1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 08.02.2017 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of 02/08/2017 – – B 14 AS 3/16 R
A claim for compensation under Section 34 SGB II aF is disputed.
The mere prospect that the receipt of benefits would end does not eliminate the need for assistance.
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. The sanctioning of misconduct under Section 31ff SGB II does not preclude the subsequent assertion of a claim for compensation under Section 34 SGB II.
2. The mere maintenance of the conditions for the granting of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) cannot be subsumed under Section 34 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the SGB II.
3. The version of Section 34 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) resulting from the 9th Amendment to the SGB II, which entered into force on August 1, 2016, is not applicable due to the principle of the period of validity. The insertion therein stating that the creation of a need for assistance also includes maintaining it is not, contrary to the explanatory memorandum of the draft law (Bundestag printed matter 18/8041, p. 45), a clarification, as is already evident from a comparison of the words "create" and "maintain.".
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
See also: Legal “clarification” was not a clarification – Federal Social Court on Hartz IV repayment obligations, an article by attorney Thorsten Blaufelder, Blaufelder Law Firm.
Job centers may not apply a stricter law on Hartz IV repayment introduced on August 1, 2016, due to socially unacceptable behavior by a Hartz IV recipient, to previous periods. This was decided by the Federal Social Court (BSG) in Kassel on Wednesday, February 8, 2017, thus ruling in favor of a Hartz IV recipient from the Emsland district (Case No.: B 14 AS 3/16 R). The amendment, described by the legislature as a “clarification,” was in fact a new regulation that may not be applied retroactively.
Source: www.anwalt.de
1.2 – BSG, judgment of 02/08/2017 – B 14 AS 10/16 R
The deduction of dog liability insurance premiums from the income to be considered is controversial.
No additional Hartz IV benefits for dog liability insurance – Contributions to a dog liability insurance policy required by a state dog law are not deductible as insurance contributions under Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 3 SGB II from the income to be taken into account.
Court ruling:
Hartz IV recipients do not receive additional funding for dog liability insurance. This applies even if the insurance is mandatory under state law.
The legislator intended to support normal living expenses and integration into the labor market, but not the hobby of dog ownership, it was stated.
Therefore, a different rule only applies if Hartz IV recipients need their dog for professional reasons.
Source: www.donaukurier.de and note: Sat: Press release 3/2017 from February 8, 2017 – No higher unemployment benefit II due to dog liability insurance: www.bsg.bund.de
1.3 – BSG, judgment of 02/08/2017 – B 14 AS 22/16 R
The deduction of non-legally established maintenance payments from the income to be considered is controversial.
Maintenance payments that are not legally established are not to be deducted from the income to be taken into account under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Note from the Court:
The wording of the relevant Section 11 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 Number 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II aF), applicable during the period in dispute, is unambiguous; it regulates "expenses... up to the amount stipulated in a maintenance order or in a notarized maintenance agreement." This requirement is indisputably not met in the present case. Nothing to the contrary follows from the purpose of the provision, its systematic context, or constitutional law.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
Note:
See also: Maintenance payments do not automatically lead to higher Hartz IV benefits, Attorney Thorsten Blaufelder, Blaufelder Law Firm
2. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 10 August 2016 and 12 October 2016 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – BSG, Judgment of 12 October 2016 – B 4 AS 38/15 R
Basic income support for job seekers – consideration of income from self-employment – deduction of ongoing maintenance payments – no deduction of payments towards maintenance arrears – no deduction of reserves for legal fees and the purchase of a motor vehicle
Principle (Editor):
A payment on arrears of legally established maintenance claims from the past is not to be considered as a deduction from income under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (based on the Federal Social Court's judgment of February 20, 2014, B 14 AS 53/12 R).
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2.2 – BSG, Judgment of 10.08.2016 – B 14 AS 23/15 R
Regarding the entitlement to conclude a service provider agreement; here: debt counselling pursuant to Section 16a of the German Social Code, Book II (denied)
Court Note:
The plaintiff has no right to the conclusion of a public-law contract with the defendant regarding the provision of paid debt counselling services.
