1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 25 October 2017 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 25 October 2017 – B 14 AS 4/17 R
Unemployment benefit II – special needs allowance for the repair of therapeutic devices and equipment – repair costs of eyeglasses – not part of the standard allowance
Guiding principle (Editor):
The repair costs of eyeglasses constitute a special need within the meaning of Section 24 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 Number 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as a parallel provision to Section 31 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
Principle (Editor)
1. The claimed special need is a repair need pursuant to Section 24 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 3 Var 2 SGB II, because only one lens was replaced on the plaintiff's otherwise functional glasses.
2. A repair is not considered to be possible if a completely new pair of glasses has to be purchased after the old glasses are defective, or if both lenses need to be replaced, e.g., due to a change in visual acuity.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Basic Income Support for Job Seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 23.02.2018 – L 1 AS 3710/16
Guiding principle (Editor)
On the question of whether earned income allowances can be deducted from the income from a photovoltaic system (in the negative).
Principle (Editor)
1. Although the photovoltaic system itself constitutes the plaintiff's assets, the income accruing from it while the plaintiff is receiving basic income support must be considered as income.
2. The income from the photovoltaic system is not considered income from employment.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
See also principle (Juris)
1. Profits from the operation of a photovoltaic system are income that must generally be taken into account when calculating entitlement to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
2. Profits from operating a photovoltaic system are not considered income from employment within the meaning of Section 11b of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). There is no entitlement to deductions for employment allowances under Section 11b, paragraphs 2 and 1, no. 6 in conjunction with paragraph 3 of the SGB II. The income from operating a photovoltaic system is structurally comparable to income from renting/leasing.
2.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 18 January 2018 – L 7 AS 1875/17
Principle (Juris)
1. The deemed fulfillment provision of Section 107 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) requires a claim for reimbursement and thus presupposes that it is established that another benefit provider is liable to reimburse the benefiting provider; this is lacking if the benefit recipient only has a claim against the other benefit provider for a discretionary decision.
2. In the reimbursement relationship pursuant to Section 105 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), the social welfare provider is not required to accept the knowledge of other providers, even if such an attribution would be required in the benefit relationship with the beneficiary.
3. If a plaintiff challenges a cancellation decision of a benefit provider with an isolated action for annulment, a judgment against another benefit provider pursuant to Section 75 Paragraph 5 of the Social Court Act (SGG) is not possible.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 31.01.2018 – L 5 AS 201/17 – The appeal is admitted.
Headnote (Editor):
It is unclear under higher court rulings whether, for the purpose of data evaluation in the case of a “conclusive concept”, in addition to the data collected in the comparison area, data from other comparison areas (“housing market types”) that are similar with regard to rental costs may also be used by means of cluster analysis.
Principle (Juris)
1. The Harz district (area 2,104 km²) is not a single "comparative area" as a territorial entity, because its constituent municipalities exhibit significant structural differences that become apparent when considering topography, population density, and infrastructure. Based on the places of residence, it consists of 14 comparative areas, mostly in the form of political municipalities. These each have their own housing markets (see judgment of the Senate of May 11, 2017 – L 5 AS 547/16 – juris).
2. The determination of the comparison area is not reserved solely to the authority within the framework of freedom of methodology and, in particular, is not exempt from judicial review.
3. The completed rent survey for the entire Harz district, taking into account the freedom of methodology, meets the requirements of the Federal Social Court (BSG) for a coherent concept for determining reasonable housing costs (gross rent excluding utilities). In particular, the rent data was collected in all comparable areas identified by the Senate. The scope and method of data collection are not objectionable within the framework of methodological freedom. It is also permissible that, during the data analysis, individual comparable areas were grouped into housing market types using so-called "cluster analysis." This is a statistically recognized method used to broaden the data set. The criteria chosen for this purpose are coherent.
4. The concept must be updated two years after the publication of the directive by the authority, provided this occurs in close temporal proximity to the completion of data collection and analysis. The procedure of reviewing and recalculating accommodation costs based on the development of rents and ancillary housing costs in the state of Saxony-Anhalt is permissible within the scope of methodological freedom. The same applies to comparing the index development from the reference date of the data collection until the end of the two-year period following the directive's entry into force.
5. Determining reasonable heating costs based on advance payments for heating and hot water costs within the framework of the rent assessment, plus a safety margin, does not meet the requirements of the Federal Social Court (BSG) for a sound methodology. In this respect, the table values of the Federal Heating Cost Index, which was published at the time of the last official decision, must be used. The amounts contained therein must be multiplied by the reasonable living space. If the accommodation has decentralized heating, a deduction must be made in accordance with the specifications of the Federal Heating Cost Index. Furthermore, the additional costs for decentralized hot water generation must be taken into account when calculating the need.
