1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of April 25, 2018 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of April 25, 2018 – B 4 AS 19/17 R
On the need for – if necessary also long-term – appropriate additional learning support for children and young people with dyslexia.
Orientation sentence (editor)
Children with spelling difficulties are entitled to support. Job centers also have to pay long-term learning support for children with reading and writing difficulties.
Guiding principle (editor)
The fact that learning support according to Section 28 Paragraph 5 SGB II includes more than just tutoring and not just short-term measures, regardless of questions of competence, follows from the interpretation of this provision in the light of the BVerfG judgment of February 9, 2010 (- 1 BvL 1/ 09, 1 BvL 3/09, 1 BvL 4/09 – BVerfGE 125, 175), in whose implementation it was created.
Source: juris.bundessocialgericht.de
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of May 17, 2018 – L 7 AS 4682/17
Orientation sentence (editor)
On the denial of the standard requirement according to SGB II due to non-presentation of proof of identity or ID card.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. In principle, you must also present your ID card to prove your identity.
2. The repeated presentation of an identity card or other identification document issued by a government agency cannot be required as an act of cooperation in accordance with Section 60 SGB I for subsequent applications for ALG II, provided there are no doubts.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of April 17, 2018 – L 9 AS 2930/16
Guiding principle (Juris)
If the tenant of an apartment also becomes its owner by way of inheritance, a rent claim that has not yet been fulfilled expires due to the combination of the creditor and debtor in one person (confusion), with the result that the job center is no longer needed is no longer obliged to perform. In any case, any economic disadvantages caused by the job center's non-payment cannot be compensated for via Section 22 SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision v.
April 17, 2018 - L 18 AS 647/18 B ER - legally binding Interim legal protection - complete abolition of unemployment benefit II - constitutional law - suspensive effect of the objection
Guiding Principle Attorney Kay Füßlein
1. An unconditional basic income is not constitutionally required. The legislature is not prevented from linking the granting of subsistence benefits under SGB II to obligations to cooperate.
2. To the extent that the legislature links a reduction in benefits (in this case by 100%) to the lack of cooperation on the part of the benefit recipient, it must be ensured that those affected have the means necessary to cover their living costs in this situation.
3. However, the latter is not the case as far as accommodation and heating services are concerned.
4. If the beneficiary subsequently declares his willingness to fulfill his obligations, the reduction can be limited to 60% in an individual case decision.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Berlin, decision by. 08/04/2018 – S 190 AS 5918/18 ER
Basic security for job seekers - conclusion of an integration agreement - inadmissibility of issuing a replacement decision during the period of validity
Guidance sentence (editor)
1. The JobCenter was not entitled to issue a new integration agreement by administrative act because an effective integration agreement already existed. If there is an agreement or an administrative act, the service provider is bound to it until it is consensually adjusted or effectively terminated or revoked (cf. LSG Bayern, decision of May 25, 2010 - L 11 AS 294/10 B ER).
2. The administrative integration act turns out to be unlawful because the mutual rights and obligations were not specifically recorded. The specific services for integration into work must be specifically described in the sense of the desired tailor-made orientation of the integration services (BSG, judgment of June 23, 2016 - B 14 AS 42/15 R). The regulations only contain text modules.
3.2 - Berlin Social Court, judgment of June 22, 2018 (ref.: S 144 AS 15342/17):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. From § 31a III 2 SGB II it is also necessary that in the event of a reduction decision made by a SGB II provider in accordance with § 31a III 1 SGB II, the job center can already ex officio grant supplementary benefits in kind or in kind must decide.
2. If such a decision is not made, then the sanction decision in its entirety is unlawful, because in order to protect underage members of the community of needs, such a sanction must always be granted without application.
3. Minors will regularly have little opportunity to influence the (application) behavior of their legal guardians, who are largely sanctioned, so that these people who are not yet adults require special protection.
3.3 – Bremen Social Court, judgment of April 18, 2018 – S 6 AS 876/15 – legally binding
Guiding Principle (Juris)
I. The thirty-year limitation period from Section 197 Paragraph 1 No. 3 of the German Civil Code (BGB) does not apply to cost assessment claims in accordance with Section 63 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the Tenth Book of the Social Code (SGB X), which are based on a positive basic cost decision by the service provider , because basic cost decisions in objection proceedings are not legally established claims or titles (contrary to SG Berlin, judgment of August 20, 2014, p. 204 14829/13, juris para. 15).
II. The recipient of the service is also obliged to reduce costs by raising the objection of limitation to his legal representative, if this is possible.
III. This also applies in cases where there is identity between the plaintiff and the legal representative.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other statute books
4.1 - Asylum seekers can sue the Federal Office for a decision on their asylum application
The Federal Administrative Court has decided that an asylum seeker whose application has not been decided within three months has the opportunity to bring an action for failure to act against the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.
further: www.juris.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