The defendant has exercised its discretion regarding the qualitative requirements for the individuals responsible for the direct provision of this service to benefit recipients at its contractual partners without legal error. In particular, given the introductory objective description in Section 16a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), "to achieve holistic and comprehensive support and assistance with integration into employment," it is not objectionable that the defendant considers purely legal advice insufficient and, moreover, requires specific advisory expertise through training in counseling or the additional qualification of "debt counseling," even from a fully qualified lawyer.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – State Social Court Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 30 January 2017 – L 20 AS 2483/16 B ER – legally binding
No right of residence arising from the continued effect of employee status due to parental leave – (No) continuing employee status after the birth of a child beyond the period of maternity protection due to receipt of parental allowance
Receiving parental allowance has no effect on employee status.
Principle (Editor):
The Bulgarian applicant is not entitled to SGB II benefits, because the applicant's employee status was not maintained because she received or is still receiving parental allowance following the maternity leave period.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 04.01.2017 – L31 AS 1427/16 NZB – legally binding
Unavoidable need – paternity test – contesting paternity
Guiding principle (Editor):
The answer to the question of when the costs of a paternity test can be claimed under Section 24 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), depends solely on the circumstances of the individual case, and therefore no fundamental importance can be affirmed.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.3 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 13 December 2016 – L 7 AS 1494/15
Derivatives and futures are not considered tangible assets within the meaning of Section 16c Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Principle (Editor):
The plaintiff's intended business model of daily trading on the EUREX futures exchange with DAX futures exclusively for his own account does not comply with the structural principles and therefore also not with the fundamental funding objectives of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which is why any funding related to it is excluded in principle in accordance with Sections 16 et seq. of the SGB II without any discretionary leeway for the basic income support provider.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
3.4 – Hamburg State Social Court, Judgment of 08.09.2016 – L 4 AS 565/15 and L 4 AS 566/15
Crediting of care allowance when caring for non-family members (§§ 3 No. 36 in conjunction with 33 para. 2 sentence 1 EStG)
Principle (Editor)
: While it is true that the voluntary care of sick or dependent persons deserves social recognition and should be promoted, the incentive for recipients of state benefits to continue earning income through employment is regulated under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), by the exemption regulations. There is no apparent sufficient reason to apply a different standard specifically and exclusively to caregiving activities (cf. Hessian State Social Court, Judgment of November 12, 2014 – Case No.: L 6 AS 491/11).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See also LSG Hamburg, judgment of 08.09.2016 – L 4 AS 567/15 and – L 4 AS 569/15
4. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
4.1 – SG Stralsund, decision of 05.01.2017, S 7 AS 979/16
Matters under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
Principle (Juris)
1. If the administrative authority offers an appellant the option of suspending proceedings due to a case already pending before the social court involving the parties, which also touches upon the (fundamental) legal questions raised again, the filing of a lawsuit after insisting on the decision in the objection proceedings is to be regarded as frivolous.
2. A party who reasonably weighs their cost risk and has to finance the litigation costs from their own resources will not pursue an objection procedure as long as the same legal question is already pending for a decision in another parallel procedure of the same plaintiff before the Social Court and has not yet been definitively or legally decided, if the authority indicates a suspension of the objection procedure.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
4.2 – Schleswig Social Court, judgment of 11 January 2017 (Case No.: S 24 AS 525/14):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. A detached house with a living area of 70 square meters, occupied by the applicant and her daughter, is protected from realization as a self-occupied residential property of reasonable size in accordance with Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB II.
2. However, this fact does not give rise to an entitlement to the granting of benefits for the maintenance or operation of this asset pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
3. Repayment installments payable on real estate cannot, in principle, be counted as expenses for accommodation within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), because benefits under the SGB II are limited to securing current subsistence and are not intended to generate assets.
