1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 22 February 2017 – L 13 AS 74/17 B ER
Basic income support for job seekers – preliminary legal protection – benefits for education and participation – multi-day class trip – school regulations of the state of Lower Saxony – school trip abroad to York/England
Principle (Juris):
The costs for a school trip abroad may constitute expenses for a multi-day class trip within the meaning of Section 28 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB II.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
1.2 – LSG Celle-Bremen, Judgment of 03.12.2015 – L 9 AS 845/14 – Appeal pending before the BSG under file number: B 14 AS 32/16 R
Basic income support for job seekers – Consideration of income – Withholding of part of wages by the employer – Employer loan to finance a motor vehicle – No consideration of debt repayment – Available funds
Does the employer's monthly deduction of 100 euros for the repayment of an employer loan used to finance a motor vehicle reduce the income to be considered under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)?
Guiding principle (Editor):
1. Loan repayment installments are not tax-deductible.
2. The amount of €100 withheld by the employer to repay a loan is not deductible from earned income.
Source: Juris
1.3 – Mecklenburg-Vorpommern State Social Court, Judgment of August 30, 2016 – L 10 AS 200/13 – Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number: B 4 AS 34/16 R
Reduction of unemployment benefit II – Back payment of benefits after the cancellation of sanction notices – Deduction of the value of issued and redeemed food vouchers due to fulfillment or expiry of the payment claim – Analogous application of Section 364 of the German Civil Code (BGB) – Ordered reservation of consent in the area of asset management
Are food vouchers issued on the basis of Section 31 Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II aF) (Section 31a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II) as a result of a sanction considered benefits in lieu of payment, which must be credited against the benefits to be paid retroactively when the sanction is lifted?
Guiding principle (Juris):
When sanctions are lifted, food vouchers issued pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), constitute payments in lieu of performance by analogy with Section 362 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with Section 364 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), and lead to the extinguishment of the payment claim. This also applies when vouchers are issued to persons for whom a guardian has been appointed and a reservation of consent has been ordered for matters relating to the management of assets, if the standard benefits have already been paid directly to the person under guardianship.
Source: Juris
Legal tip:
LSG Munich, judgment of 26.11.2014 – L 11 AS 654/14 – and LSG Saxony-Anhalt, 12.01.2009 – L 5 B 94/08 AS ER – When lifting sanctions, vouchers provided pursuant to § 31a III SGB II must be taken into account as a benefit in lieu of performance.
1.4 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 01.12.2016 – L 4 AS 592/13 – legally binding
No horizontal loss offsetting for income from multiple businesses
Principle (Editor):
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 (cf. Federal Social Court, judgment of February 17, 2016, file number: B 4 AS 17/15 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.5 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 24.01.2017 – L 7 AS 1834/16 B ER – legally binding.
The appeal is inadmissible – as was the initial application – because the applicant's residential address was not provided and is unknown.
Note to the Court:
As a general procedural requirement, a valid legal remedy generally requires that the court be provided with the applicant's residential address. Providing a current address is necessary at every stage of the proceedings. A post office box address is not equivalent to a residential address.
This applies with regard to the constitutional guarantee of effective legal protection, at least if providing the residential address is readily possible and no legitimate interest in keeping the residential address secret precludes its disclosure
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.6 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 05.09.2016 – L 19 AS 871/15 – legally binding.
Repayment of debts is not to be taken into account when determining accommodation costs.
Guiding principle (Editor):
1. As a general rule, loan repayments are not considered eligible expenses for accommodation within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (Federal Social Court, judgments of November 7, 2006 – B 7b AS 2/05 R; of July 7, 2011 – B 14 AS 79/10 R; of February 16, 2012 – B 4 AS 14/11 R; of June 4, 2014 – B 14 AS 42/13 R; of December 3, 2015 – B 4 AS 49/14 R). This is because benefits under the SGB II are limited to securing current subsistence and are not intended for asset accumulation.
2. Here, only a small portion (approximately 13% within the first few years) of the loans secured against the plaintiff's house (the purchase of which was almost entirely financed by loans) had been repaid. An end to the financing is not foreseeable, especially since a loan representing approximately 40% of the total financing amount has a term of 100 years (NRW Bank). Therefore, assuming the repayment obligations does not serve to maintain a long-term occupied and almost fully paid-off property, but rather to build wealth. Even the reduction of debts secured by easements contributes to wealth accumulation.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.7 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 27 February 2017 – L 7 AS 1281/16 B ER – legally binding.
