1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 29 November 2016 – L 9 AS 2282/16 B ER legally binding
Regarding the assumption of rent arrears as a loan – regarding the consideration of children in the household – reference to Section 22 Paragraph 9 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is unsuitable for preventing homelessness – submission of current bank statements is generally not required – per capita principle – misconduct of the person in need of assistance:
Loans to cover rent arrears must be divided equally among those persons who are obligated under the tenancy agreement, irrespective of the per capita principle.
In the present case, it had to be taken into account that, on the one hand, the applicant had significantly contributed to the creation of the rent arrears through her own misconduct, and on the other hand, the joined state, in its function as youth welfare provider and employer of the appointed guardian, was also partly responsible for the applicant's particular financial difficulties through breach of duty.
Principle (Juris)
1. For the examination of the factual prerequisites of § 22 para. 8 SGB II, it is irrelevant whether economically unreasonable (reproachable) conduct of the person in need of assistance may have (co-)caused the impending homelessness (following BSG, judgment of June 17, 2010 – B 14 AS 58/09 R).
2. The mere fact that local courts are obligated under Section 22 Paragraph 9 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) to inform the basic income support providers does not prevent homelessness. In proceedings for the assumption of rent arrears under Section 22 Paragraph 8 of the SGB II, reference to Section 22 Paragraph 9 of the SGB II is regularly misplaced because the basic income support provider, which may need to be informed, is clearly unwilling to assume rent arrears.
3. The submission of current bank statements to substantiate grounds for an order is generally not required if the applicants are currently receiving benefits.
4. The fact that the plaintiff / applicant objects to the disclosure of their bank statements submitted to the Social Court to the defendant / respondent is irrelevant if the latter regularly receives access to the bank statements anyway.
5. A court-appointed guardian who fails to forward maintenance payments to his ward and thereby exposes him to the risk of homelessness is acting in breach of his duties.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Judgment of 19 September 2016 – L 18 AS 441/16
Basic income support for job seekers – consideration and calculation of income in the case of self-employment – contributions to the lawyers' pension fund are not business expenses
Guiding principle (Editor):
1. Contributions to the pension fund for lawyers are not business expenses in the context of self-employment as a lawyer.
2. Contributions to the lawyers' pension fund are to be taken into account pursuant to Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 3b of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), and are therefore neither directly deductible from income as necessary business expenses nor as mandatory social security contributions pursuant to Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the SGB II (see also the judgment of the Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg of December 9, 2014 – L 12 AS 1858/13 – as well as Schmidt in Eicher, SGB II, 3rd edition 2013, Section 11b marginal note 16, according to which at most Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 5 of the SGB II is considered as a deduction provision).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.3 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 14 December 2016 – L 31 AS 1607/16 B
Principle (Juris)
1. An appeal to the Higher Social Court is available against a decision by which a social court declares itself incompetent after the referral of the legal dispute by a local court.
2. The case shall only be referred to the Federal Social Court for the determination of the competent court if both decisions of the courts are legally binding due to the lack of appeal by the parties; otherwise, the State Social Court shall decide.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.4 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, 13th Senate, Judgment of December 14, 2016 – L 13 AS 92/15 – The appeal is granted.
Unemployment benefit II – Special needs – Repair costs of eyeglasses
Guiding principle (Editor)
: 1. Repair costs for eyeglasses can constitute a special need within the meaning of Section 24 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
2. A claim under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not exist, because this provision requires an ongoing need.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
1.5 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Decision of April 18, 2016 – L 15 AS 257/15 B ER
Basic income support for job seekers – Exclusion of benefits for foreigners residing in Germany for the purpose of job seeking – Social assistance – Exclusion of benefits pursuant to Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) – Granting of benefits pursuant to Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) – No reduction of discretion to zero after more than six months of residence
Principle (Juris):
The entitlement to social assistance of EU citizens who are excluded from receiving unemployment benefit II (ALG II) under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is limited, according to Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 and Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), to a discretionary decision by the social assistance provider that is free from error and dependent on the circumstances of the individual case, even if they have resided in Germany for more than six months. Contrary to the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG) (Judgment of December 3, 2015, Case No. B 4 AS 44/15 R), there is no automatic obligation, beginning with the seventh month of residence, to grant ongoing benefits in accordance with Chapter Three of the SGB XII by reducing the discretion to zero.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.6 – Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court, Judgment of 30 May 2016 – L 11 AS 39/14 NK
Guiding principle (Editor):
Bylaws on housing costs for "Hartz IV" and social assistance recipients in Neumünster are invalid.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See also: Landmark ruling: Hartz IV rents: Court overturns cost regulations: www.shz.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Social Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 24 November 2016 – S 3 AS 2553/13 – The appeal is admitted.
