1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision v. 03/08/2018- L 18 AS 2312/17
To store account statements in the administrative file
Guidance sentence (editor)
The plaintiff has no right to have the data deleted by removing the account statements from the defendant's performance files in accordance with Section 84 (2) SGB X.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. Storing written data carriers in the administrative file is a form of data storage in accordance with Section 67 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 No. 1 SGB BayLSG, decision of November 14, 2013, L 7 AS 579/13 B ER and BayLSG, decision of May 21, 2014 - L 7 AS 347/14 B ER).
2. In order to fulfill the tasks of the JobCenter, inspection of the account statements and “a corresponding note” are not sufficient, since the complete, secure and rapid availability of the data contained in the account statements is essential for the correct and rapid completion of the tasks (see LSG Berlin -Brandenburg, decision of March 19, 2015 - L 31 AS 2974/14).
3. As long as - as here - the scope of the audit mandate for the administration cannot be identified until the objection procedure has been completed, the JC is entitled to refrain from further examining the content. In this respect, nothing other than in the case of non-specific requests for review according to § 44 SGB /16 B – on the sufficient specificity of a request for deletion).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision v.
March 23, 2018 - L 29 AS 428/18 B ER - legally binding electricity debts - energy costs - costs of accommodation and heating - loans - interim legal protection
Guidance statement (editor)
The assumption of the electricity debt is not justified because not all reasonable self-help options have been exhausted.
Guiding principle (editor)
As part of the discretionary decision according to Section 22 Paragraph 8 Sentence 1 SGB II, all self-help options, in particular a change of provider, must be exhausted (see also LSG NRW, decision of December 23, 2015, L 2 AS 2028/15 B ER ).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.3 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of January 31, 2018 (ref.: L 32 AS 1223/15):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. For those entitled to benefits who are able to work (Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II) who live in the federal capital, the entire urban area of Berlin represents the relevant comparison area for the adequacy test according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II.
2. Administrative regulations issued to grant benefits in accordance with Section 22 SGB II are unsuitable for assessing reasonable housing costs (Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II) if only a gross rent for heating is stated there.
3. The assessment of accommodation costs must be carried out independently of the assessment of heating costs. Anything else means that the determination of the appropriateness values is not based on a coherent concept for determining the appropriate costs of the accommodation.
4. Qualified rent indexes can be a basis for determining the reference rent in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II. If this exists in accordance with Section 558d Paragraph 1 and 3 BGB, it can be assumed that the fees specified in this rent index reflect the usual local comparative rent (Section 558d Paragraph 3 BGB).
5. A so-called simple rent index according to Section 558c Paragraph 1 BGB does not have the presumption effect according to Section 558d Paragraph 3 BGB, but it does represent an indication that the fees stated there accurately reflect the usual local comparative rent.
6. Rent index data may only be used as “raw data” in connection with the adequacy test to be carried out in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II if this data realistically reflects the market conditions in the relevant observation period (“a true reflection of the housing market”). If the rent index lags behind the actual market development (so-called delayed market representation), then it no longer describes the real market conditions.
7. The whole of Berlin represents a tense housing market, where rents have risen significantly faster in recent years than was the case with the national average.
8. In particular, a rent index must, on the one hand, assume that the appropriate net rent can be determined from it and, on the other hand, that there are sufficient apartments with the abstractly appropriate service for the accommodation.
9. If there is no conclusive concept for the comparison room to be determined, the job center must recognize the actual costs of the accommodation (capped by the table values for Section 12 WoGG) in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, although here due to the different functions of the Housing benefit here and the benefits according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II are a “security surcharge” in the amount of 10%. H. has to be taken into account.
1.4 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of
01/25/208 - L 19 AS 1706/17 Guidance sentence (editor)
Due to the lack of valid values for determining an abstract appropriateness limit, the JobCenter was not entitled to cap expenses.
