1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of June 14, 2018 – L 11 AS 652/17
No reduction in benefits to secure a living as a result of leaving employment
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. The conclusion of a termination agreement represents a refusal to continue work within the meaning of Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB II even if the employment relationship could be terminated promptly by the employer regardless of this.
2. If behavior required of the beneficiary is already covered by Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB II, there is no longer any scope for the application of Section 31 Paragraph 2 No. 4 SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – LSG Munich, judgment by May 14, 2018 – L 11 AS 162/17
Cancellation of integration administrative acts after their completion
Guiding Principle (Juris)
1. Additional administrative acts with the same regulatory subject matter for other periods of time that are issued during ongoing legal proceedings against an administrative act that replaces the integration agreement do not become the subject of the ongoing proceedings. (Rn. 16) (editorial principle)
2. If an administrative act replacing the integration agreement has been completed, there is no interest in the merits of the decision in favor of the administrative procedure. (Rn. 18) (editorial principle)
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
1.3 - Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Social Court, decision of July 5, 2018 - L 14 AS 128/18 NZB
Guiding principle (Juris)
If several approval periods according to SGB II, which are asserted by way of connection or the objective accumulation of lawsuits in a legal dispute, only exceed the combined duration of one year, the appeal does not concern recurring or ongoing benefits for more than one year Within the meaning of Section 144 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGG.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
1.4 - Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Social Court, decision of July 5, 2018 - L 14 AS 614/16
Guiding principle (Juris)
The claim to reimbursement of moving costs (Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 SGB II) is limited to the necessary and reasonable costs. It is generally the responsibility of the person in need of assistance to carry out the move on their own.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
1.5 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision v.
June 21, 2018 - L 19 AS 941/18 B - legally binding orientation sentence (editor)
affirming the constitutionality of the standard requirement in the law of basic security according to SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.6 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of February 22, 2018 – L 6 AS 1411/17
Orientation sentence (editor)
On the usability of owner-occupied residential property (here affirmative)
Short version:
1. In the case of ordinary residential properties that are located in residential areas, are solely owned by a beneficiary and do not have any special features in terms of room layout that would run counter to the needs of a large potential group of interested parties (in the case of single-family homes, especially families), the Senate basically follows suit expected to be usable within six months. To the extent that discounts on the market value are to be expected that are solely attributable to the realization through sale within six months, these do not make the realization obviously uneconomical. They would have to be accepted because they were only around 15 percent under even more unfavorable conditions on the real estate market (cf. LSG NRW judgment of June 1, 2010 - L 6 AS 15/09 - juris RdNr 38 ff).
2. Only if there are indications of an unfavorable marketing situation - such as a room layout that is difficult for residential purposes or a particularly poor location of the property (traffic noise, social hot spot) - does this justify doubts about its usability, which would have to result in further investigations. The plaintiff's end-of-terrace house has no special features that would make marketing it appear particularly difficult.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Berlin Social Court, judgment of July 9, 2018 – S 135 AS 9615/17
Reimbursement of costs of the objection procedure – advisory assistance – statutory transfer of claim – offsetting
Guiding principle (Juris)
After a legal transfer of the right to reimbursement of costs in accordance with § 63 SGB 10 as part of the advisory assistance in accordance with § 9 sentence 2 BerHG to the lawyer, it is inadmissible for the job center to set off claims against the service recipient. Neither the requirement of reciprocity nor of similarity of demands is met.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – Berlin Social Court, judgment v. May 23, 2018 – S 205 AS 13830/15 – legally binding
Rent index – representativeness – price jump – adequate living space – 3-person household – school-age children – asking rents
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. The basic data of the Berlin rent index 2013 has been collected in a representative manner and evaluated in compliance with mathematical and statistical principles.
2. The opinion of the majority of specialists is decisive for the question of what requirements must be placed on the representativeness of a rent index.
3. It contradicts unrecognized mathematical and statistical principles if data is adjusted using the 95 percent confidence interval.
4. On the requirements and legal consequences of a so-called price jump within the meaning of the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG, October 19, 2010 - B 14 AS 2/10 R).
5. The appropriate living space for a 3-person household in Berlin is 80 m² (connection to LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, March 20, 2014 - L 25 AS 2038/10; LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, November 25, 2015 - L 18 AS 1467/ 14).
6. Even if the determination of the abstractly appropriate accommodation requirements is not based on a qualified rent index, those entitled to benefits bear the burden of proof for the claim that there are no apartments within the local comparison area that meet the abstractly appropriate accommodation requirements.
7. If school-age children live in a community of need, the obligation to reduce accommodation expenses does not cease to apply, but rather only applies to a narrower area than the local comparison area.
8. Because of a question of fact (here: housing shortage), the appeal cannot be admitted because of its fundamental importance.
9. A divergence no longer exists if the decision of the higher court from which the deviation is made has been superseded by supreme court case law.
10. So-called quoted rents do not have to be taken into account when determining the abstractly appropriate needs for the accommodation through a coherent concept, since the interpretation of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB 2 is limited by Sections 22a to 22c SGB 2 (connection to BSG, December 12, 2017 - B 4 AS 33/16 R) and Section 22c Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB 2 only provides for the consideration of new contract and existing rents.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – SG Hannover, decision by. June 7, 2018 – S 43 AS 1317/18 ER
Social court proceedings - interim legal protection - basic security for job seekers - assurance that accommodation costs will be covered due to relocation for those entitled to benefits up to the age of 25 - no reduction in standard benefits - assurance requirement - reasonableness - serious social reason - indication - disturbed mother-child relationship
Orientation sentence (editor)
Youth Welfare Office does not have to support moving under 25 years of age, but this is an indication if the Job Center provides assurances (in this case affirmative due to a disturbed mother-child relationship).