Regarding the question of whether a coherent concept for the city of Wuppertal can be assumed for the period in dispute here, from 01.4.2013 to 30.9.2013, with regard to living space in the range of 50 square meters.
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. The applicant is entitled to consideration of his accommodation needs based on the housing benefit table plus a 10% supplement.
2. Because the determination of the appropriate price per square meter by the basic income support provider for apartments for single-person households in the size range of around 50 square meters is not based on a conclusive concept within the meaning of the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG).
3. It can remain open whether the 2010 rent index used by the defendant, which is based on data collected in 2009, is still suitable for determining reasonable accommodation costs in 2013. The court assumes that the data collected in 2009 is no longer sufficient for assessing the reasonableness of accommodation costs, at least for periods from the end of 2014 onwards (see judgment of the Social Court of Düsseldorf of November 24, 2016, S 3 AS 489/15 and of July 4, 2016, S 13 AS 3749/15).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – Social Court Nordhausen, Judgment of 26 October 2015 – S 31 AS 818/14 – legally binding
Social law administrative procedure – Rejection of reimbursement of preliminary proceedings costs – Legal fees – Possibility of raising the statute of limitations defense – Duty to mitigate costs
Principle beck-online
1. A claim for exemption from the attorney's fee claim under Section 63 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) is excluded if the client could raise the defense of the statute of limitations at the time of the application for reimbursement of costs. (official principle)
2. The defendant is entitled to refuse reimbursement of the fees and expenses of the legal representative, citing the duty to mitigate costs. (Official Headnote)
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip: Schneider, Norbert
Urt with commentary | Rejection of cost reimbursement when the statute of limitations can be invoked | AGS 2016, 550-552
2.3 – Social Court Dortmund, judgment of December 16, 2016 (Case No.: S 19 AS 3947/16):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. The decision on the (non-)granting of consent pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 4a Sentence 1 SGB II is to be examined incidentally within the framework of the main proceedings brought against the revocation or approval decision.
2. The regulations concerning absence from the place of residence are intended neither as a sanction for non-compliant behavior nor as a reward for compliant behavior.
3. However, absence from the place of residence must not impair the professional integration of benefit recipients.
4. This is not the case if, when applying for approval under Section 7 Paragraph 4a Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), only individual applications of the applicant were still pending, the SGB II provider only submitted two placement proposals to the person in need of assistance, and the benefit recipient was only fully available to the employment agency again after illness.
5. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that the prospects of finding a new job increase again in the first few months after an illness, even after prolonged unemployment. Experience shows that the chances of reintegration into the workforce are greatest in the first few months of unemployment.
6. Even unemployed people need vacation.
2.4 – Social Court Dortmund, decision of 29 November 2016 – S 32 AS 4478/16 ER
Principle (Juris)
1. On the connection between the authority to order (or compel by preliminary injunction) "non-genuine" interveners/parties to be joined pursuant to Section 75 Paragraph 2 Alternative 2, Paragraph 5 of the Social Court Procedure Act (SGG) and the procedural obstacle of lis pendens (Section 202 Sentence 1 SGG in conjunction with Section 17 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG)) in "parallel" separate legal proceedings or expedited proceedings against defendants/respondents who could alternatively be considered as social security providers liable for benefits – here: benefit providers under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) and Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) in connection with Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II and Sections 21 Sentence 1, 23 Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB XII.