4. This applies particularly if the repayment of the remaining debt will take a considerable amount of time, i.e., the accumulation of assets is not yet largely complete, and the applicant will likely be dependent on the granting of social benefits for subsistence for the foreseeable future.
4.3 – Social Court Hannover, decision of 01.02.2017 – S 74 AS 256/17 ER
No urgent legal protection is available to enforce advice or assistance from the job center when filing appeals.
Source: www.alg-ratgeber.de
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion (SGB III)
5.1 – Hessian State Social Court, Judgment of 16 December 2016 – L 7 AL 35/15 – The appeal is granted.
Social Law – No Reporting Obligation for Vocational Trainees in Their Recognition Year:
Individuals whose training or employment relationship is ending are required to register as jobseekers in person at the employment agency no later than three months before its termination (§ 38 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB III). If registration does not occur or does not occur on time, a one-week suspension of unemployment benefits due to late jobseeker registration may be imposed (§ 159 para. 1 no. 7 SGB III). However, this reporting obligation does not apply to company-based training relationships, which also include vocational trainees (here: social pedagogues) in their recognition year (LSG Hessen, 16.12.2016, file no. L 7 AL 35/15).
(February 7, 2017 – Your contact person: Lawyer & Specialist Lawyer for Social Law Mathias Klose)
Source: www.ra-klose.com
6. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
6.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 10 January 2017 – L 15 SO 345/16 B ER – legally binding
Cancellation and reimbursement notice – order for immediate enforcement – definiteness of a notice – kickback payments
The cancellation and reimbursement order is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements of specificity under Section 33 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) – individual claims
Principle (Editor):
1. The decision does not specify which amount is being withheld from which applicant and which amount is being reclaimed from whom. Social welfare entitlement is always an individual need arising in a specific person. There are no households of multiple people sharing the same benefit.
2. The fact that, according to Section 19 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (now Section 27 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII), the income (and assets) of the benefit recipient and their partner must be considered "jointly" does not alter this conclusion. The wording in Section 19 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII, does not change the fact that, as before under the Federal Social Assistance Act (BSHG), the respective members of the household have individual claims against the social assistance provider, and that the person who is not in need cannot claim social assistance simply because of the "joint" consideration of income (Federal Social Court, Judgment of June 9, 2011 – B 8 SO 20/09 R).
It follows that any cancellation and reimbursement must be carried out individually for each person in need. The decision does not meet this requirement.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 02.02.2017 – L 9 SO 691/16 B ER, L 9 SO 692/16 B – legally binding
The applicants (Syrian nationals) are to be granted benefits to secure their livelihood in accordance with Chapter Four of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), in the amount of the respective standard rates as stipulated by law, but not the assumption of costs for accommodation and heating – declaration of commitment pursuant to Section 68 Paragraph 1 of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) as amended until August 5, 2016.
Principle (Editor):
It is readily apparent from the wording of Section 68 Paragraph 1 of the Residence Act that the declaration of commitment merely results in a recourse obligation of the declarant towards the public authority. Therefore, benefits to those in need, such as the applicants, may not be excluded per se, i.e., simply by virtue of the existence of the declaration of commitment. Rather, the public authority that has expended public funds should seek reimbursement from the sponsor, Section 68 Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 of the Residence Act (see Social Court Detmold, Decision of April 2, 2015 – S 2 SO 102/15 ER –; see also Federal Administrative Court, Judgment of January 26, 2017 – 1 C 10.16 – Press Release No. 3/2017).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
7. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
7.1 – SG Gießen, Judgment of 17.01.2017 – S 18 SO 183/14
Reimbursement of costs for funerals arranged by the nursing home director
A nursing home can, according to §§ 74, 98 para. 3 SGB XII, demand the assumption of the costs for the funeral of a resident who died penniless in the home and whose relatives are themselves under guardianship.
The verdict is not legally binding.
