1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 07.12.2017 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 07.12.2017 – B 14 AS 6/17 R
Guiding principle (Editor):
1. The decisive factor in determining whether a different need exists within the meaning of the first alternative of Section 21 Paragraph 7 Sentence 2 Half-Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is the actual expenditure incurred for decentralized hot water generation. It is irrelevant whether special circumstances, such as a higher hygiene requirement due to illness or the age of the hot water generation system, could justify different expenditure (as, for example, the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court ruled on April 20, 2017 – L 32 AS 2665/15 – juris para. 92 et seq.: different need is primarily to be understood as person-related).
2. The recognition of a different additional hot water requirement does not require separate consumption recording by technical devices such as a consumption meter.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 22 March 2018 – L 11 AS 891/16
To cover travel expenses for a total of nine tutoring sessions.
Guiding principle (Editor):
1. Granting travel expenses to a student for approved learning support according to § 21 para. 6 SGB II is possible, but not here, because the plaintiff's need in question does not deviate significantly from an average need.
2. A claim for reimbursement of these costs does not arise from Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
3. However, travel expenses can generally trigger an additional need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (see, for example, Federal Social Court, Judgment of November 18, 2014 – B 4 AS 4/14 R; Saxony State Social Court, Judgment of August 10, 2017 – L 3 AS 650/15; North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of January 19, 2017 – L 6 AS 1920/16; Saxony-Anhalt State Social Court, Judgment of June 22, 2016 – L 4 AS 196/15; Decision of the adjudicating Senate of July 31, 2015 – L 11 AS 323/13 B).
Principle (Editor)
1. In the specific case at hand, the prerequisites for the assumption of costs pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are not met. The plaintiff's needs in question do not deviate significantly from average needs. Such significant needs require that they deviate from average needs to a more than insignificant extent (cf. Federal Social Court, Judgment of February 11, 2015 – B 4 AS 27/14 R; Decision of the adjudicating Senate of July 31, 2015 – L 11 AS 323/13 B).
2. Benefit recipients who are provided with a lump sum of money can decide how to use it in detail and offset higher needs in one area of life compared to the statistically determined average amount by lower expenditures in another. This is also reasonable for them (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 [253]).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
See also Social Court Dessau-Roßlau, judgment of 27.09.2016 – S 30 AS 2430/14 – legally binding
Guiding principle (Editor):
On the question of whether travel expenses are to be granted in the case of learning support according to § 28 para. 5 SGB II (here affirmed)
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. Travel expenses are considered (additional) costs and fall under the costs of educational support according to § 28 para. 5 SGB II.
2. The indeterminate legal concept of appropriate learning support supplementing school offerings must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the constitution to include travel expenses for attending learning support (leaving open the question of whether travel expenses fall under the provision of Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II: State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt of January 12, 2015 – L 2 AS 622/14 B ER).
2.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 12 April 2018 – L 7 AS 2073/15
Guiding principle (Editor):
Cancellation and recovery of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) due to eBay sales.
Guideline (Editor)
1. The inflows from sales on eBay accounts constitute income that must be taken into account.
2. Applications for continued benefits are not considered new applications unless the need for assistance was interrupted for one month (BSG judgment of 30.09.2008 – B 4 AS 29/07 R), which was not the case here.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – LSG Munich, decision of 24.04.2018 – L 16 AS 203/18 B ER
A blanket reduction of standard benefits in preliminary legal protection proceedings
Principle (Juris)
: Whether and to what extent a reduction in standard benefits is made in expedited proceedings is a case-by-case decision. If it is disputed whether benefits are to be granted under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) or Book XII (SGB XII), a reduction in standard benefits is only justified with specific justification.
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
2.4 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 20 October 2011 – L 7 AS 901/10 NZB
Guiding principle (Editor)
: Monthly disability pension from the Austrian Pension Insurance Institution is considered income.