2. The procedural obstacle of lis pendens precludes the admissibility of the more recent (later initiated) proceedings with regard to the legal action pursued against the defendant/respondent in the main application, if, with regard to the subject matter of the more recent proceedings, the joinder of this defendant/respondent as an alternatively liable social security institution is necessary in the other, older (earlier initiated) proceedings pursuant to Section 75 Paragraph 2 Alternative 2 of the Social Court Procedure Act (SGG) – because, based on the facts and the law, there is a serious possibility of a claim for benefits against him/her – and subsequently, pursuant to Section 75 Paragraph 5 of the SGG, a judgment against him/her is possible. The procedural obstacle of lis pendens in other proceedings only partially precludes the admissibility of the later proceedings, namely only with regard to subsidiary legal action pursuant to Section 75 Paragraph 5 of the Social Court Act (SGG) against another benefit provider who has been or is to be joined as a party pursuant to Section 75 Paragraph 2 Alternative 2 of the SGG, if the subject matter of the dispute is the same as in the earlier proceedings between the plaintiff/applicant and the defendant/respondent in those proceedings. In such cases, the later proceedings are inadmissible (only) with regard to the subsidiary legal protection claim, and the existence of a claim (or claim for and grounds for an injunction) against the party to be joined/intervened in the later proceedings pursuant to Section 75 Paragraph 2 Alternative 2 of the SGG must be examined and decided solely in the earlier proceedings in which that party is the defendant/respondent. According to § 75 para. 5 SGG, the procedure may not be carried out in the more recent proceedings.
3. If proceedings against a benefit provider are already pending, separate proceedings against the joined/to-be-joined other benefit provider are inadmissible due to the lis pendens of the subject matter in the earlier pending proceedings in which the joinder has taken place or is yet to take place (see Higher Social Court of Rhineland-Palatinate, decision of September 30, 2011 – L 1 AL 70/11 B –; Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of September 18, 2013 – L 9 SO 192/13 –; Federal Social Court, judgment of March 29, 2001 – B 7 AL 14/00 R –; Federal Social Court, judgment of August 19, 2010 – B 14 AS 13/10 R –). Contrary to the prevailing opinion... M. considers the pendency of an (older) proceeding initiated against the intervener to be an obstacle to his conviction under Section 75 Paragraph 5 of the Social Court Act (SGG); The other pending legal proceedings do not merely become "irrelevant with the conviction" (contrary to BSG, judgment of 19.05.1982 – 11 RA 37/81 -; BSG, judgment of 24.05.1984 – 7 RAr 15/82 -; BSG, judgment of 15.11.2012 – B 8 SO 3/11 R -; BSG, judgment of 27.08.2011 – B 4 AS 1/10 R -; LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of 09.06.2016 – L 7 SO 1741/12 -; LSG NRW, decision of 26.02.2013 – L 9 SO 437/12 B -).
4. Only by consistently considering the earlier pending proceedings as admissible can the purpose of both Section 75 Paragraph 2 Alternative 2, Paragraph 5 of the Social Courts Act (SGG) and Section 17 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG), which are intended to avoid multiple court proceedings and the risk of conflicting decisions, be practically and (at least largely) consistently fulfilled. Otherwise, several courts would potentially work in parallel for years, including duplicate official investigations, and ultimately the process would be based on a "first-come, first-served" principle. 5. Regarding the granting of legal aid due to sufficient prospects of success of an "alternative" legal action against a party necessarily joined/to be joined pursuant to Section 75 Paragraph 2 Alternative 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG) with regard to Section 75 Paragraph 5 SGG (cf. Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of March 4, 2010 – L 1 B 34/09 AS –; Higher Social Court of Rhineland-Palatinate, decision of September 30, 2011 – L 1 AL 70/11 B –; Higher Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of September 16, 2013 – L 8 SO 10/13 B –) – affirmed here due to the largely unclarified relationship between Sections 75 Paragraph 2 Alternative 2, Paragraph 5 SGG and Section 17 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG) and the relevant legal provisions. § 114 ZPO justifiable case law of the BSG, according to which persons covered by the exclusion of benefits of § 7 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 2 SGB II can receive benefits from the joined SGB XII benefit provider on the basis of § 23 para. 1 sentence 3 SGB XII.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.5 – SG Leipzig, judgment of October 10, 2016 – S 17 AS 1584/13
SG Leipzig: Exception to the "head share principle" in the case of cohabitation with an EU foreigner without income or assets
Source: Press release dated January 12, 2017: www.justiz.sachsen.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion (SGB III)
3.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Judgment of 30 November 2016 – L 18 AL 38/16
Directive 2003/88/EC – Holiday pay – Suspension of entitlement to unemployment benefits – Old-age pension
The provision in Section 157 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) does not violate constitutional law. The provision in Section 157 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) also does not violate European law.