Short version of the court:
1. According to the established case law of the Federal Social Court, when applying Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II, the total rents (rent/operating costs/heating costs) of the old and the new apartment at the time of the move must be compared if the Relocation was not necessary (BSG, judgments of February 17, 2016 - B 4 AS 12/15 R - SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 88 and of April 29, 2015 - B 14 AS 6/14 R - BSGE 119, 1) .
2. A cap on the recognized need for accommodation and heating in the amount of the previous requirement must only take place if - insofar as the prerequisite for this cap - there are abstract appropriateness limits that have been correctly determined for the local comparison area. The Federal Social Court relies on municipal appropriateness limits correctly determined “by the service provider” or by the “municipal provider” for both accommodation costs and heating (BSG, judgments of February 17, 2016, ibid. and of April 29, 2015, ibid), although it is aware of this It has been that the determination of abstractly appropriate expenditure for heating encounters practical difficulties, but the possibility was expressly provided for by the legislature in Section 22b Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 and 3 SGB II (BSG, judgment of April 29, 2015, ibid., para. 24).
3. If there is no correctly determined abstract municipal adequacy limit for accommodation costs or heating expenses, there is no benefit cap in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II (cf. LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of July 27, 2017 - L 32 AS 116/14).
4. Regardless of the question of whether the appropriateness limit for accommodation costs used by the defendant in the disputed period - values in the housing benefit table plus a surcharge of 10% - constitutes the appropriately determined appropriateness limit within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II, this is missing In any case, during the disputed period there is a valid appropriateness limit for heating costs. The defendant has not determined an appropriate limit for heating costs (see on the – high – requirements here: BSG, judgment of June 12, 2013).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Kassel Social Court, judgment of February 19, 2018 – S 3 AS 236/15 – Appeal pending LSG Hessen L 6 AS 185/18
Guidance sentence (editor)
The concept used by the defendant to determine the appropriateness of accommodation costs in the Werra-Meißner district, final report from March 2014, does not correspond to the requirements set by the Federal Social Court for setting an upper rent limit (contrary to the Kassel Social Court of March 17, 2016 (p 8 AS 447/14) and SG Kassel from September 7th, 2017 (S 11 SO 169/16).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note
on SGB
3. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of 02/07/208 – L 2 SO 4444/17
Guidance sentence (editor)
On the granting of additional requirements in accordance with Section 30 Paragraph 1 No. 2 SGB
Guiding principle (editor)
1. A corresponding decision must have been issued by the responsible body in accordance with Section 69 Para. 4 SGB IX or the ID card must be available to justify the additional need (this is now clearly stated by Adolph in Linhart/Adolph, SGB II, SGB XII, AsylbLG, as of May 2013, § 30 Rn. 13). The identification notice is now the same as the ID card, as both have the same probative value. This makes access to the services easier. It is therefore not sufficient if only an application has been submitted but no decision or ID card has yet been received. A retroactive grant is not possible in these cases either (Dauber in Mergler/Zink, SGB § 30 Rn. 7; Scheider in Schellhorn/Schellhorn/Hohm, SGB XII, 18th edition, § 30 Rn. 9; Schwengers in Kruse/Reinhard/Winkler SGB aA Grube in Grube/Wahrendorf SGB XII, 4th edition § 30 Rn. 8, mouths in LPK SGB
2. The BSG (10.11.2011 - B 8 SO 12/10 R -, Rn. 28) showed in its decision how, in the event of a longer waiting time for the pension office's decision or until the end of a legal dispute regarding the symbol G increased financial effort to compensate for the disability by providing evidence of the need in detail, if necessary in accordance with Section 28 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB XII (in the version valid until December 31, 2010) or Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB XII (in the version valid from January 1, 2011) can be claimed and the subsistence level is secured.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of June 21, 2017 – L 2 SO 4759/16
Guiding principle (Juris)
The “Heikos” program is not suitable for determining the amount of appropriate heating costs within the meaning of Section 35 Para. 1 SGB XII, as it is not an examination based on the circumstances of the individual case (connection to LSG Baden -Württemberg, judgment of May 21, 2015 - L7 AS 980/12 -, juris Rn. 30; LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, judgment of April 3, 2014 - L7 AS 7 6. 80/11 -, juris Rn. 72). To determine the appropriate heating costs, the Federal German Heating Level should therefore be used as a basis.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 - SG Hildesheim, decision of September 15, 2016 - S 44 SO 4014/16 ER
Social assistance - integration assistance - assistance with appropriate schooling - need for legal protection - initial application in court proceedings - payment of school fees - impossibility of attending a regular school - need for various examinations
Guiding principle (Juris)
Applications submitted for the first time in court proceedings do not constitute a need for legal protection. Medical examinations must generally be carried out in an administrative procedure. Before claiming social assistance, the scope of schooling at a regular school must be determined by the responsible institutions.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
5. Decisions of the state social courts on asylum law
5.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision v. 03/19/2018 – L 18 AY 7/18 B ER
Guidance sentence (editor)
In principle, for a restriction of benefit claims according to Sections 2, 3 and 6 AsylbLG based on Section 1a AsylbLG, the prerequisite is that such a restriction of entitlement is determined by an administrative act (this happened here, but the decision was unlawful according to Section 14 Para . 1 AsylbLG).
