VERDICT
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Göttingen District, represented by xxx,
– Defendant –
The 16th Chamber of the Social Court of Hildesheim, in its oral hearing of January 31, 2017, through the presiding judge, Judge xxx, and the lay judges xxx and xxx, rendered the following judgment:
1. The defendant is ordered, by amending the decision of 24 June 2015 as amended by the partial remedy decision of 18 August 2015 and the appeal decision of 29 September 2015, to grant the plaintiff benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) from 1 April 2015 onwards without taking assets into account.
2. The defendant shall reimburse the plaintiff for his necessary extrajudicial costs.
FACTS OF THE ACT
The plaintiff is challenging the rejection of requested benefits to secure his livelihood under the Social Code Book Two — Basic Income Support for Job Seekers (SGB II) on the grounds of assets.
On April 30, 2015, the plaintiff applied to the defendant for benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). By decision dated June 24, 2015, the defendant initially rejected the plaintiff's application. The defendant justified this rejection by stating that the plaintiff possessed assets that had to be used first, specifically in the amount of €785.72. Therefore, the plaintiff was not considered to be in need of assistance. The plaintiff possessed assets in the form of several checking accounts, a savings account, and a building society savings contract. These assets had a total value of €5,735.72. After deducting the allowances pursuant to Section 12 Paragraph 2 of the SGB II, the aforementioned amount remained, exceeding the plaintiff's needs.
The plaintiff filed an objection to the decision of June 24, 2015, arguing that some of the stated assets did not belong to him, but rather to other members of the shared apartment in which he lived. He stated that rent payments to the landlord and utility payments were processed through one of his checking accounts. Initially, the plaintiff stated that he had a security deposit of €1,500 and a further €436.20 in his checking account, which he still owed to other apartment members, as well as the notification dated April 2, 2015, for €1,460. Later, the other tenants provided sworn statements confirming the facts, but only swearing to €750 as the security deposit held by the plaintiff, rather than the initially stated €1,500.
Subsequently, the defendant granted the plaintiff benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), effective May 13, 2015, by means of a partial remedy decision dated August 18, 2015. The defendant justified this decision by stating that, as of that date, the plaintiff had exhausted his assets, calculated as of April 1, 2015, which exceeded the allowance, to cover his needs. The defendant determined the assets to be considered by excluding the current account through which the plaintiff had predominantly processed his rent payments.
By decision dated September 29, 2015, the defendant rejected the appeal in all other respects. Excluding the current account at GLS Bank that the plaintiff had specified as a rental account, the plaintiff's assets as of April 1, 2015, consisted of the following: a building savings contract in the amount of €3,577.94, a savings account in the amount of €5.03, a current account at Postbank in the amount of €10, a current account at Sparkasse Hildesheim in the amount of €2,219.34, and a current account at comdirect in the amount of €916.61. The total assets thus amounted to €6,728.92. The allowance for the plaintiff was €4,950.00. According to the bank statements submitted by the plaintiff, this allowance was first undercut on May 13, 2015.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against this on October 30, 2015.
The plaintiff requests
that the defendant's decision of June 24, 2015, as amended by the partial remedy decision of August 18, 2015, and as modified by the objection decision of September 29, 2015, be overturned and that the defendant be ordered to grant the plaintiff benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), starting from April 1, 2015, without taking assets into account.
The defendant requests
that the action be dismissed.
The defendant refers to the content of the appeal decision.
For further details of the facts and the legal dispute, reference is made to the court files and the defendant's administrative files.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The admissible action is well-founded. The defendant's decision of June 24, 2015, as amended by the partial remedy decision of August 18, 2015, and further amended by the appeal decision of September 25, 2015, is unlawful and infringes the plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff has been entitled to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), since April 1, 2015.
It is undisputed that the plaintiff submitted an application for benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in April 2015. The plaintiff was also capable of working and over 15 years old, without having reached the age limit stipulated in Section 7a of the SGB.
Contrary to the defendant's view, the plaintiff was already in need of assistance within the meaning of Section 9 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) from April 1, 2015. In particular, the court is convinced that the plaintiff did not possess any assets that exceeded the allowance of €4,950 applicable to the plaintiff under Section 12 Paragraph 2 of the SGB II.
The submitted bank statements show that the plaintiff did not exclusively process rent payments, security deposit payments and refunds, as well as payments to the energy supplier, through his account at GLS Bank, but also, in particular, through his account at Sparkasse Hildesheim. The court therefore considers the simple disregard of the current account at GLS Bank to be incorrect. A more nuanced analysis would be more appropriate.
The court initially sees no reason to doubt the statement of the co-tenants/shared flatmates that the plaintiff's accounts held €1,186.20 (€750.00 + €436.20) on April 1, 2015, which was not attributable to the plaintiff's assets. As a first step, the court therefore added the value of the GLS bank account, amounting to €534.06, to the defendant's stated assets of €6,728.92. From the resulting €7,262.98, the court then deducted the €1,186.20 of third-party funds, leaving a balance of €6,176.78.
Furthermore, on April 2, 2015, the plaintiff paid the outstanding rent of €1,460 to the landlord. Taking into account the plaintiff's own share of the rent, the court deducted a further €1,180 from the total amount of €6,176.78, as the court is convinced there is no indication that the plaintiff transferred any of his own assets to the landlord in addition to his share when paying the total rent. The plaintiff had also raised this point during the objection proceedings. The court sees no grounds for doubting this in the present case. While the arrangement of the rent payments for the other flatmates via different accounts, which were also used privately, is neither professional nor transparent, the court nevertheless considers it incorrect to assume that the plaintiff made advance payments for the other flatmates, as no subsequent payments towards the rent for April 2015 are documented even after April 2, 2015.
From the difference of €4,996.78, a further €68, namely 4/5 of €85, was to be deducted as the co-tenant's share of the electricity costs paid out by the plaintiff at the beginning of April, for the same reasons as already applied to the rent payment.
The plaintiff's asset allowance of €4,950 was therefore already undercut as of April 1, 2015.
The decision on costs follows from Section 193 of the Social Courts Act.
The following is information on legal remedies.