Regarding the affirmation of a community of need – a marriage-like partnership.
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. The term ‘living together’ in an apartment should be understood to mean more than just ‘living together’, as is the norm in shared apartments.
2. A characteristic feature of managing finances from a single pot is that, generally or at least in times of financial hardship, those with less capacity contribute less (Hessian State Social Court, decision of 21.06.2013 – L 9 AS 103/13 B ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.8 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 06.02.2017 – L 11 AS 887/16 B ER
LSG Bayern: With 5 hours per week and a monthly income of 187 euros, EU worker status may apply. Therefore, entitlement to SGB II benefits exists.
Court Notice:
In an expedited ruling, the Bavarian State Social Court considers employee status possible for a Romanian national who works as a "household helper (gardening, housework)" for 5 hours per week and earns a monthly income of 187 euros, and has therefore provisionally ordered supplementary benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See also the recent ruling by the Social Court of Karlsruhe of 24 January 2017 – S 4 AS 1827/16 – Entitlement of a Syrian refugee with EU citizenship to supplementary benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in the case of only marginal employment.
Note:
EU definition of employee, employee status
A key characteristic of an employment relationship is that someone performs services for another person under their instructions for a specific period of time, receiving remuneration in return. According to the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the term "employee" is to be interpreted broadly. Accordingly, an employee is anyone who performs actual and genuine work. Only activities that are so minor in scope that they are considered entirely subordinate and insignificant are disregarded. According to the German Federal Employment Agency (BA), an activity is considered entirely subordinate if the time spent working is only three hours per week. If the work exceeds eight hours per week, the individual is considered an employee.
According to the case law of the ECJ, even a marginal employment of 5.5 hours and a salary of 100 euros is sufficient to establish employee status, even if supplementary social benefits then have to be claimed (ECJ of 4 June 2009 – C-22/08 »Vatsouras/Koupatantze«; ECJ of 4 February 2010 – C-14/09 »Genc«; BSG of 19 October 2010 – B 14 AS 23/10 R; BVerwG of 19 April 2012 – 1 C 10.11.).
In cases of short working hours, a comprehensive assessment of the employment relationship is always necessary, whereby the existence of vacation entitlements and continued payment of wages in case of illness, the application of collective bargaining agreements, and the long duration of the employment relationship can indicate employee status. (See Dorothee Frings, Elke Tießler-Marenda: Immigration Law for Study and Advice – Including Nationality Law – With Examples and Solution Schemes, Volume 16, 3rd edition, December 2015, p. 290).
1.9 – LSG Hessen, decision of 28.11.2016 – L 2 AS 184/16 B
Principle (Juris)
I. According to No. 3106 Sentence 1 No. 3 of the German Lawyers' Fees Act (RVG) in the version applicable from August 1, 2013, a fictitious hearing fee arises if the proceedings for which an oral hearing is prescribed end without an oral hearing after an accepted admission of the claim. The provision does not apply in the case of a joint declaration of settlement.
II. In order for an admission to be accepted, the action must be admissible and, at least at the time of the admission that the claim raised in the action exists, also well-founded.
III. According to Section 101 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the settlement of the legal dispute requires the acceptance of the acknowledgment. This declaration can also be made in substance.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Social Court Braunschweig, judgment of March 1, 2017 (Case No.: S 9 AL 147/15):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel:
An advance payment of vocational training assistance pursuant to Section 68 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) must be made by the Employment Agency if the applicant, who is pursuing eligible training, does not receive maintenance from his parents and the vocational training is at risk because the applicant, due to his insufficient financial situation, has already had to apply to the Job Center for a loan pursuant to Section 27 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in conjunction with Section 22 Paragraph 8 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) due to accumulated rent arrears.
See also the guiding principle by attorney Michael Loewy
: 1. The application for vocational training assistance is to be considered simultaneously as an application for advance payments.
2. The timely and complete notification of the maintenance debtor by the maintenance creditor regarding his maintenance obligation is not a prerequisite for the granting of advance payments.
3. Section 68 paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) does not preclude the granting of advance payments.
Source: www.anwaltskanzlei-loewy.de
2.2 – Hildesheim Social Court – Case No.: S 26 AS 306/16 dated March 3, 2017
Legal basis: Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II – Keywords: Housing costs, Göttingen district, Hann. Münden, A+K expert opinion
The A&K report does not constitute a conclusive concept within the meaning of the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court (BSG).
