1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 08.11.2018 – L 4 AS 839/17 B legally binding
Basic income support for job seekers – integration benefit – integration administrative act – period of validity – “until further notice” – illegality – maximum period of 6 months
Guiding principle (Editor):
Even after the amendment of the integration agreement in Section 15 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) on August 1, 2016, the case law established for Section 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 6 of the SGB II (old version) applies to integration administrative acts pursuant to Section 15 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the SGB II. The integration administrative act is unlawful if the legally prescribed review period of six months is exceeded without the exercise of discretion (see Baden-Württemberg Higher Social Court, judgment of May 15, 2018 (Case No.: L 9 AS 4118/17)).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
aA LSG NSB, decision of 05.07.2018 – L 15 AS 172/18 B ER
1.2 – Mecklenburg-Vorpommern State Social Court, decision of 6 November 2018 – L 10 AS 271/18 B ER
Principle (Juris):
If the benefit provider grants full benefits for the entire year, even though it intends to reduce the costs of accommodation or heating during the current benefit period, the subsequent revocation – if the benefit provider does not utilize the option under Section 41 Paragraph 3 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) or does not implement the intended reduction in the benefit notice – is governed by Section 45 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), not by Section 48 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), when the cost reduction is later implemented.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
1.3 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, 11th Senate, decision of 28 September 2018, L 11 AS 30/18 NZB
Principle (Juris):
The legal question of whether a person entitled to benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) is entitled to additional benefits (additional needs benefits) for the purchase of equipment for disaster situations (so-called emergency stockpiling) is not of fundamental importance:
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Social Court Darmstadt, decision of 15 November 2018 – S 19 AS 892/18 ER
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. The request to apply for early retirement with deductions is unfair within the meaning of Section 6 of the Unfairness Ordinance.
Principle (Juris):
The unfairness of claiming an early retirement pension pursuant to Section 6 of the Unfairness Ordinance is to be determined by a prognostic assessment based on the criteria of sentence 2.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – SG Osnabrück, Judgment of 08.09.2015 – S 37 AS 764/12
Guiding principle (Editor)
On the usability of two condominiums – grant instead of loan – special hardship due to atypical severe burden on the plaintiff in the case of a realization due to a special family situation.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note: overturned by LSG NSB, judgment of 17.10.2017 – L 7 AS 1577/15
2.3 – Nuremberg Social Court, Decision of 15 November 2018 – S 22 AS 1038/18 ER
Guiding principle (Editor)
on the crediting of family allowance according to the Bavarian Family Allowance Act (BayFamGG).
Summary:
The legal question of whether family allowance under the Bavarian Family Allowance Act (BayFamGG) is to be counted as income under Section 11 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) towards basic income support for job seekers under the SGB II is highly controversial politically between the federal government and the Free State of Bavaria:
The Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs takes the view that it should be taken into account.
The state legislature, however, assumes that family allowance is not subject to offsetting.
In preliminary injunction proceedings, a sufficiently thorough examination of the arguments put forward by both sides is not possible.
The court is therefore unable to predict the outcome of any subsequent main proceedings at this time.
However, in the opinion of the court, the fact that the earmarking of the family allowance appears quite doubtful speaks in favor of its being taken into account.
With the exception clause in Section 11a Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the federal legislature intended to ensure that receipts are only disregarded as income if they are provided under public law and the benefits provided are expressly intended to serve a purpose other than those provided under the SGB II. In its view, a general purpose is insufficient for this (see Bundestag Printed Matter 17/3404, p. 94). Therefore, the main issue to be examined is whether a general socio-political intention, such as the "recognition of the child-rearing efforts of Bavarian parents," completely independent of the chosen lifestyle and linked to a contribution to greater financial flexibility for parents, is sufficient to establish such a purpose. Even if, as argued in the legal opinion of the Bavarian State Government, a tax exemption were to result due to the comparability of family allowance with child-rearing allowance under Section 8 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Federal Child-Rearing Allowance Act (BErzGG) as amended on 09.02.2004 in conjunction with Section 27 Paragraph 2 BEEG, the relationship of this provision to Sections 11 Paragraph 1, 11a Paragraph 3 SGB II would have to be examined in detail.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 – Social Court Karlsruhe of 31.10.2018 – S 4 AL 2140/18
Principle (Juris)
1. In principle, there is no legitimate interest in a separate determination as to whether an entitlement to unemployment benefit already recognized by the Federal Employment Agency is based on the availability fiction of Section 145 of the German Social Code, Book III.
