1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision v. January 26, 2018 – L 4 AS 664/17 B ER – legally binding
Guidance sentence (editor)
1. On the respondent's provisional obligation to grant a loan for the repair and general TÜV inspection of a motor vehicle used by him as well as the approval of legal aid.
2. He is not entitled to the desired benefits.
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. Costs for the repair and the general TÜV inspection of the motor vehicle used by a recipient of benefits under SGB II are not included in the standard requirement. The granting of a loan for such costs is therefore not possible under Section 24 Paragraph 1 SGB II.
2. The financing of the repair and the main TÜV inspection as a benefit for integration into work is not possible if the recipient of benefits under SGB II is prevented from taking up employment subject to insurance or from being integrated into work in another way due to a health condition of less than three hours a day .
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of
February 22, 2018 - L 2 AS 859/17 B ER - legally binding basic security for job seekers - exclusion of benefits for EU foreigners when staying to look for work
Guiding principle (Juris)
If there is no parental custody, there is no other right of residence according to Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 11 FreizügG/EU in conjunction with Sections 25 ff Residence Act. Unless there is a right of residence other than that for the purpose of looking for work, there is no entitlement to benefits under SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.3 - Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Social Court, decision of April 10, 2018 - L 14 AS 516/17 B ER
Orientation sentence (editor)
1. On the feature of accommodation within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB II in the case of an inpatient adaptation measure following a weaning measure.
2. The meal allowance granted to the applicant by the facility and adjusted for the insurance flat rate in accordance with Section 11b SGB II is to be offset against the SGB II standard requirement according to need level I as a reduction in the claim amount (see also LSG BW of April 15, 2015, L 3 AS 4257 /14).
3. The applicant is not excluded from receiving benefits.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
1.4 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of April 17, 2018 - L 11 AS 1373/14
Matters under SGB II – deductions from income; here: Expenses to fulfill statutory maintenance obligations, Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 7 SGB II
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. The fact that the service providers and the social courts are generally to be relieved of the burden of independently determining statutory maintenance claims within the framework of Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 7 SGB II, excludes an examination of whether the expenses of the “Fulfillment of statutory maintenance obligations” does not serve (cf. BSG, judgment of February 8, 2017 - B 14 AS 22/16 R -, Rn.20).
2. In cases in which there is obviously no statutory maintenance obligation, the SGB II providers and the social courts are authorized to review the question of the statutory maintenance obligation (connection to: Hessian State Social Court, decision of August 28, 2017 - L 9 AS 228/17 B ER -, paragraph 38).
3. Such an obvious situation exists, for example, if a statutory maintenance obligation cannot exist based on the records, ie the documents available to the service provider in the administrative procedure for verifying the claim.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
Jobcenter does not have to pay for contractually agreed poverty
The LSG Celle-Bremen has decided that authorities and social courts do not have to accept maintenance titles without checking if they obviously do not correspond to the legal maintenance obligations.
Short version:
According to the State Social Court's opinion, the plaintiff's statutory maintenance obligation was exceptionally to be denied in his own jurisdiction. In principle, authorities and social courts should be relieved of the burden of independent investigations into maintenance claims and should use existing maintenance titles as a basis for calculating needs. As a rule, it can be assumed that there is a claim to maintenance. However, this would be different if there was obviously no legal claim to maintenance based on the files. Here, the plaintiff's sole income from the company pension would be far below the Düsseldorf table's deductible of 1,100 euros/month. However, financial performance ends where the person liable for maintenance can no longer secure his or her own existence. He should be left with the resources he needs for his needs. Maintenance obligations should not be undertaken at the expense of the general public.
The LSG Celle-Bremen allowed the appeal to the BSG because of its fundamental importance.
Source: www.juris.de
1.5 – LSG Schleswig-Holstein, judgment of April 20, 2018 – L 12 SF 46/17 EK
Compensation claim according to Section 198 Paragraph 2 GVG
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. Waiting for a key decision that is relevant to the decision is considered so-called active processing time with the result that a procedure does not constitute judicial inactivity despite a procedure duration of 2 years and 8 months, regular re-submissions at the start of the procedure as well as independent investigations and subsequent orders in the hearing area can be determined (following BSG, judgment of September 3, 2014 - B 10 ÜG 12/13 R -, para. 47).
2. Waiting for a leading decision can be covered by the court's discretion even without a formal stay or a suspension order if it is sufficiently apparent to the compensation court that the court was waiting for a leading decision and did not promote the proceedings for this reason (following BVerwG, decision of February 20, 2018 - 5 B 13/17 D -, Rn. 6, juris).
Source: www.gesetze-rechtsprachung.sh.juris.de
1.6 - Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision dated May 4, 2018 - L 6 AS 59/18 B ER - legally binding
principle (Juris)
1. The exclusion of benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 Letter b SGB II does not apply constitutional and European law concerns.
