1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of April 25th. and 14.06. 2018 on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of April 25, 2018 – B 4 AS 29/17 R
May the basic security provider completely withdraw its approval notices due to concealed assets and demand reimbursement of all approved benefits if the assets that were available to the recipient of the benefits during the period in dispute could not have covered all of the needs in this period and the amount to be reimbursed therefore exceeded the existing assets exceeds many times?
Guidance sentence (editor)
1. If the beneficiary is responsible for withdrawing an Alg II permit due to concealed assets, the relationship between the amount to be reimbursed and the asset to be originally used is irrelevant.
Guiding principle (editor)
1. In the case of concealed assets, there is no legal basis for limiting the cancellation of benefits and reimbursement to the maximum assets that can be deemed to be consumed if legally reported.
2. However, the job center can waive part of the reclaim upon request.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
1.2 – BSG, judgment of June 14, 2018 – B 14 AS 28/17 R
(Basic security for job seekers - exclusion of benefits for those entitled to benefits according to § 1 AsylbLG - compatibility with EGRL 83/2004 - constitutionality)
Does Directive 2004/83/EC (so-called qualification directive) convey benefits claims according to SGB II contrary to the exclusion of benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 3 SGB II?
Orientation sentence (editor)
1. Children of recognized refugees cannot automatically claim Hartz IV benefits. A claim can only exist for so-called analogous social assistance benefits.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
1.3 – BSG, judgment of April 25, 2018 – B 14 AS 14/17 R
Unemployment benefit II - Adequacy of accommodation costs - Single-person household after the minor child leaves the community of need by covering needs with their own income
When determining the appropriate costs of accommodation and heating for a parent who lives with (at least) one minor child who can cover his or her own needs, should the value for those living alone or the shared value for a community of needs be based on the number of household members?
Guiding principle (editor)
1. If several people live in an apartment together, all expenses must generally be divided according to headboards (see BSG of February 14, 2018 - B 14 AS 17/17 R).
2. When examining the appropriateness of the expenditure, the values of social housing construction must be taken into account within the framework of the product theory with regard to the appropriate size of the apartment. In this context, the appropriate apartment size is not based on the number of residents, but solely on the number of members of a community of needs, even if all residents belong to one family (BSG of February 18, 2010 - B 14 AS 73/08 R).
3. That in the case of a single parent who lives with a minor child who can cover his or her own needs, an independent one-person household or a “one-person community of needs” should be assumed to determine the appropriate expenses for accommodation , follows from the “construct” of the community of needs (BSG of November 7, 2006 - B 7b AS 8/06 R) as a special feature of SGB II. A household community cannot be referred to in this context because such a relationship is only defined by relatives in Section 9 Paragraph 5 SGB II is regulated (see BSG of June 18, 2008 - B 14/11b AS 61/06 R).
4. There are no compelling legal reasons for a correction of the above-mentioned case law referring to the community of needs (see the latest BSG of February 14, 2018 - B 14 AS 17/17 R) in the case of a single parent living with their minor child lives who can cover their needs with their own income, i.e. do not form a community of needs with them in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 4 SGB II.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, judgment of. January 15, 2018 – L 3 AS 10/16 – legally binding
The ruling Senate sees the entire area of the Dithmarschen district as a uniform comparison area (different resolution of March 4, 2016 - L 3 AS 21/17 B ER - and judgment of January 23, 2015 - L 3 AS 54/12 -).
Guidance sentence (editor)
1. The concept for determining the appropriate gross rent on which the rental value survey in the Dithmarschen district is based (August 2012 report) does not meet the highest court requirements for a coherent concept. The Senate leaves open the question of whether the cluster analysis procedure is covered by the highest court principle of freedom of method (see BSG, judgment of November 18, 2014 - B 4 AS 9/14 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note: Guiding principle (Juris)
1. The determination of the appropriate accommodation costs must be carried out in a transparent, comprehensible process and based on a valid data basis.
2. The disproportionate consideration of the existing rents of SGB II recipients, without taking this aspect into account in the method report, violates the transparency requirement.
3. Rental agreements that are older than four years or that have not undergone any changes for more than four years do not allow any reliable conclusions to be drawn about the current rent level.
4. In order to create a concept for determining the appropriateness of accommodation costs, a comprehensible demand analysis for the individual household sizes is necessary, with particular consideration of the ownership rate.