Guiding principle (editor)
1. As part of the issuance of an interim order in accordance with Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 SGG, the obligation of a SGB II service provider to issue an assurance in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 5 SGB II (assurance to assume the expenses related to the move for accommodation and heating for persons entitled to benefits up to the age of 25) leads to an inadmissible anticipation of the main issue. However, if the conditions for issuing an interim order are met, in order to grant effective legal protection it may be necessary to temporarily oblige the service provider to cover the costs of accommodation and heating for the new accommodation of the beneficiary (LSG State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 02/02/2017 – L 11 AS 983/16 B ER).
2. The young beneficiary can i. S.d. Sentence 2 No. 1, at least for serious social reasons, the parents' or one parent's home should not be referred to if the parent-child relationship is profoundly disturbed (cf. LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of June 16, 2010 - L 5 AS 383 /09 B ER).
3. Precisely because of the development of young people and the SGB II to promote personal responsibility, the requirements for the degree of severity must not be excessive.
4. The involvement of the youth welfare office is not a prerequisite, but an indication that the necessary level of severity has been reached (see Sächsisches LSG, decision dated January 21, 2008 - L 2 B 621/07 AS-ER).
Full text provided by Mark Schäfer, lawyer, specialist in social law, Adolf-Schweer-Str. 2, 31655 Stadthagen
3. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion (SGB III)
3.1 – Karlsruhe Social Court, court decision v. October 27, 2017 – S 5 AL 2200/17
Guiding principle (Juris)
1) For the insolvency benefit period according to Section 165 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB III, it depends on the employment relationship in the sense of labor law, not the actual employment relationship in the sense of social security law.
2) If the employee has outstanding wage claims for several months and the employer then pays part of the debt, the employer's payment must, in case of doubt, be credited against the claims in the order set out in Section 366 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 - SG Karlsruhe, judgment of November 20, 2017 - S 5 AL 2937/17 - legally binding
No blocking period when starting further vocational training to become a master craftsman
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. If the employee terminates his employment relationship in order to take part in a vocational training measure, he can, if necessary, rely on an important reason; A blocking period according to Section 159 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 1 SGB III does not then occur. However, it is the employee's responsibility to keep the burden on the insured community as low as possible: if this is reasonable, they must therefore carry out the further professional training part-time alongside their employment. If in-service training is not an option, he must terminate his employment at the last possible point in time under labor law in order to keep unemployment short.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.3 – Karlsruhe Social Court, judgment of March 26, 2018 – S 5 AL 3727/17
unemployment benefits; cancellation of the permit; material change; absenteeism; Continued payment of benefits in the event of incapacity for work
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. Anyone who becomes unable to work due to illness through no fault of their own while receiving unemployment benefit retains their right to unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks. This also applies if the unemployed person falls ill at a time when, with the consent of the employment agency, he is outside the so-called time and location area. Even in such a situation, continued payment of benefits takes six weeks; It is therefore not limited to the time of the originally approved absence.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Munich, decision of. June 25, 2018 – L 8 SO 49/18 B ER
Inadmissibility of a complaint against a regulatory order
Guiding principles
1. If the authority has made a (provisional) payment based on an interim order (regulatory order) from the social court or has not made an unlawful payment in disregard of the immediate enforceability (§ 175 SGG), there is no need for legal protection for the complaint in this respect. There is no legal or actual advantage from repealing the regulatory order because a claim for repayment only arises with the final decision in the main proceedings.
2. However, for the period from the announcement of the appeal decision, the authority has a need for legal protection, since if the regulatory order is changed or revoked from the announcement, lower or no benefits will be required.
3. In atypical cases, an application can be made in accordance with Section 199 Paragraph 2 SGG with the aim of suspending the immediate execution of the regulatory order.
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
5. Decisions of the state social courts on asylum law
5.1 - Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Social Court, decision of June 21, 2018 - L 9 AY 1/18 B ER
On the distinction between challenges and cases in urgent proceedings against a limitation of claims in accordance with Section 1a AsylbLG
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
5.2 – Hessian State Social Court, decision v. 07/11/2018 – L 4 AY 9/18 B ER
Orientation sentence (editor)
Temporary tolerated foreigners are entitled to hepatitis C treatment
Guiding principle (editor)
Foreigners who are entitled to benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act are entitled to all therapeutic measures that are required under the law of statutory health insurance companies or social assistance if it is not a minor illness and the stay of the person in need is not only necessary is short-term.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note: Guiding principle (Juris)
Due to Art. 1 Para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 20 Para. 1 GG, the elements of indispensability and the safeguarding of health are in Section 6 Para. AsylbLG should be interpreted broadly. The need to ensure health in the sense of a need for treatment that goes beyond minor illnesses is sufficient. Medical care with all services in accordance with Sections 47 ff. SGB XII or SGB V is then required, at least for people who are not only staying in the Federal Republic of Germany for a short period of time.
6. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other law books
6.1 – Medical assistance for people without papers
The federal government points out that people in Germany have a right to medical care even without valid papers.
Foreigners whose asylum application was legally rejected and who subsequently went into hiding are also entitled to benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), according to the Federal Government's answer (BT-Drs. 19/3366 - PDF, 186 KB) to a small question (BT -Drs. 19/2596 – PDF, 164 KB) of the Die Linke faction. The provisions of the law also permitted appropriate health care for this group of people.
In principle, planned medical care under the AsylbLG must be requested by the beneficiary beforehand from the responsible authority. Since the obligation to inform the immigration authorities applies to foreigners without a valid residence permit or toleration, it could be that these foreigners subsequently refrain from receiving planned medical treatment.
further: www.juris.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