(Editor's note):
The social security provider under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), lacks a coherent concept for determining reasonable housing costs in the Hann. Münden/Staufenberg area. The A&K expert opinion obtained by the provider does not meet the requirements of the Federal Social Court's (BSG) jurisprudence.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam, Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen:
www.anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
Legal tip:
See also judgment of 03.03.2017, case numbers S 26 AS 307/16, S 26 AS 315/16 and S 26 AS 220/16
2.3 – SG Karlsruhe, Judgment of 24.01.2017 – S 4 AS 1827/16 –, not legally binding
Entitlement of a Syrian refugee with EU citizenship to supplementary benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), in the case of only marginal employment.
Definition of "worker" according to Article 45 TFEU – Relevance of maintenance obligations to the question of link to the labor market.
Principle (Juris)
1. An average monthly income of EUR 252.71 may be sufficient for the assumption of employee status under Article 45 TFEU (see ECJ of 4 February 2010 – C-14/09 – Case “Genc”, ECR 2010, I-931). This applies in particular if the employment is permanent and the employer has given assurances that further improvements in German language skills will allow for additional working hours.
2. The minimum monthly income required to establish employee status under Article 45 TFEU should not be subject to higher requirements simply because the employed person is responsible for the maintenance of other persons – in this case, his wife and three minor children. The question of maintenance obligations is irrelevant to the question of whether an EU national has a sufficient connection to the German labor market.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Munich, Judgment of 15 February 2017 – L 10 AL 163/16
Offsetting a back payment of unemployment benefits against reimbursement claims of the job center for benefits already granted for the same period under ALG II (unemployment benefit II)
Principle (Juris):
The fulfillment effect of § 107 SGB X does not occur to the extent of 56% of the accommodation costs taken into account in the granting of benefits under SGB II if unemployment benefit II is actually paid, but there is a priority claim to unemployment benefit which is only granted subsequently.
Source: dejure.org
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Baden-Württemberg Higher Social Court decision of 6 March 2017, L 7 SO 420/17 ER-B
Guiding Principle (Editor):
1. Grounds for an injunction do not exist if the applicant can currently rely on their own resources or reasonable assistance from third parties, for example, for pre-financing. Reasonable assistance from third parties can also consist of obtaining a loan for the purpose of pre-financing.
2. When considering grounds for an injunction, resources that must be disregarded in the substantive question of need for assistance may also be taken into account because they constitute protected assets (Section 60a, Section 90 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII) or income not to be considered (Sections 85 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book XII) (cf. Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of March 30, 2007 – 1 BvR 535/07 – not published) or because they are generally not a means-tested benefit (e.g., pursuant to Section 92 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 23 February 2017 – L 7 SO 4844/16
Principle (Juris)
1. In principle, only contributions for a substitute health insurance in the so-called basic tariff are appropriate within the meaning of Section 32 Paragraph 5 Sentences 1 and 4 SGB XII.
2. Regarding the reasonableness of switching to the basic tariff (affirmed in this case). It must be taken into account, among other things, that according to Section 75 Paragraph 3a of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V), the Associations of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians and the National Associations of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians are also responsible for ensuring the medical care of those insured under the industry-wide basic tariff with the medical services covered by this tariff, which correspond to those of statutory health insurance.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts, Social Courts and Administrative Courts on Asylum Law
5.1 – Hamburg Social Court, Decision of 17 January 2017 – S 10 AY 92/16 ER
No social assistance benefits for a tolerated foreigner after starting an inter-company vocational training program
Principle (Juris)
1. No entitlement to benefits under Section 2 AsylbLG in the case of training that is eligible for funding in principle (here: pursuant to Section 57 Paragraph 1 SGB III) pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB XII.
2. If the person concerned does not belong to the group of persons eligible for funding under Section 59 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), because they are a tolerated foreigner completing vocational training outside of a company, this does not preclude their eligibility for funding "in principle." The characteristics contained in Section 59 Paragraph 2 of the SGB III are individual prerequisites for funding under the SGB III (contrary to the Hamburg Social Court's decision of September 7, 2016 – S 28 AY 56/16 ER), which must be disregarded when assessing eligibility for funding.
