meaning of the Federal Social Court.
Three key aspects were criticized:
1. Comparison area: The comparison area was not clearly defined according to the Federal Social Court's (BSG) definition of a homogeneous living space, as this likely cannot extend across the entire district of Hof. Furthermore, the "cluster analysis" used to determine the individual housing market types did not meet the requirements of the Federal Social Court for establishing the comparison area.
2. Lack of representativeness of the data: The ratio of 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 calculated cold operating costs 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 any plausible explanation being given.
The decision, at least with regard to points 1 and 3, should also be applicable to other cities and districts.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Administrative Courts on Asylum Law
3.1 – Hessian State Social Court, decision of 23.08.2016 – L 4 AY 4/16 B ER and L 4 AY 5/15 B
The conditions for a restriction of the entitlement to benefits under Section 1a AsylbLG are not met, because the expiry of a departure deadline should not be sufficient for a reduction in benefits according to the legislator's intent.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 – Stuttgart Administrative Court decision of 20 August 2016, A 11 K 730/16
Deportation order; one-week deadline; rejection of subsidiary protection as manifestly unfounded
Principle (Juris):
A deportation order setting a deadline of only one week for voluntary departure pursuant to Section 36 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act (AsylG) requires, due to the amendments to the Asylum Act by the Integration Act of July 31, 2016, that the asylum application be rejected as manifestly unfounded, not only with regard to any requested recognition as a person entitled to asylum and the granting of refugee status, but also with regard to the granting of subsidiary protection status. This must also be assumed in asylum disputes even if the contested decision of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) was issued before the amendments to the Asylum Act brought about by the Integration Act entered into force.
Source: lrbw.juris.de
3.3 – Freiburg Administrative Court decision of 12 August 2016, A 3 K 1639/16
Principle (Juris)
1. An application pursuant to Section 80 Paragraph 5 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) against a deportation order does not lack the need for legal protection due to the possibility of an application for reopening proceedings pursuant to Section 33 Paragraph 5 Sentence 2 of the Asylum Act (AsylG).
2. The instruction pursuant to Section 33 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Act requires a qualified indication of the consequences of not participating in the hearing pursuant to Section 33 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the Asylum Act.
Source: lrbw.juris.de
3.4 – Administrative Court Schwerin, 3rd Chamber, Decision of 24 August 2016, 3 B 2176/16 As SN
Dublin procedure; transfer to Hungary; fugitive asylum seeker
Principle (Juris):
A rejected asylum seeker is also considered to be absconding within the meaning of Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation if they are only temporarily, but for a period of more than three days, outside the district of their immigration authority and have not notified it of this in accordance with Section 50(3) of the Residence Act. In this case, the respondent is not responsible for the failure of the transfer attempt due to the asylum seeker's absence. The notification to the responsible Member State pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Dublin III Implementing Regulation must be made before the expiry of the six-month period stipulated in Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation. Otherwise, responsibility passes to the requesting State.
4. General information and interesting facts about parental leave, SGB II and other legal codes
4.1 – Bavarian Administrative Court Regensburg, judgment of July 26, 2016 (Case No.: RO 4 K 16.405):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel:
A claim for accommodation under homelessness law cannot be asserted if, at the time of the decision, it is unclear whether the applicant is actually still homeless and still lives at the place of their previous habitual residence.
A significant indicator here could be the fact that the previously responsible social welfare agency is also unaware of the applicant's current contact information.
4.2 – LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, Judgment of 30.08.2016 – L 1 AL 61/14
Parental leave after the child's third year can preclude entitlement to unemployment benefits
Source: Press release of the Higher Social Court of Mainz No. 18/2016 dated August 31, 2016: www2.mjv.rlp.de
4.3 – The revised version of Section 39 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) makes legal protection more difficult for recipients of SGB II benefits; an article by attorney Mathias Klose, Regensburg
As of August 1, 2016, the legal situation for recipients of Hartz IV benefits has deteriorated significantly. Section 39 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) has been revised, and its scope has been extended to include benefit withdrawal (Section 66 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I)): sozialrecht-aktuell.blogspot.de
4.4 – Hartz IV: Where will it end?
A commentary on the "socially unacceptable behavior" that job centers are supposed to sanction: aktuelle-sozialpolitik.blogspot.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