6. Heating costs include the electricity costs for the decentralized heating system. If no proof of electricity consumption is available, it is to be estimated at 5% of the reasonable heating costs.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.4 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 02.03.2018 – L 32 AS 1505/17 NZB – legally binding
repayment of gas bill credit – appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal
Guiding principle (Editor):
Refunds and credits of operating costs reduce the recognized need for accommodation and heating only proportionally in the case of reduced benefits for accommodation and heating (based on BSG, judgment of 12.12.2013, B 14 AS 83/12 R, contrary to LSG NSB, judgment of 23.09.2015, L 13 AS 164/14).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.5 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Judgment of 25 January 2018 – L 37 SF 69/17 EK AS – The appeal is admitted.
Guiding principle (Editor):
Regarding the question of whether monetary compensation pursuant to Section 198 Paragraph 1 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG) due to the excessive length of court proceedings constitutes income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), and whether the compensation claim of a recipient of unemployment benefit II, in the case of simultaneous periods of excessive length of proceedings and the provision of benefits under the SGB II, is transferred to the benefit provider pursuant to Section 33 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the SGB II in the amount of the benefits granted (Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, judgment of September 22, 2016 – L 15 SF 21/15 EK AS (income – in favor)), and the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court decided this legal question differently in its judgment of August 10, 2017 – L 10 SF 10/17 EK U).
Principle (Editor)
1. Claims under Section 198 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG) do not transfer to the provider of basic income support for job seekers during compensation proceedings pursuant to Section 33 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (see also: Higher Social Court of Saxony, judgment of March 29, 2017 – L 11 SF 17/16 EK AS; contrary view: Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of September 22, 2016 – L 15 SF 21/15 EK AS).
2. It was left open whether claims for compensation under Section 198 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG) constitute income to be credited against benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, with the consequence that Section 33 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II would generally be applicable (Federal Social Court [BSG], Judgment of March 14, 2012 – B 14 AS 98/11 R; Grote-Seifert in: jurisPK-SGB II, 4th ed., Section 33 Rn. 49; Fügemann in: Hauck/Noftz, SGB II, Section 33 Rn. 106), or whether they constitute income to be credited against benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) (see, for example, Lower Saxony-Bremen Higher Social Court [LSG], Judgment of September 22, 2016 – L 15 SF 21/15 EK AS, Saxony Higher Social Court [LSG], Judgment of March 29, 2017 – L 11 SF 17/16 EK AS –) or not (see LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, Judgment of August 10, 2017 – L 10 SF 10/17 EK U: Privileged treatment pursuant to Section 11a Paragraph 3 SGB II; contrary to Stotz in NZS 2015, 410, 414, who assumes privileged treatment in accordance with Section 11a Paragraph 2 SGB II).
3. Judgment to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 2,900.00 plus interest at a rate of 5 percentage points above the base interest rate, since the claim for compensation under Section 198 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG) is outside the system of social security claims, for which interest on arrears cannot generally be claimed in accordance with Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) (see Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of September 3, 2014, B 10 ÜG 9/13 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
See also the guiding principle (Juris)
on the standing of a recipient of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in compensation proceedings.
It is irrelevant whether
a claim for compensation under Section 198 of the Courts Constitution Act constitutes income that can be taken into account within the meaning of Section 11 of the Social Code, Book II, and
– whether compensation payments would have to be made “in a timely manner” within the meaning of Section 33 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
For, at least until a legally binding award of compensation due to unreasonable length of proceedings is granted, Section 198 Paragraph 5 Sentence 3 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG) excludes the transfer of this claim of a person entitled to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) to the basic income support provider.
Section 33 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) must, under a European law-compliant interpretation, take a back seat to Section 198 Paragraph 5 Sentence 3 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG).
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Leipzig, judgment of December 5, 2017 – S 10 SO 115/16
Guiding principle (editor)
: Reimbursement of costs for accompanying person: A cruise for participation in the community is not required.
Source: www.justiz.sachsen.de
3.2 – Social Court Berlin, Judgment of 13 November 2017 – S 61 AS 4057/17 – Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court – B 14 AS 4/18 R
Regarding the final determination of the non-existence of an entitlement to benefits pursuant to Section 41a Paragraph 3 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in the absence of information on income from self-employment (here: preliminary decision for the period from April to September 2016).