2.2 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of July 5, 201 - L 15 AS 172/18 B ER
Guiding principle (Juris)
The temporal validity of an administrative integration act with “until further notice” is not subject to any major legal concerns. It corresponds to Section 15 SGB II in the version applicable from August 1, 2016, which no longer has a defined period for the term of integration agreements, but in paragraph 3 sentence 1 there is a period of “six months at the latest” for regular review and provides for an update (contrary to the Bavarian LSG, decision of June 8, 2017 - L 16 AS 291/17 B ER).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Legal tip:
This is already the case in the Senate's resolutions of August 24, 2017 - L 15 AS 160/17 B ER and of May 23, 2017 - L 15 AS 69/17 B ER; see also Lahne in: Hohm, GK-SGB II, § 15 Rn. 79; aA Bavarian LSG, decision of June 8, 2017 – L 16 AS 291/17 B ER Rn. 19; Berlit in: LPK-SGB II, 6th edition 2017, § 15 Rn. 62)
Note:
Likewise SG Berlin, decision of. from August 28, 2018 - S 27 AS 8731/18 ER, also SG Dortmund, decision of. August 24, 2018 - S 27 AS 430/18 ER, LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of May 15, 2018 - L 9 AS 4118/17 - Revision pending BSG B 14 AS 28/18 R, SG Dortmund, decision of. 01/10/2018 – S 27 AS 5836717 ER; SG Karlsruhe judgment of October 12, 2017, S 14 AS 1709/17; SG Berlin, decision of October 12, 2017 - S 186 AS 11916/17 ER; SG Cologne, judgment of June 23, 2017 - S 33 AS 691/17 and SG Nordhausen, decision of September 30, 2016 - S 27 AS 1695/16 ER; aa. LSG NSB, resolution of July 5, 2018 - L 15 AS 172/18 B ER, as well as the Senate's resolutions of August 24, 2017 - L 15 AS 160/17 B ER and of May 23, 2017 - L 15 AS 69/17 B ER; see also Lahne in: Hohm, GK-SGB II, § 15 Rn. 79, LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, resolutions of September 15, 2017, L 14 AS 1469/17 B ER, LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, resolution of. November 6, 2017 – L 18 AS 2232/17 B ER; SG Nuremberg, decision of April 10, 2017 -S 22 AS 292/17 ER, left open LSG NRW, decision of. 01/18/2018 – L 6 AS 1329/17, LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, resolution of June 7th. 2018 – L 31 AS 671/18 B ER
2.3 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of June 28, 2018 - L 15 AS 164/18 B ER
Guiding Principle (Juris)
1. An assessment of the need for help requires that the actual income and financial situation of the person concerned is known. In this respect, it is initially the person concerned's responsibility to state all the facts required for this, to identify the relevant evidence and to submit all documentary evidence or to agree to their submission.
2. The applicants cannot expect that the authority or the court will determine on their behalf the facts/facts/circumstances relevant to their need for assistance.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
2.4 – Saxon State Social Court, decision v.
August 16, 2018 - L 3 AS 508/18 B ER - legally binding Guiding principle (Juris)
1. A placement proposal must contain information on the type of activity, the location, content and scope of the activity as well as the employer, but not the amount of the salary.
2. After the Minimum Wage Act comes into force, a job center is not obliged to state a minimum remuneration in a placement proposal and/or to check compliance with the statutory minimum wage regulations without any evidence of illegal behavior on the part of the employer.
3. In the event of usual scheduling conflicts, the beneficiary must make reasonable efforts to reschedule the appointment.
4. Purely personal ideas about private and professional life are generally not an important reason.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.5 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of July 31, 2018 – L 13 AS 1951/16
Guidance sentence (editor)
Sections 44 ff. SGB LSG Baden-Württemberg judgment of June 27, 2016, L 1 AS 4849/15).
Guiding principle (Juris)
After the provisional approval of unemployment benefit II, the final decision on entitlement to benefits must be made analogously to Sections 45 (4) and 48 (4) SGB, even after Section 41a (5) SGB II comes into force on August 1, 2016 X is not required, so that the one-year period provided there does not apply.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - Magdeburg Social Court from August 24, 2018 - S 24 AS 2411/18 ER
Guiding Principle Attorney Michael Loewy
1. The reference by an applicant to carrying out a move on their own over a distance of 460 km with a journey time of 5.5 hours (excluding breaks) without moving helpers is unreasonable.
2. The costs for carrying out a move using a commercial moving company of EUR 3,332.00 for a distance of 460 km and a moving volume of 35 m³ are reasonable.
3. As part of the self-help requirement, those in need of help are not obliged to initially use the monthly rent due for the old accommodation to finance the move - while accepting rent arrears.
Source: www.anwaltskanzlei-loewy.de
3.2 – Kiel Social Court, decision of August 31, 2018 (ref.: S 31 AS 241/18 ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. The need to move (Section 22 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 SGB II) is to be affirmed if an employable person entitled to benefits lives in a basement apartment that does not meet the requirements of the state building regulations in terms of the clear room height or the necessary windows.
2. In this situation, even a person who is in no way in need of help would take the opportunity to rent a flat with a larger living space at at least comparable rental conditions.
3.3 – Berlin Social Court, decision of August 28, 2018 (Az. S 27 AS 8731/18 ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel 1. The lack of a fixed term of six months for integration agreements (Section 15 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 / Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II) does not affect the sovereign determination through administrative integration acts in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 SGB II.
2. An unlimited period of validity of an administrative integration act would contradict the intention of the legislature, according to which a continuous integration process with constant updating should take place after six months at the latest. On the one hand, this period of time gives the person in need of help who finds themselves subject to sovereign regulation through an administrative act a stable, reliable framework, but on the other hand, through continuous observation, it guarantees that they do not rigidly adhere to goals that have proven to be unsuccessful.