Principle (Editor):
1. Section 157 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) does not lead to a reduction of the entitlement to vacation pay, nor to a reduction of the plaintiff's minimum annual entitlement to vacation. The vacation pay is not credited against the plaintiff's unemployment benefit entitlement because the suspension pursuant to Section 157 Paragraph 2 of the SGB III only postpones the commencement of unemployment benefit payments, but does not result in a reduction or shortening of the entitlement period.
2. Due to this claim against the former employee, the entitlement to unemployment benefit was suspended – regardless of whether this claim would be fulfilled by his former employer, whereby the suspension period begins on the first day following the end of the employment relationship in accordance with Section 157 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) – and runs according to the calendar (for the calculation of the suspension period, see Federal Social Court – BSG –, judgment of March 29, 2001 – B 7 AL 14/00 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 – LSG Baden-Württemberg Judgment of 16.12.2016, L 8 AL 4082/15
Principle (Juris)
1. The procedure for favoring the plaintiff regulated in § 44 SGB X generally serves to establish material justice.
2. However, the legal assessment in Section 42 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) gives significance and weight to the procedural error of a missing hearing when issuing the adverse administrative act to be reviewed in the proceedings in favor of the applicant, even if a different administrative decision could not have been made had a hearing taken place. The decision is formally unlawful in this respect, which also leads to the legal assessment that the decision was wrongly made and must be overturned pursuant to Section 44 of the SGB X.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of September 5, 2016 – L 20 SO 194/14 – Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number: B 8 SO 29/16 R
Social assistance – Basic income support for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity – extended stay abroad (several months) – territoriality principle – habitual residence in Germany – social assistance for Germans abroad – exclusion of benefits only if there is no habitual residence in Germany – deviating determination of individual needs – significant deviation from average needs – lower cost of living – offsetting of travel expenses
Guiding principle (Editor):
A prolonged absence from Thailand does not negate habitual residence if there is an intention or likelihood of returning to the former place of residence and stable ties to it have been maintained.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the state and social courts on asylum law
5.1 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of December 12, 2016 (Case No.: L 8 AY 51/16 B ER):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. Holders of a tolerated stay pursuant to Section 60a of the Residence Act are not covered by the personal scope of application of Section 1a Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act as persons entitled to benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act.
2. Although holders of a temporary suspension of deportation pursuant to Section 60a of the Residence Act are generally also subject to enforceable deportation, because the obligation to leave the country of a foreign person whose deportation is suspended remains unaffected pursuant to Section 60a Paragraph 3 of the Residence Act, the restriction of entitlement pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 is inapplicable to this group of persons who are also entitled to benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 5 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act.
3. The applicability of Section 1a Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) requires that the entitlement to benefits under the AsylbLG must arise exclusively from Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 5 of the AsylbLG.
4. This rule is inapplicable if an applicant also holds a temporary residence permit.
5. Such recognition documents the impossibility of carrying out a deportation, which precludes the application of Section 1a Paragraph 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act.
5.2 – Social Court Landshut, Judgment of 16 December 2016 – S 11 AY 74/16
The impact of providing Wi-Fi on the amount of cash benefits has not yet been decided by either the Bavarian State Social Court or the Federal Social Court. Since many people in reception centers are potentially affected, there is a need for clarification that extends beyond the individual interests of the plaintiffs.
A deduction for the costs of communication is not to be made pursuant to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
Principle (Editor)
1. The provision of WLAN access without ensuring that the access was actually used or could have been used does not constitute a meeting of the plaintiffs' subsistence needs.
2. The legislator's decision in Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) to prioritize providing benefits in kind to cover subsistence needs is not fulfilled solely by the provision of Wi-Fi.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See also SG Landshut, decision of 16.08.2016 – S 11 AY 64/16 ER
. See also the guiding principles from Juris:
Simply providing WLAN in initial reception facilities is not sufficient to meet the demand.
1. The provision of Wi-Fi does not cover all items of the standard-rate-relevant consumption expenditure for communication (Department 8). (Official guideline)
Guiding principles:
The provision of Wi-Fi initially represents an offer to meet necessary personal needs.