Source: Press release from the Gießen Social Court dated February 7, 2017: sg-giessen-justiz.hessen.de
7.2 – Social Court Dortmund, decision of 31.01.2017 - S 62 SO 628/16 ER
No social assistance benefits for Bulgarian applicants – The exclusions from benefits contained in Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), in the version valid until December 28, 2016, also apply to benefits under Chapter Four of the SGB XII.
Principle (Juris)
1. The exclusions of benefits contained in Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), in the version applicable until December 28, 2016, also cover benefits under Chapter Four of the SGB XII.
2. The bridging benefits and assistance for return travel regulated in Sections 23 Paragraph 3 Sentences 3 to 6 and 23 Paragraph 3a of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), as amended and in force since December 29, 2016, constitute a different type of benefit compared to ongoing benefits under the SGB XII. A claim solely for ongoing benefits under the SGB XII does not automatically include a subsidiary claim for these benefits. Without an explicit declaration from the plaintiff, the benefits pursuant to Sections 23 Paragraph 3 Sentences 3 to 6 and Paragraph 3a of the SGB XII are not to be examined or granted subsidiaryly in court proceedings aimed at granting ongoing benefits.
3. The fact that the legislator, by excluding EU foreigners from benefits who derive their right of residence solely from the purpose of seeking employment, thereby establishing the subordination of the German social welfare system to that of the country of origin, is not objectionable under constitutional law.
4. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 18 July 2012 – 1 BvL 10/10 et al. = BVerfGE 132, 134 = SozR 4-3520 § 3 No. 2 – does not lead to a different conclusion. The situation of an asylum seeker is not comparable to that of an EU citizen. While an asylum seeker who claims political persecution in their home country is generally unable to return to their country of origin, this is generally possible without further ado for an EU citizen who has exercised their right to freedom of movement for the purpose of seeking employment and has entered the Federal Republic of Germany.
5. In any case, since December 29, 2016, the above argument can no longer be countered with the argument that the return to the home country of a foreigner excluded from benefits is only possible with long-term planning and by utilizing potentially unavailable financial resources. Section 23 Paragraph 3a of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) now expressly provides for the assumption of reasonable return travel costs by the social welfare agency. For the reasonable period until the return journey, bridging benefits are to be granted in accordance with Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentences 3 to 6 of the SGB XII.
6. A balancing of interests in preliminary injunction proceedings is only permissible if the adjudicating body is unable to clarify the factual and legal situation within the time available in these proceedings.
7. Supreme Court rulings are not statutory law and do not create any comparable legal obligation. Their validity beyond the individual case rests solely on the persuasiveness of their reasoning and the authority and competence of the court. Even in preliminary injunction proceedings, the jurisprudence of the appellate court, which according to the legislator's intent is not involved in these proceedings, should not be granted any greater binding effect than it otherwise possesses. Moreover, one cannot assume established case law as long as there is no relevant case law from a panel of a court of last instance dealing with the relevant area of law.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
8. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Asylum Law
8.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 21 December 2016 – L 8 AY 31/16 B ER
The conditions for reducing benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) according to Section 1a Paragraph 3 AsylbLG are not met here.
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. If the authority issues administrative acts that are renewed implicitly through the payment of benefits in the area of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), the provisional legal protection is governed by Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
2. Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) as amended by the Asylum Acceleration Act of October 20, 2015, is constitutional. Articles 1 and 20 of the Basic Law (GG) do not mandate needs-based, unconditional social benefits. Section 1a of the AsylbLG sanctions avoidable personal misconduct by the benefit recipient who obstructs the enforcement of deportation measures through justifiable and culpable conduct within their sphere of responsibility. The Senate also considers the possibility, provided for by law, of continuing to restrict benefits to the reduced physical subsistence minimum pursuant to Section 14 Paragraph 2 of the AsylbLG to be fundamentally constitutionally permissible (see the Senate's decision of November 11, 2016, L 8 AY 28/16 B ER).
3. In view of the benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), which are already reduced compared to the benefit systems of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Book XII (SGB XII), the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living and the principle of proportionality require a restrictive interpretation of Section 1a of the AsylbLG.