Guiding principle (editor)
The decision was illegal, because according to Section 14 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG, restrictions on claims under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act are to be limited to six months, which did not happen here.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Sa:
LSG Bayern: Necessary personal needs for refugees
Necessary personal needs for refugees
Refugees receive subsistence benefits according to the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act (AsylbLG). In the first 15 months of your stay, the services in reception centers are largely provided in kind. In addition to the benefits in kind, the refugees also receive necessary personal needs amounting to around €135 per month as a cash benefit. This entitlement can be restricted in individual cases if the refugees reproachably commit the offense of restricting their entitlement in accordance with Section 1a AsylbLG.
The decisions:
continue: www.lsg.bayern.de
6. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal books
6.1 - Kiel Social Court confirms new Kiel rent caps, a contribution from attorney Helge Hildebrandt
With a resolution of April 6, 2018 on file number S 31 AS 21/18 ER, the 31st Chamber at SG Kiel confirmed the new Kiel rent upper limits. After the review, which is only possible in summary proceedings in an expedited procedure, the upper rent limits in force since January 1, 2017 should be based on a coherent concept in the sense of the case law of the BSG. The applicants - a single mother with her 13-year-old son - are required to look for alternative living space throughout the city. Due to the fact that the rent limit for a two-person household is exceeded by €411.00 gross by €127.41, it is reasonable for the son, who has just changed schools, to also have to change schools further if the move may become necessary.
more here: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
6.2 - Family reunification for refugees who entered the country while still underage - Ref. C-550/16 A and S
The ECJ has decided that an unaccompanied minor refugee who comes of age during the asylum procedure retains his right to family reunification.
Source: ECJ press release No. 40/2018 v. April 12, 2018: www.juris.de
Note:
Sa ECJ questions German regulation on family reunification
further: www.zeit.de
6.3 - BVerfG: Urgent application against the employment agency's registration deadline without an informal attempt to transfer can result in a negative decision on costs
on BVerfG, decision of March 14, 2018 - 1 BvR 300/18: dejure.org
Press release No. 22/2018 from April 13, 2018: www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de
Anyone who immediately applies to the social court with an urgent application against a registration appointment that may have been scheduled by the employment agency by mistake (here: the complainant was still working at the time) without first trying informally, for example by telephone, to get the authority to reschedule the appointment will be his fundamental right under Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law is not violated if he has to bear the costs of the expedited procedure himself after completion. The Federal Constitutional Court decided this in its decision of March 14, 2018. This does not constitute a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness (ref.: 1 BvR 300/18).
Source: rsw.beck.de
6.4 – Child and polygamous marriages are no longer recognized under Hartz IV
New directive from the Federal Employment Agency: Child marriages and second and third wives in polygamous marriages among Muslims may no longer be recognized. However, those affected do not have to fear financial disadvantages.
further: www.welt.de
Note:
Sa Technical instructions § 7 SGB II, Rz.
7.64a: Marriages of minors continue: harald-thome.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