2. The purpose of the law and the justification for the law suggest that the exception formulated in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 SGB II from the exclusion of benefits according to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II does not only require a one-time registration with the responsible registration authority (Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 5 SGB II), but rather to be continuously registered in the federal territory for a period of at least five years.
3. As part of the assessment of the consequences to be made in the decision in accordance with Section 86b Paragraph 2 SGG, it can be taken into account that the person applying for basic security benefits for job seekers has not yet acquired a right of permanent residence and that the determination of the loss of the right to entry and Stay comes into consideration.
4. A case of hardship that would justify providing bridging benefits for more than one month (Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 Clause 2 SGB XII) is not to be recognized despite significant chronic illnesses if the person is able to travel.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.7 – LSG Munich, decision by. May 14, 2018 – L 11 AS 336/18 NZB
Admission to appeal regarding the reimbursement of travel expenses for submitting the application documents
Guiding principle (Juris)
On the question of whether publishing to appear in person in accordance with Section 61 SGB I can lead to the assumption of a case of hardship with regard to reimbursement of costs in the sense of Section 65a Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB I for benefit recipients under SGB II.
Short version:
In the judgment of April 6, 2018, the social court used the legal basis for the defendant's request to appear in person to submit application documents for benefits to secure a living (unemployment benefit II -Alg II-) according to the Second Book of the Social Code (SGB II) § 61 First Book of the Social Code (SGB I) was used and stated that travel costs of €5.12 could “absolutely” not constitute a case of hardship within the meaning of Section 65a SGB I. Since the social court has generally excluded a reimbursement of costs amounting to €5.12, it can be assumed that the case is of fundamental importance, although the ideas on reimbursement of costs come from the decision of the BSG (judgment of December 6, 2010 - B 14/7b AS 50/ 06 R - published in juris) and the Senate (judgment of March 27, 2012 - L 11 AS 774/10 - published in juris) if necessary also on - insofar as the request for a personal interview was based on § 61 SGB I in the present case and can be supported – Section 65a Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB I can be transferred (see also: Mrozynski, SGB I, 5th edition Section 65a RdNo. 11).
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Braunschweig Social Court from May 15, 2018 – S 44 AS 529/16
Guiding Principle Attorney Michael Loewy
1. A lack of an interest rate agreement in a private loan granted among relatives does not prevent the recognition of a loan in the legal circle of SGB II. An interest rate agreement is unnecessary in view of the family relationship, the borrower's ability to pay and also in view of the generally low level of interest rates on the capital market.
2. An oral repayment agreement, which stipulates that the loan will be returned as soon as the borrower is able to perform again, is also common among relatives and does not necessarily allow the conclusion to be drawn that it is a creditable gift.
Source: www.anwaltskanzlei-loewy.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 - SG Karlsruhe, judgment of May 23, 2017 - S 2 AL 1779/16 - legally binding
connection of the concept of employment in Section 24 SGB III to the status-legal classification of the activity and thus to the concept of employment under contribution law
Short text:
The 2nd Chamber of the Karlsruhe Social Court denied a benefit law understanding of the term employment in Section 24 Paragraph 1 Case 1 SGB III and basically awarded the plaintiff unemployment benefit for the disputed period. The concept of employment in § 24 SGB III is linked exclusively to the status-legal classification of the activity and thus to the concept of employment under contribution law. A correction in benefit law, such as that applied to the term employment relationship used in the area of unemployment benefits to determine unemployment (Section 138 Paragraph 1 No. 1 SGB III), is not necessary. After the plaintiff's father was the sole owner of the business, he was able to dismiss the plaintiff as managing director of the general partner due to his legal status and then terminate him at any time with regard to his work as operations manager for the GmbH & Co KG. Accordingly, the activity should be classified as dependent employment due to the actual legal authority.
Source: Sozialgericht-karlsruhe.de
4. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of December 7, 2017 - L 8 SO 206/17 B ER
On the cost-privileged entitlement to benefits for outpatient autism therapy as integration assistance under youth or social welfare law
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. A decision in the main matter within the meaning of Section 17a Paragraph 5 GVG is also available if the first instance court has rejected an urgent application in accordance with Section 86b Paragraph 2 SGG because the urgency of the matter has not been credibly demonstrated (reason for the order).
2. In the dispute over whether an integration assistance measure for a disabled child is free of charge, a reason for an order due to the income and financial situation of the persons required to be deployed can only be denied in urgent court proceedings if they are unable to finance the measure during the main proceedings (objection or lawsuit proceedings). ) is possible without significant restrictions.
3. An autism spectrum disorder in the sense of early childhood autism is to be viewed as a mental disability within the meaning of Section 3 EinglH-VO if there are no other damages to the body structures or functions (especially with associated intellectual disability).