Principle (Editor)
: Income from foreign pension or retirement payments must also be taken into account (BSG, Judgment of 05.09.2007, Case No. B 11 b AS 49/06 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.5 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 27 April 2018 – L 11 AS 242/18 B ER
Guiding principle (Editor):
No assumption of rent arrears according to § 22 para. 8 SGB II or § 36 para. 1 SGB XII.
Guiding principle (Editor):
No assumption of rent arrears if the apartment is unreasonably large.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.6 – LSG Hessen, decision of 23.04.2018 – L 6 AS 109/18 B ER
Principle (Juris)
1. The regulation of an administrative act results from its operative clause.
2. The reasoning can then only be used to interpret the operative provision, not to change the direction of the regulation in a way that deviates from its wording.
3. A merely provisional grant of benefits must be explicitly stated in the operative part of the decision. An operative part explicitly formulated as a final grant of benefits is not open to interpretation based on the reasoning of the administrative act.
4. If the conditions for a final grant of benefits are not yet met and therefore a provisional grant of benefits is appropriate, a final administrative act is unlawful from the outset (prohibition of premature termination of the proceedings).
Source: www.lareda.hessenrecht.hessen.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Social Court Kassel – Case No.: S 3 AS 680/15 of 19.02.2018
Legal provisions: Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II, Section 22 Paragraph 6 SGB II – Keywords: Moving costs, housing costs, Werra-Meißner district, analysis and concepts
Guiding principle (Editor):
The concept used by the JobCenter to determine the appropriateness of accommodation costs in the Werra-Meißner district, final report of March 2014 by the company Analyse & Konzepte, Beratungsgesellschaft für Wohnen, Immobilien, Stadtentwicklung mbH (hereinafter: expert opinion), does not, in the opinion of the adjudicating court, comply with the requirements established by the Federal Social Court for setting a rent ceiling for the case in dispute, which is to be decided here.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam, Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen: www.anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
3.2 – Social Court Kassel – Case No.: S 6 AS 104/17 of 25.04.2018
Accommodation costs, Werra-Meißner district, analysis and concepts, fulfillment fiction
Guiding principle (Editor):
On the formation of comparison areas in rural areas as a basis for a coherent concept (following SG Kassel, judgment of 19.02.2018 – S 3 AS 236/15 – appeal pending LSG Hessen L 6 AS 185/18).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam, Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen: www.anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
3.3 – Social Court Dresden, Judgment of March 8, 2018 – S 52 AS 4184/16 – The appeal on points of law is granted.
Principle (Juris)
: 1. Section 41a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), with the exception of paragraph 5, does not apply to benefit periods that had already ended before August 1, 2016 (adherence to the Social Court Dresden, Judgment of January 11, 2018 – S 52 AS 4077/17 –, juris)
2. A temporary household unit generally exists for each day on which the person in need of assistance stays in that household unit for more than twelve hours (following BSG, judgment of July 2, 2009 – B 14 AS 75/08 R –, SozR 4-4200 § 7 No. 13 and BSG, judgment of June 12, 2013 – B 14 AS 50/12 R –, SozR 4-4200 § 7 No. 35). The benefit provider must determine the duration of the stay ex officio.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Similarly, SG Dresden, judgment of 08.03.2018 – S 52 AS 4555/17, S 52 AS 109/15 – The direct appeal is admitted.
4. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Social Court Detmold, Judgment of 15 March 2018 – S 11 SO 4/16
Social assistance – assistance for living expenses – accommodation and heating – reasonable accommodation costs – coherent concept of the social assistance provider – definition of comparable areas in the Minden-Lübbecke district
Regarding the question of whether the demand groups for affordable housing must be determined in the local comparison area or whether they can be estimated on the basis of a nationwide survey.