3. In the case of non-limitation, the administrative integration act applies until further notice without the person concerned having any influence, which is to be classified as unlawful.
3.4 – SG Speyer, judgment of May 9, 2018 – S 16 AS 1339/16
Reducing accommodation costs by moving out is always objectively possible for those entitled to benefits (Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II) if and to the extent that they can effectively release themselves from contractual obligations to pay expenses.
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. A cost reduction through moving can only be reasonable (Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II) if the previously occupied accommodation is replaced by another accommodation that is both needs-based and within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 half sentence 2 SGB II appropriate accommodation can be obtained (cf. BSG, judgment of November 7th, 2006 - B 7b AS 18/06 R -, Rn. 22; BSG, judgment of November 7th, 2006 - B 7b AS 10/06 R - , Rn. 25; BSG, judgment of February 27, 2008 - B 14/7b AS 70/06 R -, Rn. 17; BSG, judgment of March 19, 2008 - B 11b AS 43/06 R -, Rn. 20; BSG , judgment of June 18, 2008 - B 14/7b AS 44/06 R -, paragraph 19). Regardless of how the vague legal concept of “reasonableness” is to be specified in the context of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II, it follows from the fundamental right to guarantee a humane subsistence minimum as a minimum requirement for the reasonableness of the cost reduction that this is not the case can lead to homelessness.
2. This not only presupposes that “appropriate”, vacant living space is available on the regional housing market in question (which is to be determined in more detail by way of the specification of the concept of appropriateness in Section 22 Para. 1 Sentence 1 Clause 2 SGB II) during the period in question but also that the beneficiary was aware of at least one specific accommodation alternative during the period in question.
3. The beneficiary is only obliged to reduce costs if a concrete, reasonable and appropriate accommodation alternative is available and is known to the beneficiary. However, there is no obligation to look for an apartment, as the law does not link any negative benefits consequences to the mere failure to look for an apartment.
4. The question of whether the regulation of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Half Sentence 2 SGB II is unconstitutional due to its vagueness, which the Federal Constitutional Court decided in its decisions of October 6, 2017 (1 BvL 2/15 and 1 BvL 5/15 ) and of October 10, 2017 (1 BvR 617/14 and 1 BvR 944/14) has not yet decided (see SG Speyer, decision of December 29, 2017 - S 16 AS 1466/17 ER -, Rn. 63f.), is not relevant to the decision in the present proceedings.
Source: www.landesrecht.rlp.de
4. Decisions of the state social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of
July 31, 2018 - L 13 AL 2433/17 Because the qualifying period was not fulfilled within the relevant framework period, the plaintiff was not entitled to unemployment benefit.
Guiding principle (Juris)
The activity of a student assistant is exempt from insurance as long as the person concerned appears to be a student and the achievement of the study goal (here: third medical state examination) remains the priority.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision v. 08/29/2018 – L 7 SO 2855/18 B
Guidance sentence (editor)
No approval of legal aid as a form of highly personal social assistance in the area of justice after the death of the applicant.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision v. August 6, 2018 – L 7 SO 2248/18 ER-B
Guiding principle (Juris)
If an application for the issuance of an interim order has been legally rejected as unfounded, a new application is barred by the legal force of the rejection decision. A new application can only be based on new facts that have arisen after the earlier decision and that justify a different assessment of the facts relevant to the decision.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. Decisions of the state social courts on asylum law
6.1 - Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Social Court, judgment of August 9, 2018 - L 9 AY 5/11
Guiding principle (Juris)
If ongoing benefits are received in accordance with § 3 AsylbLG on the basis of a final approval decision and the higher analogous benefits are then applied for in accordance with § 2 AsylbLG, this application is usually considered an application for benefits within the meaning of § 44 Para. 1 Tenth Book of the Social Security Code (SGB X) to evaluate.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
7. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other law books
7.1 - The lawyer's mailbox comes with security gaps, a contribution from attorney Helge Hildebrandt
further: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
7.2 – Foreigners Residence Regulation Ordinance of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia partially void – Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia v.
09/04/2018 - 18 A 256/18 The Higher Administrative Court of Münster has lifted a residence requirement with which the Arnsberg district government had obliged an Iraqi refugee to maintain his residence in Kerpen, since the underlying provision of the North Rhine-Westphalian Foreigners Residence Regulation Ordinance is not compatible with federal law is.
further: www.juris.de
7.3 – Refugees who are particularly in need of protection are entitled to integration assistance, a contribution from
Lawyer Volker Gerloff The LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen determined on February 1, 2018 (L 8 AY 16/17 B ER) that Section 6 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG must be interpreted in accordance with the guidelines and that refugees in particular need of protection are entitled to integration assistance.
further: www.anwalt.de
7.4 - SG Gotha condemns job centers to cover the costs of an internet-capable PC/laptop in the amount of EUR 600
Thomé Newsletter 33/2018 from September 8th, 2018: tacheles-socialhilfe.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