4. To the extent that an autism spectrum disorder represents both a mental and a mental disability within the meaning of Sections 2 and 3 of the EinglH-VO, in individual cases there may (also) be a claim to reimbursement of costs for outpatient autism therapy in the form of social welfare integration assistance as assistance appropriate schooling within the framework of general compulsory education in accordance with Section 19 Paragraph 3 SGB XII in conjunction with Sections 53, 54 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB XII in conjunction with Section 12 EinglH-VO.
5. An obligation of the social welfare provider to provide benefits outside the core area of the school's educational work is generally to be affirmed as long as and to the extent that the school does not provide appropriate help (connection to BSG, judgment of March 22, 2012 - B 8 SO 30/10 R – juris para. 25).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
4.2 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision v.
April 20, 2018 - L 15 SO 213/17 B PKH - legally binding housing benefit - basic security benefits in old age and in the event of reduced earning capacity - principle of subordination - right to choose
Guiding principle (editor)
A person in need of help who has applied for social assistance benefits does not have to be referred to claiming housing benefit (decision of February 7, 2017, Ref. L 15 SO 252/16 B PKH, not yet published; aA Social Court Berlin, decision dated December 18, 2017, Ref. S 145 SO 1717/17).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Hamburg Social Court, judgment of October 10, 2016 – S 52 SO 233/12
Guidance sentence (editor)
Limitation of the maintenance costs for the accommodation to be borne by the social welfare agency to their necessity.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. § 35 Para. 1 SGB B ER for the parallel provision § 22 SGB II). Therefore, only the expenses that serve to maintain or restore the apartment to its previous substance can be taken into account.
2. The plaintiff cannot ultimately base his request on Section 35 Paragraph 1 SGB XII. The accommodation costs that must be borne by the social welfare agency also include expenses for maintenance and repair measures, provided they are (effectively) contractually owed and there is an unavoidable need (BSG, judgment of March 3, 2009, Ref. B 4 AS 38/08 R on the parallel provision of Section 22 SGB II; Nguyen in: jurisPK-SGB XII, Section 35 Rnr. 48).
3. The plaintiff has stated that he is contractually obliged to repair the heating. However, the need currently under discussion is not unavoidable. The need for repairs claimed by the plaintiff could already be adequately and reasonably covered by the gas boiler, the cost of which the defendant agreed to cover.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. Decisions of the social courts on asylum law
6.1 – Lüneburg Social Court, decision v. March 15, 2018 – S 26 AY 42/17 ER
Disputes under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act
Reduction in benefits in accordance with Section 1a Paragraph 2 AsylbLG if the departure date and possibility of leaving are fixed.
Short text:
There are no fundamental constitutional concerns that would essentially require obtaining a decision from the BVerfG in accordance with Article 100 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG). The adjudicating court has expressed doubts in previous decisions (decision of June 6, 2017 Ref.: S 26 AY 10/17 ER - juris; decision of May 3, 2017 Ref.: S 26 AY 8/17 ER - juris). Benefit restrictions based on Section 1a Paragraph 4 AsylbLG, which were not based on individual misconduct on the part of those entitled to benefits. However, this is not a case constellation of this kind, since the benefit restriction in accordance with Section 1a Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 AsylbLG is due to personal and avoidable behavior on the part of the beneficiary in connection with the departure. This limitation of claims, which is linked to individual behavior, is within the (still) constitutionally permissible framework both with regard to the binding effect of the BVerfG judgment of July 18, 2012 and the standards developed there. In this respect, the SG follows the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG), according to which the legislature has leeway in determining the scope of benefits to secure the fundamental right to secure the minimum subsistence resulting from Article 1 Paragraph 1 GG in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 GG; This legislative scope opens up the possibility of linking the granting of benefits to conditions, since neither the fundamental right to a humane minimum subsistence nor the welfare state principle demand an unconditional guarantee of the subsistence minimum (BSG, judgment of May 12, 2017 Ref.: B AY 1/16 RmwN). Restrictions on benefits compared to the level set by the protection of human dignity and the welfare state principle are not general and as such are inadmissible. If, as in the present case, they are linked to non-compliance with legally permissible conditions, the state's responsibility is relaxed and this also justifies constitutional protection at a lower level.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
7. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal books
7.1 - Better learning support through a participation package
In the future, learning support through services from the education and participation package should also be possible if a child's transfer is not in immediate danger.
The federal government announced this in its answer (BT-Drs. 19/2268 - PDF, 334 KB) to a small question (BT-Drs. 19/1806 - PDF, 137 KB) from the FDP parliamentary group. The government refers to the coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and SPD, which provides for improved services for education and participation.
Source: hib – today in the Bundestag No. 348 v. May 30, 2018: www.juris.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles legal ruling ticker, www.tacheles-socialhilfe.de
