1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court of 09.08.2018 and 14.06.2018 on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 09.08.2018 – B 14 AS 20/17 R
Basic income support for job seekers – consideration of income or assets – payments from a legally established claim for damages arising from an out-of-court settlement due to pecuniary loss following a tort
Guiding principle (editor):
No reduction in Hartz IV benefits due to compensation payments.
Installment payments to replace a valuable item that someone already owned before applying for benefits are considered assets, not income.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 14.06.2018 – B 14 AS 13/17 R
If a person living in a household receiving benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), receives a basic pension and also a supplementary pension, this should not be considered income?
Guiding principle (Editor):
The compensatory pension received by her husband or father, with whom she lived in a so-called mixed household, under the Law on the Recognition and Support of Those Persecuted for Political, Racial, or Religious Reasons under National Socialism (PrVG), is not excluded from being considered as income under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). This follows from the exception in Section 13a PrVG, which applies only to the basic pension, and from the lack of a designated purpose within the meaning of the former Section 11 Paragraph 3 No. 1 SGB II (cf. today Section 11a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II) for the compensatory pension in the PrVG.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Mecklenburg-Vorpommern State Social Court, Judgment of 27 June 2018 – L 12 SF 43/17 EK AS
Guiding principle (Editor)
: On legal issues regarding the existence of compensation claims by (several) members of a household receiving social assistance and their amount.
Principle (Juris):
The compensation payment pursuant to Section 198 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG) to a member of a household receiving benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) who has limited legal capacity must be reduced if at least one adult member of the household receives the standard compensation.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
2.2 – Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
Hamburg State Social Court, Judgment of 29 August 2018 – L 2 AL 51/17
Guiding principle (Editor):
The question of whether the legality of establishing a second suspension period requires that a decision regarding the establishment of the previous suspension period has been issued beforehand is answered in the negative.
Principle (Editor)
1. It is disputed whether a second instance of conduct contrary to insurance regulations can only exist if the first instance of such conduct has previously been established by an administrative act (supporting: Saxon State Social Court, judgment of February 5, 2016 – L 3 AL 199/15, juris; Social Court Kassel, judgment of November 7, 2012 – S 7 AL 214/10, juris; Vagolio, in: Hauck/Noftz, SGB III, as of September 2014, § 159 para. 481; Karmenski, in: Brand, SGB III, 7th ed., § 159 para. 167; Winkler, in: Gagel SGB II/SGB III, as of March 2018, § 159 SGB III para. 369; opposing: Hessian State Social Court, judgment of August 5 2015 – L 6 AL 6/13, juris; LSG Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of 19 May 2011 – L 2 AL 20/09).
2. According to the wording of Section 159 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), a prior determination of a waiting period by official notice is not required. A first and then a second instance of conduct contrary to the terms of the insurance are sufficient.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – SG Rostock, Judgment of 06.09.2018, S 2 AL 21/17
Guiding principle (Editor):
Regarding the entitlement to unemployment benefit 1 for a football player, where the plaintiff received a monthly remuneration of €250 plus bonuses according to the player contract, this is affirmed here.
A prerequisite for an employment relationship is that the employee cannot freely organize their work, but is integrated into another company and is generally subject to the employer's comprehensive right to issue instructions regarding time, duration, location, and manner of performance. The overall picture of the service is always decisive. If the agreements deviate from the actual circumstances, the latter prevail. A football player is considered to be integrated into a company subject to instructions if they commit to performing football-related activities according to the instructions of the sports club, typically in return for payment of wages (§ 14 SGB IV). Employment is not considered to exist if only membership-related ties exist between the athlete and the sports club. The activities in question must not have been performed solely within the framework of membership in a private-law association in fulfillment of membership obligations.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 27 September 2018 – L 8 SO 18/16
Federal Voluntary Service: Pocket money not countable towards social assistance
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. On the crediting of pocket money from the Federal Voluntary Service under the German Social Code, Book XII.
2. The receipt of pocket money due to a federal voluntary service also constitutes a justified case under Section 82 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
Principle (Editor)
1. The pocket money of 200 euros per month granted to the plaintiff constitutes income which, according to Section 82 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) as amended on March 21, 2013 (valid from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015), is in principle creditable, since it is an income in money or money's worth and the stipulated exceptions do not apply.
2. However, the pocket money received by the plaintiff is to be deducted from income in its entirety pursuant to Section 82 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), with the consequence that no income crediting takes place in this respect.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision of 17 October 2018 – L 7 SO 3150/18 ER-B
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. On the procedure for preliminary legal protection regarding the assumption of the costs of integration assistance during kindergarten attendance, here in favor.
2. Benefits for the use of an integration aide for the purpose of kindergarten attendance can be claimed via the catch-all provision of Section 55 Paragraph 2 SGB IX aF (LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 27.08.2015 – L 8 SO 177/15 B ER).
3. If neither the respondent nor the kindergarten operator can provide a more cost-effective assistant, this cannot be to the detriment of the applicant. The decisive factor is that the kindergarten is unable to fully meet the applicant's needs (see the Senate's decision of December 12, 2017 – L 7 SO 3798/17 ER-B).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Asylum Law
4.1 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 02.08.2018 – L 8 AY 2/18 B ER – legally binding
Guiding principle (Editor):
Section 1a, paragraph 4, sentence 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) does not refer to specific misconduct on the part of the benefit recipient (cf. Birk in LPK-SGB XII, as of 2018, Section 1a AsylbLG, marginal note 6). The rationale for the benefit reduction is that these individuals are subject to the European benefit regime, and what is essentially undesirable secondary migration within Europe is being sanctioned (cf. Oppermann in jurisPK-SGB XII AsylbLG Section 1a, marginal note 97.1).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Miscellaneous on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – No safety for returning Syrians
The Federal Government shares the assessment of international organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) that the conditions for a safe and dignified return of refugees to Syria are currently not met.
She writes this in her answer (BT-Drs. 19/4893 – PDF, 268 KB) to a minor interpellation by the AfD parliamentary group (BT-Drs. 19/4434 – PDF, 105 KB), which had inquired about the “promotion of the return of Syrian refugees”.
Continue to the source: www.juris.de
5.2 – Compensation payments are not to be counted towards ALG II (unemployment benefit II), an article by attorney Helge Hildebrandt from Kiel,
further information: sozialberatung-kiel.de
5.3 – SGB II sanctions are finally coming before the Federal Constitutional Court
The Federal Constitutional Court will decide! For over two and a half years, the nearly one million people affected by Hartz IV benefits and sanctions each year have had to wait for this news! The Federal Constitutional Court has now announced a first date!
It is therefore all the more gratifying that the Constitutional Court has now scheduled a first hearing in the proceedings concerning the unconstitutionality of the sanction practice in the SGB II system.
Harald Thome from Tacheles – Wuppertal writes:
We, that is, the association Tacheles e. V., received interesting mail today from the Federal Constitutional Court, concerning the preliminary ruling procedure on sanctions….
To put it in plain language once again: the Federal Constitutional Court intends to decide on the referral procedure regarding the sanctions on January 15, 2019.
After months and years of prioritizing other decisions, the SGB II sanctions are now being addressed.
We can be curious.
Source: www.freitag.de and here: twitter.com
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