5.2 – Bremen Social Court, decision of October 28, 2016 (file no.: S 39 AY 72/16):
Obligation of the benefit provider to provisionally grant benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. If the public authority contacted regarding the granting of benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) doubts a medical certificate submitted by an applicant regarding their fitness to travel to the area of the authority actually responsible under Section 10a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 AsylbLG, then this public authority must conduct its own investigations and commission its public health department to carry out more detailed checks.
2. Until these health circumstances are clarified, the provisional responsibility for granting benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) lies with the authority in whose area the persons entitled to benefits are actually staying (§ 10a para. 1 sentence 3 AsylbLG).
5.3 – Judgments of the Administrative Court of Berlin of 02.03.2017 (23 K 1540.16 A and 23 K 1551.16 A)
Refugee protection for Syrians remains controversial
The Berlin Administrative Court has made initial fundamental decisions on the question of whether Syrians can claim refugee status solely on the basis of (illegal) departure from Syria, the application for asylum and residence in Germany.
Since March 2016, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) has no longer generally granted Syrians refugee status, but rather, as a rule, only subsidiary protection. This affects family reunification, which the legislature has suspended until March 2018 for those granted only subsidiary protection. This has led to numerous legal challenges.
Judgments of the Administrative Court of Berlin of 02.03.2017 (23 K 1540.16 A and 23 K 1551.16 A)
The 23rd Chamber of the Berlin Administrative Court – like the majority of first-instance administrative courts nationwide – has ordered the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) in two cases to recognize the respective plaintiffs as refugees.
With this decision, the Chamber followed the prevailing jurisprudence of the higher administrative courts, according to which the stated grounds, in themselves, do not permit a prognosis of a significant risk of persecution, including the risk of torture. There is currently no sufficiently conclusive evidence regarding the regime's treatment of returnees.
Source: Press release of the Berlin Administrative Court No. 10/2017 dated March 13, 2017: www.juris.de
6. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law and other legal codes
6.1 – Hof Regional Court, decision of February 27, 2017 (Case No.: 22 T 1/17):
Guiding Principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel
: 1. When deciding on the granting of legal aid, loan obligations owed by applicants must also be included in the income calculation.
2. Such obligations incurred in the course of self-employment are generally deductible, even if these loan obligations are considered quite high in light of the applicant's current financial situation.
3. It is crucial that the corresponding liabilities still exist and cannot be considered luxury expenses or similar.
6.2 – LSG Schleswig-Holstein, decision of 6 February 2017 (file no.: L 5 KR 13/17 B ER):
Guiding Principles by Dr. Manfred Hammel
: 1. Section 46, sentence 1, no. 2 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) mandates, both for the initial determination of incapacity for work and for subsequent determinations, a personal examination of the ill person covered by statutory health insurance by a panel physician.
2. The requirement that incapacity for work be determined solely on the basis of a medical examination is also evident from Section 4, paragraph 1, sentence 2 and paragraph 2 of the "Guideline of the Federal Joint Committee on the Assessment of Incapacity for Work and Measures for Gradual Reintegration pursuant to Section 92, paragraph 1, sentence 2, no. 7 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) (Incapacity for Work Guideline)" and from Section 31, sentence 1 of the Federal Framework Agreement for Physicians ("Certification of Incapacity for Work").
3. The prohibition against "backdating" certificates of incapacity for work also applies to illnesses where a physical examination is not strictly necessary, but where, depending on the situation, an examination is warranted. B. cannot be omitted during a treatment consultation.
6.3 – Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 14 February 2017 (Case No.: 1 BvR 2507/16):
Guiding Principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel
: 1. A legally significant question that is disputed in case law and legal literature cannot be considered simple or settled by the courts and answered to the detriment of an indigent person even in proceedings for the granting of legal aid.
2. This applies all the more if a specialized court deviates from the opinion of the highest court in this respect.
3. The same applies to legally significant questions concerning the entitlement to subsistence benefits for non-working foreign nationals not subject to deportation, with particular consideration of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Section 23 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
4. The interpretation and application of these provisions is difficult and unclear.
5. To clarify how to handle such disputed questions, indigent persons also have a right to legal representation in preliminary injunction proceedings, based on the principle of equality before the law.
6.4 – Leipzig district grants higher basic rents to Hartz IV recipients
Recipients of Hartz IV benefits are entitled to have their rent covered by the general public. In the Leipzig district, the applicable standard rates will be increased from April 1st to address rising rents.