Basic income support for job seekers – final decision on initially provisionally granted benefit claims – obligation to provide proof of facts relevant to benefits – setting of a reasonable deadline – proper notification of legal consequences – reassessment after referral back to the basic income support provider
Guiding principle (Juris):
1. A period of less than one month is, in any case concerning the transitional period pursuant to Section 80 Paragraph 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), only very exceptionally appropriate within the meaning of Section 41a Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the SGB II. (Paragraph 36)
2. The information on legal consequences pursuant to Section 41a Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) must also include the information that the determination that no entitlement to benefits exists will result in the full repayment of the provisionally granted benefits, irrespective of the actual need for assistance. (Paragraph 45)
3. If the final decision of the basic income support provider is overturned and the case is remanded to it for re-examination, the preliminary decisions regarding benefits are not considered final once the judgment becomes legally binding. The basic income support provider may still issue a new decision, even if the one-year period stipulated in Section 41a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) has expired. (Paragraph 55), (see also, in part, Social Court Berlin, Judgment of September 25, 2017 – S 179 AS 6737/17, Social Court Augsburg, Judgment of July 3, 2017, S 8 AS 400/17).
3.3 – Social Court Dresden, decision of January 9, 2018 (file no.: S 32 AS 4941/17 ER):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. The requirement to allow an on-site inspection of the applicant's home by employees of the Jobcenter (§ 21 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 4 SGB X) is in principle a permissible instrument for clarifying the facts.
2. However, the action intended by a social security agency under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II), namely not to reimburse the applicant for the costs of the delivery of fuel without a prior inspection of his fuel supply, is to be considered unlawful.
3. The approach taken by the Jobcenter, namely that an applicant does not have to tolerate an unannounced home visit carried out by employees of this social authority, but that if access to the property inhabited by the applicant is not granted and a legally relevant circumstance, which he must prove, cannot be established, he must accept decisions by the Jobcenter that are detrimental to him, is fundamentally correct.
4. The procedure of the SGB II provider, to grant a fuel allowance only after an inspection of the applicant's existing supplies from the period before applying for ALG II, because the job center considers this procedure to be the only way of proving a need that is recognized under social law, cannot be accepted as lawful.
5. This applies particularly if there is no evidence of wasteful heating behavior on the part of the applicant, with the result that no significant supplies are actually found during a home visit.
6. In this case, a job center has significantly less intrusive means available to determine the appropriate heating cost requirement (§ 22 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB II): Requesting fuel bills from recent years, documents about the condition of the house occupied by the applicant, and consulting the Federal Heating Cost Index, which must always be initiated by the job center before carrying out a house inspection.
7. The order for an on-site inspection without cause, solely because of the heating of the owner-occupied house with solid fuels at the expense of the job center, without any indication that incorrect information was provided by the applicant, must be considered an abuse of discretion.
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, 8th Senate, Judgment of 31 August 2017 – L 8 SO 79/14
There is no legal entitlement to reimbursement of costs for the purchase of so-called normal glasses (without tinting, anti-reflective coating and progressive lenses)
Principle (Juris)
1. As a rule, there is no entitlement to reimbursement of costs for the purchase of so-called normal glasses (without tinting, anti-reflective coating and progressive lenses) as social assistance for integration.
2. For the assessment of whether a visual impairment constitutes a disability within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), the decisive factor, according to the assessment system under social security law applicable from January 1, 2009, the Ordinance on Medical Assessment for Social Security Purposes of December 10, 2008 (VersMedV, Federal Law Gazette I 2412), is not visual acuity (without glasses), but primarily corrected visual acuity (with glasses). If a visual impairment, such as nearsightedness or farsightedness, is compensated for by the provision of corrective lenses, there is no longer a "visual impairment" and therefore no "visual disability" (see Federal Social Court, Judgment of June 23, 2016 – B 3 KR 21/15 R – juris para. 25, 26). This applies accordingly to the assessment of a visual impairment under social assistance law according to the Ordinance on Integration Assistance.
3. Co-payments for eyeglasses and eyeglass lenses have been taken into account in the standard needs allowances applicable for the year 2012 as expenditure in the area of health care (section 6 of the EVS 2008) with a total standard needs-relevant amount of €15.55 per month.