4. * The required cooperation must have a legal basis and be suitable and reasonable, * the authority responsible for implementing the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) must not have an easier way of obtaining the information, documents, etc. required for enforcing measures to terminate residence, and * the benefit recipient must be heard before the decision on the restriction and must be given a reasonable period of time to cease the abusive behavior so that they can still avert the intended restriction of benefits through their own actions.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
8.2 – Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of 02.01.2017 – L 9 AY 226/16 B ER legally binding.
The applicant seeks, within the framework of preliminary legal protection, placement in a suitable facility from the respondent.
Jurisdiction of the administrative courts when asylum seekers request placement in another apartment for the purpose of averting danger.
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. The allocation of basic benefit recipients pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) to a new subsequent accommodation does not open the legal recourse to the social courts.
2. The applicant's request – for the provision of a self-contained apartment with at least two living rooms, a kitchen, and a bathroom – is not directed at accommodation in communal housing, but rather at accommodation in a self-contained apartment that enables independent living. However, benefits for accommodation and heating for those entitled to similar benefits outside of communal housing are generally to be provided as cash benefits.
3. The respondent already provides benefits for accommodation and heating as a cash payment – possibly in the form of a direct transfer. If, in this situation, the person entitled to benefits asserts that the placement based on public safety regulations does not sufficiently address their need for dignified accommodation, the claim for placement in another apartment can be based solely on public safety regulations (claim to police intervention). Such disputes are assigned to the administrative courts pursuant to Section 40 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
9. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV and other legal codes
Schäuble: Child benefit for EU citizens should be based on children's place of residence.
Federal Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) wants to significantly reduce child benefit for EU citizens to combat welfare fraud. This is according to key points of a draft law published on February 10, 2017. Currently, EU citizens are entitled to child benefit for the duration of their employment in Germany – even if their children live in another country. The planned new regulation stipulates that instead of the full child benefit rate, the benefit will in future be based on the actual cost of living in the children's home country.
EU Commission rejects adjustment
. Source and further information: rsw.beck.de
On both sides of authoritarian parenting: A study on the effects of sanctions on young recipients of Hartz IV benefits – and their “side effects”
Often, you can tell from the headlines of articles that we're dealing with a highly controversial topic: "Cutting Hartz IV benefits will get recipients into jobs faster," claims one author. "Punishments work," is how categorically Sven Astheimer titled his commentary on the matter. And then there's an article like this: "Researchers recommend reforming Hartz IV sanctions." And they're all reporting on the same thing: a new study from the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) of the Federal Employment Agency. Gerard J. van den Berg, Arne Uhlendorff, and Joachim Wolff have examined the effects of sanctions on young recipients of unemployment benefit II (ALG II) and summarize their findings in the headline: "Faster job placement, but also side effects." The study investigates the effects of initial and repeated sanctions on men under 25 in West Germany.
Read more at: aktuelle-sozialpolitik.blogspot.de
Social Court Detmold, judgment of January 6, 2017 (Case No.: S 14 SB 1421/15):
Guiding principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel
: On the prerequisites for granting the compensation for disadvantages “aG” (exceptional walking disability) within the meaning of Section 69 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) in conjunction with Section 6 Paragraph 1 No. 14 of the German Road Traffic Act (StVG) for a disabled person whose condition does not correspond to the statutory examples (no paraplegia, no amputations of the lower limbs), but who, due to the severity of his impairments, is to be treated equally to this group of persons because his various health problems, in their combination, have such an adverse effect on his walking ability that he can only move about with comparable physical exertion as members of the group of persons specified in more detail in Section 6 Paragraph 1 No. 14 of the German Road Traffic Act (StVG).