Source: www.lvz.de
6.5 – BSG, Judgment of 16.03.2017 – B 10 EG 9/15 R
For the calculation of parental allowance after the birth of a child, it makes no difference whether a previous pregnancy ended with a live birth or a miscarriage, if the pregnant woman was subsequently unable to work due to depression.
Source: Press release from the Federal Social Court (BSG) dated March 16, 2017: www.juris.de
6.6 – Social Law – Entitlement to Unemployment Benefits After Receiving a Disability Pension
Individuals are subject to compulsory insurance under Book III of the German Social Code (SGB III) during the period for which they receive a full disability pension (§ 43 SGB VI) from a statutory pension insurance institution, provided they were subject to compulsory insurance immediately before the commencement of the benefit or were entitled to ongoing wage replacement benefits under this book (§ 26 para. 2 SGB III). "Immediately" within the meaning of § 26 para. 3 SGB III is not limited to a period of one month. If only a maximum period of one month were recognized as "immediately" within the meaning of § 26 para. 2 SGB III, the intended protection of individuals returning to the labor market after temporary incapacity for work would be partially undermined, without this being something the benefit recipients could influence. In the case of a gap (here: 43 days) between unemployment benefits and a temporary disability pension, unemployment benefits must be granted as a new entitlement for a longer period after the disability pension ends, and not merely as a shorter (residual) entitlement to unemployment benefits from the previous period of receipt before the pension (Federal Social Court, 23 February 2017, Case No. B 11 AL 3/16 R).
(17 March 2017 – Your contact person: Attorney at Law & Specialist Attorney for Social Law Mathias Klose):
www.ra-klose.com
6.7 – Easier conclusion of termination agreements in case of illness
In December 2016, the Federal Employment Agency updated and revised its internal guidelines on Section 159 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), i.e., on the waiting period for unemployment benefit I.
The following two changes are of particular importance:
First:
A valid reason for unilaterally terminating an employment relationship through a termination agreement or by the employee's own resignation, as defined in Section 159 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), now also exists if the threatened dismissal by the employer is based on personal reasons such as illness. This means that, in the future, concluding a termination agreement, as well as an employee's own resignation, will no longer result in a waiting period for unemployment benefit I if the employer could also dismiss the employee for personal reasons such as illness (Section 159.1.2.1.1 Paragraph 2, second bullet point of the General Administrative Instructions on Section 159 SGB III, 12/2016).
Previously, a waiting period was only excluded if, at the time of concluding a termination agreement, the employer threatened dismissal for operational reasons, so this update represents a significant simplification for future termination agreement negotiations.
Secondly,
the Federal Employment Agency will no longer examine the legality of a threatened dismissal by the employer if a severance payment of up to 0.5 months' salary for each year of employment is paid as part of a termination agreement. The previous minimum of 0.25 months' salary in connection with severance payments no longer applies. In this case, the legality of the threatened dismissal by the employer is irrelevant (Section 159.1.2.1.1, Paragraph 2, Number 1 of the General Administrative Regulations on Section 159 of the German Social Code, Book III, 12/2016). If a severance payment is agreed upon that is higher than 0.5 gross monthly salaries per year of employment, in the scenarios described in numbers 2 a) and 2 b), it remains essential that the threatened dismissal would be lawful (Section 159.1.2.1.1 Paragraph 2 Item 2 Paragraph 3 of the General Administrative Regulations on Section 159 SGB III, 12/2016).
In order to avoid audits by the Federal Employment Agency in such a case, it is still recommended to conclude a settlement before the labor court, which is still not relevant for the waiting period (Section 159.1.1.1 Paragraph 4, 5th bullet point of the General Administrative Regulations on Section 159 SGB III, 12/2016).
Source: Author Claudine Gemeiner is a lawyer and specialist in employment law at Heussen Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH in Munich: www.humanresourcesmanager.de
6.8 – Employment Agency waiting period
Health insurance obligations during the waiting period were newly regulated on August 1, 2017 – an article by the Haufe Online editorial team
The new Medical Aids and Appliances Act also includes a new regulation regarding health insurance coverage during a waiting period imposed by the employment agency in cases of unemployment. This regulation is scheduled to come into effect on August 1, 2017.
For recipients of benefits under Book III of the German Social Code (SGB III), compulsory health and long-term care insurance requires the receipt of unemployment benefits. This means the unemployed person must actually be receiving the benefit – specifically, the unemployment benefits. From August 2017 onward, compulsory health insurance will apply for the entire duration of the waiting period.
Source: www.haufe.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