4. The fact that there is no social security entitlement to reimbursement of costs for the purchase of so-called normal glasses (without tinting, anti-reflective coating and progressive lenses) does not violate the constitution.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
4.2 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, 8th Senate, Decision of 03.07.2017 – L 8 SO 130/17 B ER
On the effects under social security law of a declaration of commitment pursuant to Section 68 of the Residence Act
Principle (Juris)
: 1. A declaration of commitment pursuant to Section 68 of the Residence Act (AufenthG) remains valid even if the residence status changes (here: a residence permit pursuant to Section 25 Paragraph 2 of the Residence Act instead of one pursuant to Section 23 Paragraph 1 of the Residence Act). At least since August 6, 2016, Section 68 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the Residence Act expressly excludes the expiration of the declaration of commitment through the granting of a different residence permit.
2. Social assistance benefits may not be refused solely on the grounds of the mere existence of a declaration of commitment, but only if the need in question can actually be met.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
4.3 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 27 June 2017 – L 8 SO 375/16 B ER
No termination of employee status upon granting of an old-age pension or reaching a certain age limit
Principle (Juris)
1. The status under EU law as an employee does not cease upon reaching a certain age or receiving an old-age pension if employment continues (contrary to the General Administrative Regulation on the Freedom of Movement Act/EU of 3 February 2016 – GMBl 2016, No. 5 p. 86 – on Section 2 para. 2 no. 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU).
2. A universally valid "retirement age" does not exist under either German federal law or EU law.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
4.4 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision of 12 December 2017 – L 7 SO 3798/17 ER-B
Regarding assistance for adequate schooling in the form of school support for a child with diabetes.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Social Court Berlin, Judgment of 15 December 2017 – S 195 SO 851/16 – legally binding
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. An atypical special case may exist if the estate would also be protected assets for the heirs.
2. Regarding the plaintiff's liability for reimbursement of social welfare costs as an heir. Heirs can only be held liable for legally provided social benefits pursuant to Section 102 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), which was the case here. However, there was a particular hardship pursuant to Section 102, Paragraph 3, No. 3 of the SGB XII, because an atypical life situation pursuant to Section 102, Paragraph 2, No. 3 of the SGB XII must be assumed, since the inherited (and still occupied) house constitutes protected assets for the plaintiff vis-à-vis the Job Center pursuant to Section 12, Paragraph 3, No. 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Principle (Editor)
1. When claiming against the heir pursuant to Section 102 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), recourse should not be made to Section 90 Paragraph 2 No. 8 of the SGB XII, as this provision does not establish any "post-mortem protected assets" in favor of the heir (Federal Social Court [BSG], Judgment of March 23, 2010, B 8 SO 2/09; Bavarian State Social Court [LSG], Judgment of February 23, 2012, L 8 SO 113/09; Baden-Württemberg State Social Court [LSG], Judgment of December 22, 2010, L 2 SO 5548/08).
2. It would be inappropriate if the plaintiff's house were to be disregarded as protected assets when assessing his own entitlement to benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II), yet he could be held liable as an heir for his mother's benefits under Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) due to the potential for liquidating the same asset. While the purpose of the provisions in Section 12 Paragraph 3 No. 4 of Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) and Section 90 Paragraph 2 No. 8 of Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) is not to protect real estate as an asset, but rather the basic need for housing. This protection should also be considered when holding the heir liable in situations where the heir himself is in need of assistance under Book II or Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII).
Source: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Legal tip:
The Federal Social Court (BSG) also ruled in its judgment of March 23, 2010, B 8 SO 2/09 R, that an atypical special case can exist if the estate would also constitute protected assets for the heirs, but was able to leave this question open, as this was not the case in the facts underlying the decision. The Bavarian State Social Court also seems to consider it possible that the heir can invoke the protective character of Section 90 Paragraph 2 No. 8 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) via the hardship clause (judgment of February 23, 2012, L 8 SO 113/09).
Current notice:
LSG Celle-Bremen, judgment of 23.02.2017 – L 8 SO 282/13 – pending before BSG, file number: B 8 SO 15/17 R
Social assistance – reimbursement of costs by heirs – existence of special hardship – realization of assets privileged during the lifetime of the beneficiary – house and property occupied by the heir before and after the inheritance
Principle (Juris):
Relying on the heir (here, the deceased's wife) to reimburse costs can constitute a particular hardship under Section 102 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), if this requires the realization of a house and property that he himself occupied before and after the inheritance, which before the death of the beneficiary served solely for the heir's residential purposes and was protected as a suitable house and property under Section 90 Paragraph 2 No. 8 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
6. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Asylum Law
6.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 19 February 2018 – L 20 AY 4/18 B ER – legally binding
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. Here regarding the rejection of benefits under Section 2 AsylbLG for a 21-year-old student from Afghanistan in expedited proceedings.