ECJ: Opinion of the Advocate General in Case C-638/16 PPU X and X v Belgian State
Court of Justice of the European Union, PRESS RELEASE No. 1/17
Luxembourg, 7 February 2017
According to Advocate General Mengozzi, Member States are obliged to issue a humanitarian visa if there are serious and factually substantiated grounds for believing that, if such a visa is refused, persons seeking international protection would be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment.
The Advocate General stated that it is irrelevant whether there are any links between the person concerned and the requested Member State.
curia.europa.eu
www.juris.de
North Rhine-Westphalia: State Government Partly Responsible
for High Number of Unlawful Hartz IV Benefit Notices
Regarding the recent reports about a large number of incorrect Hartz IV benefit notices in North Rhine-Westphalia, Christian Leye, state spokesperson for The Left Party in North Rhine-Westphalia and their lead candidate for the upcoming state elections, stated: “The high number of court rulings concerning incorrect Hartz IV benefit notices proves that the ‘Agenda’ policies were and are profoundly socially unjust. If the SPD is serious about social justice, it must immediately draw political conclusions.” Leye continues:
www.dielinke-nrw.de
Harald Thomé from Tacheles eV Wuppertal comments:
Incorrect Hartz IV benefit notices: Who is to blame?
Many Hartz IV benefit notices contain errors.
Who or what is responsible?
Answers from the Wuppertal unemployment association Tacheles
www1.wdr.de
Hartz IV: Notices often incorrect
130,028 appeals against Hartz IV benefit notices in 2016 in North Rhine-Westphalia.
36 percent of these appeals were successful.
A frequent error is the incorrect application of the law.
www1.wdr.de
"The often hopeless fight for the settlement fee" by Attorney Dr. Hans-Jochem Mayer on LSG Bayern, 13.01.2017 – L 7 AS 830/16 NZB
The often hopeless fight for the settlement fee
By Attorney Dr. Hans-Jochem Mayer:
The decision of the Bavarian State Social Court (LSG Bayern) of January 13, 2017 – L 7 AS 830/16 NZB – is further proof of how difficult it is in practice for lawyers to earn the settlement fee. The lawyer's suggestion in the objection proceedings that a sworn affidavit from his client could be submitted instead of the missing tickets ultimately led to the court's decision to grant relief. Although it is generally accepted in case law that a settlement fee is payable when a lawyer submits new evidence unsolicited to prove facts relevant to the decision, the court considered it significant that the client was himself responsible for not having the tickets. In my opinion, this decision also demonstrates that there is no objectively justifiable reason to treat the settlement fee differently from the agreement fee, not merely as a success fee, but as a fee with a dual nature – namely, both a fee for services rendered and a settlement fee.
community.beck.de
LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, Ref. L 32 AS 988/16
Offsetting of rental deposit by the job center, an article by lawyer
Jan Bergmann, Piper & Partner lawyers, Berlin
The offset must be made immediately
Job centers are often obligated to pay out a rental deposit as a loan. Whether the rental deposit can be offset against the monthly standard benefit payment is legally disputed. In any case, however, any offsetting must occur immediately. Otherwise, the benefit recipient is simply "in luck."
What happened?
The job center approved a Hartz IV recipient's rent deposit as a loan. However, it initially failed to offset the deposit against the benefit amount. This had been agreed upon between the job center and the recipient. After almost two years, the job center noticed this and offset the loan against the benefit amount. The Hartz IV recipient sued. The Berlin Social Court initially ruled in favor of the job center. However, after the recipient appealed, the Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court informed the job center that such an error was unlawful. The rent deposit claim must be offset immediately.
The judgment
can be found at: www.anwalt.de
Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court has upheld a sound concept for housing costs in the Pinneberg district
. In several rulings on January 31, 2017 (including case L 6 AS 134/15), the Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court upheld the sound concept for housing costs (2011) developed by Analyse & Konzepte for the Pinneberg district. Matthias Klupp of Analyse & Konzepte participated in the proceedings as an expert witness.
Source: www.analyse-konzepte.de
SGB II – the term “community of need”, an article by Herbert Masslau,
further information: www.herbertmasslau.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