Guiding principle (Editor):
The district of Minden-Lübbecke does not have a conclusive concept within the meaning of the case law of the Federal Social Court (contrary to the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, 24.04.2017 – L 20 SO 418/14).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Miscellaneous on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – Job center does not have to pay travel expenses for tutoring – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, judgment of 22.03.2018- L 11 AS 891/16
The LSG Celle-Bremen has ruled that a student who is taking a tutoring course at an adult education center at the expense of the job center will not be reimbursed for travel expenses to the place of instruction.
According to the State Social Court, educational and social participation benefits in the form of tutoring do not include travel expenses to the place of instruction. Travel expenses are not reimbursable as an addendum to tutoring services. The wording and systematic structure of the law preclude this, as eligible travel expenses – for example, for integration services – are explicitly regulated, and such a regulation is lacking here. Since the standard allowance for transportation represents an average value, residents of rural areas must accept higher travel costs for attending tutoring. While travel expenses of €0.20/km can be recognized as additional needs benefits in individual cases, this requires that the actual costs significantly exceed the monthly standard allowance for transportation. The provision for additional needs benefits is an exception for atypical situations. The plaintiff can reasonably be expected to cover the costs by reallocating funds from her standard allowance, as the transportation allowance would only be exceeded by a maximum of €3.65 per month.
Lower court:
SG Hannover
Source: Press release of the LSG Celle-Bremen No. 8/2018 dated May 14, 2018: www.juris.de
5.2 – Hartz IV recipients are not required to attend a nearby school
A student receiving Hartz IV benefits cannot be forced to attend a secondary school instead of a grammar school. The ruling stems from a dispute with the municipality, which refused to cover the student transportation costs.
Celle (dpa/tmn) – A municipality cannot compel a recipient of Hartz IV benefits to attend a school located closer to home. This is the conclusion of a ruling by the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court (Case No.: L 15 AS 69/15), which the German Bar Association is drawing attention to.
More information: www.merkur.de
5.3 – Court ruled against job center
It's a ruling of nationwide significance: Job centers must pay for dyslexia support courses for children whose families receive state maintenance payments. A lawyer from Klein Rönnau won the case for a mother and her son from Bad Segeberg – after seven years.
More information: www.kn-online.de
Note: Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of 25 April 2018 – B 4 AS 19/17 R
On the necessity of supplementary, appropriate learning support – possibly also long-term – for children and adolescents with dyslexia.
Guiding principle (editor):
Children with spelling difficulties are entitled to support. Job centers must also pay for long-term learning support for children with reading and spelling difficulties.
Guiding principle (Editor):
That learning support according to § 28 para. 5 SGB II encompasses more than just tutoring and not just short-term measures, regardless of competence issues, follows from the interpretation of this provision in light of the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 9 February 2010 (- 1 BvL 1/09, 1 BvL 3/09, 1 BvL 4/09 – BVerfGE 125, 175), in whose implementation it was created.
To specify possible learning support services according to § 28 para. 5 SGB II for learning difficulties, the integration assistance services that may be considered according to § 35a SGB VIII and §§ 53 ff SGB XII must also be taken into account.
5.4 – The German government has systematically reduced the standard benefit rate for Hartz IV recipients. According to calculations by Monitor, this saves billions of euros every year.
Jürgen Borchert, the former presiding judge of the Hessian State Social Court, has been fighting for many years to ensure that Hartz IV recipients are actually guaranteed this dignified minimum standard of living. "With the current standard benefit rates, this is certainly no longer the case," he says.
The total losses for Hartz IV recipients and pensioners amount to around ten billion euros annually when comparing the figure of 571 euros with the current rate of 416 euros per month. "This figure was predetermined; it was the target," believes social scientist Stefan Sell from the University of Koblenz. He believes it was achieved "through statistical manipulation in the calculation.".
More information: www.tagesschau.de
5.5 – Thousands of Hartz IV recipients depend on loans
In 2017, almost 14,000 loans were approved for recipients of Hartz IV benefits. These are only granted for truly essential goods. Left Party MP Sabine Zimmermann is therefore calling for a higher standard benefit rate.
Read more at: www.neuepresse.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker, www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