2. The court saw no reason to apply the hardship provision of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See also the decision of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (LSG NRW) of January 26, 2018 – L 20 AY 19/17 B ER, legally binding, published in the Tacheles case law ticker, week 10/2018, point 5.2, regarding the rejection of benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for an Azerbaijani trainee.
Legal tip: (See also:
Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of February 13, 2018 - L 8 AY 1/18 B ER – Benefits for trainees for whom the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is applicable pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG))
6.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 22 February 2018 – L 7 AY 3934/17
Principle (Juris)
1. According to § 61 para. 1 SGG in conjunction with § 184 sentence 1 GVG, the court language is German.
2. Documents written in a foreign language have no direct legal effect unless Article 76(7) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 applies due to a cross-border element. They are generally ineffective and therefore do not preserve any time limits for appeals. The court is also not obliged to translate a foreign-language (appeal) document.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
7. Miscellaneous on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
7.1 – “Subsequent granting of legal aid – and the risk of costs” on the Federal Constitutional Court decision of 12 February 2018 – 1 BvR 975/17
Subsequent approval of legal aid – and the risk of costs:
A constitutional complaint against the denial of legal aid in social law proceedings is inadmissible, irrespective of the question of when exactly legal aid can be requested in proceedings in which benefit recipients challenge the reduction of benefits to secure their livelihood under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), unless it is demonstrated that the complainant himself may have been violated in a right that can be challenged on the constitutional basis.
The cost risk for such proceedings lies with the appellant only if the legal representative, upon accepting the mandate, informed them of this risk in accordance with Section 8a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the Legal Aid Act (BerHG). Without this notification, the cost risk lies with the legal representative if the subsequent application for legal aid is rejected.
Therefore, in the context of a constitutional complaint against this rejection, it must be demonstrated that such a notification was given [1].
Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 12 February 2018 – 1 BvR 975/17
Source: www.hartzbote.de
7.2 – Social Court Konstanz: No preliminary legal protection against electronic files at the Job Center – Decision of the Social Court Konstanz of 27 February 2018, file no. S 11 AS 409/18 ER
Brief description: The Konstanz Social Court rejects an interim injunction against electronic file management at the job center
The fact that the job center maintains a benefit recipient's file in electronic form does not violate their rights. This was decided by the Konstanz Social Court in an expedited ruling published this week.
More information: www.sg-konstanz.de
7.3 – Federal Court of Justice (BGH): Job centers can have a direct claim for reimbursement against landlords for rent payments made after the end of a lease – Re: Federal Court of Justice (BGH), Judgment of January 31, 2018 – VIII ZR 39/17
A job center that, as part of social benefits, directly transfers rent payments to the landlord at the request of the beneficiary, has a direct claim for reimbursement against the landlord based on unjust enrichment in the case of rent payments made accidentally beyond the end of the tenancy, if the landlord knew upon receiving the money that he was no longer entitled to the rent due to the termination of the contract.
Comment by Attorney Prof. Dr. Wolf-Rüdiger Bub, Attorney Nicola Bernhard, Bub, Gauweiler & Partner Attorneys at Law, Munich
Continue reading: rsw.beck.de
7.4 – Parental allowance despite the loss of the child in the first month – Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of 08.03.2018 – B 10 EG 7/16 R
The Federal Social Court (BSG) has ruled that an adoptive foster father is entitled to one month of parental allowance, even if he cannot reach the two-month minimum entitlement period because he had to return the child to the biological parents after only three weeks.
Further information: www.juris.de
7.5 – Children of Separated Parents: Benefits for Education and Participation Must Not Be Reduced! An article by Kucklick Wilhelm Börger Wolf & Söllner – dresdner-fachanwaelte.de
It is common for parents to live separately, and for children to spend time with the other parent, whether during visitation weekends or school holidays. During this time, the children are not entitled to their standard allowance from the parent they are not staying with. Their standard allowance is reduced by the number of days they are absent from that parent's household. This is legal and has been upheld by the courts. However, they are entitled to their full pro-rata share of the accommodation costs for the entire month. A reduction in this amount is not permitted, even though this has become increasingly common recently.
Is the reduction of funding for education and participation lawful?
It has also come to light that the state capital Dresden, which is responsible for approving educational and social participation benefits, only approves these benefits proportionally, namely according to the number of days the children spend in the household receiving benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). – This is unlawful!
More information: www.anwalt.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