If items relating to necessary personal needs are provided in kind and are then to be credited against the lump sum calculated in cash, it must be ensured that the in-kind benefits have been used at least to the extent assumed.
5.3 – Social Court Magdeburg, judgment of November 10, 2016 (Case No.: S 25 AY 29/16 WA):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. The provision arising from § 1a AsylbLG (restriction of entitlement) does not primarily focus on migration policy considerations, but rather allows for the imposition of sanctions in particularly justified individual cases.
2. This is a case-by-case regulation with high requirements for the factual prerequisite of a restriction.
3. The inapplicability of Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) would result in an unfounded and unjustified privileging of those entitled to benefits under the AsylbLG compared to the group of addressees of sanctions under Sections 31 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
4. If a psychological-psychotraumatological report verifies that, due to severe mental suffering (in particular post-traumatic stress disorder), there is an obstacle to enforcement pursuant to Section 60a Paragraph 2 of the Residence Act, then the authorities cannot assume a conscious obstruction of the enforcement of measures terminating residence within the meaning of Section 1a Paragraph 2 / Paragraph 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act.
5. An intention to abuse the benefits system within the meaning of Section 1a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) may also be inferred if a non-German person submits an application for benefits under the AsylbLG immediately or relatively soon after entering the federal territory, or if the non-German person entered the Federal Republic of Germany with little or no personal resources.
6. If entry into the federal territory is based on several motives, the authority responsible for implementing the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) must examine, by means of a comprehensive individual assessment, which of the reasons decisive for entry was of decisive importance.
7. The burden of proof and the burden of production regarding the practice of an abuse of rights lie with the authority responsible for the implementation of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
8. In the case of incapacity to travel, the conditions of Section 1a Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 / Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) are not met.
6. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV and related legal codes
Administrative Court Saarlouis, 16.09.2016 – 5 N 2073/15: Enforcement of a cost assessment order against the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees
No further reminders are required three months after service of the cost assessment order!
Guiding Principles:
The initiation of enforcement proceedings pursuant to Section 170 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) against the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees is permissible even without a prior additional reminder if more than three months have passed since service of the order for the assessment of costs and the debtor has not paid the amount owed. In this respect, it must be assumed that the debtor has been given sufficient opportunity to avert enforcement by voluntary payment solely due to the passage of time. It is then no longer necessary for the creditor to have additionally requested and reminded the debtor of payment before initiating enforcement proceedings.
Source: community.beck.de
BayLSG: Blindness Allowance Also Available for People with Severe Dementia.
According to the Bavarian Blindness Allowance Act, blind people receive a monthly allowance of €579 upon application to compensate for the additional expenses incurred due to their blindness. It is not necessary that actual disability-related additional expenses are incurred. To receive the benefit, blindness must be proven by a medical assessment. This proof is particularly difficult when the individuals concerned are unable to participate in the examination due to illness.
BayLSG, press release of 13 January 2017 regarding the judgment of 19 December 2016 – L 15 BL 9/14 (not legally binding): bayrvr.de
SG Berlin, 01.12.2016 – S 9 R 1113/12 WA – Decision on the disclosure of the name of an official informant – Balancing of interests
Principle (Juris)
1. An administrative act refusing access to files is independently contestable by legal action if a decision on the merits has been made, but this decision does not prejudice the plaintiff and is therefore not challenged by him in the legal proceedings.
2. The decision to disclose the name of an informant to the insured person concerned by way of file inspection requires a balancing of interests between the confidentiality interests mentioned in Section 25 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book Ten (SGB X), and the individual's interest in obtaining information. Beyond the explicit statutory powers of disclosure, an overriding interest of the individual to know the name of an informant can only be considered under strict conditions, in particular if there are indications that the informant has knowingly or recklessly made false – especially defamatory – statements, or if the informant is a potential witness.
Source: dejure.org
Note:
Regarding the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – Social Court Aachen, Case No. S 8 AS 48/06 of December 8, 2006 – Does a person reported for benefit fraud have a right to know the name of the person reporting them? – Legitimate interest in confidentiality; and regarding the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) – Social Court Stade, Judgment of February 23, 2006, Case No. S 6 AL 112/02 – Access to files and information about the name of an informant for a public authority.
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