2. The purpose of the regulation in Section 145 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) is not to protect an unemployed person from unreasonable demands on his cooperation.
This regulation aims to prevent insured individuals from being burdened by differing assessments of their ability to work between the Federal Employment Agency (BA) and the pension insurance provider. Therefore, the regulation no longer applies once unemployment benefits (Alg) have been granted.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, 8th Senate, Judgment of 26 April 2018, L 8 SO 371/14, pending before the Federal Social Court, Case No.: B 8 SO 12/18 R
Social assistance – use of assets – savings from compensation payments under the OEG – hardship
Principle (Juris)
1. The use of assets from accumulated basic pension under the OEG does not constitute hardship under § 90 para. 3 SGB XII without the addition of further, special circumstances.
2. The legislator's assessments, expressed in the amendment to Section 25f Paragraph 1 of the Federal War Victims' Relief Act (BVG) (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1114), which entered into force on July 1, 2011, with regard to war victims' welfare, are transferable to social assistance. The purpose of a basic pension is not to accumulate assets. Rather, the monthly basic pension payment is intended to cover ongoing additional expenses that a healthy person would not incur.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Asylum Law
5.1 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 17 April 2018 (file no.: L 8 AY 8/18 B ER):
Guiding principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel
1. On the affirmation of a special hardship case according to § 2 para. 1 AsylbLG in conjunction with § 22 para. 1 sentence 2 SGB XII in the case of a tolerated Cameroonian national who attends a vocational school for metal technology in the educational program for construction mechanics.
2. The political objective expressed in the 2016 amendment to Section 60a of the Residence Act, namely to promote the integration of tolerated foreigners more strongly while simultaneously taking into account the interest of the economy in additional skilled workers, would be counteracted if a non-German person with tolerated status had to discontinue their training because they cannot cover their necessary living expenses with the typically low remuneration and any vocational training assistance they may receive (Sections 56 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book III).
5.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 08.11.2018 – L 7 AY 4468/16
Principle (Juris)
1. The lack of cooperation in obtaining travel documents constitutes a typical application of Section 1a AsylbLG (version as of October 24, 2015).
2. A lack of cooperation also exists if the foreigner makes only insufficient efforts to obtain travel documents for his return home over a period of years.
3. There are no fundamental constitutional concerns regarding the new regulation in Section 1a Paragraph 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5.3 – Social Court Magdeburg, decision of September 30, 2018 (file no.: S 25 AY 21/18 ER):
Principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel
: 1. A benefit restriction imposed indefinitely pursuant to Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) does not comply with the clear legal situation. According to Section 14 Paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG, benefit restrictions imposed under this Act must be limited to six months.
The absence of such a time limit renders the decision issued pursuant to Section 1a of the AsylbLG unlawful. Section 1a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the AsylbLG refers not only to the legal consequences of Section 1a Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the AsylbLG, but also to the further factual prerequisites.
2. A restriction of entitlement cannot be imposed if departure is impossible for reasons beyond the applicants' control. If deportation is ruled out, the authorities cannot demand voluntary departure, meaning these applicants are prevented from leaving the federal territory through no fault of their own.
Legal tip:
Social Court Landshut, decision of 17 October 2018 – S 11 AY 153/18 ER – Section 14 para. 2 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) does not permit temporary chain restrictions on entitlements; the provision is not a legal basis for permanent restrictions on entitlements (Oppermann in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 2nd ed. 2014, Section 14 AsylbLG 1st revision, para. 14; contra: Higher Social Court Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 20 September 2018 – L 23 AY 19/18 B ER -).
6. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
6.1 – Social assistance for refugees
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has delivered its ruling on the question of whether recognized refugees may be granted less social assistance than nationals if they have only been granted a temporary right of residence.
Refugees who have been granted a residence permit limited to three years must therefore receive social benefits of the same amount as nationals of the Member State that granted them refugee status.
Further information: www.juris.de
6.2 – No sign of lane change
Tolerated stay for vocational training and tolerated stay for employment: The changes in the
"Skilled Immigration Act"
- an article by Claudius Voigt
Continue reading: ggua.de
6.3 – A family from the Göttingen district wins a landmark ruling before the Federal Social Court regarding interest on back payments claimed under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). A report by attorney Sven Adam, Göttingen
: "Today, the Federal Social Court ruled for the first time in the area of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) that back payments successfully claimed in court and thus previously unlawfully withheld must accrue interest," says Göttingen attorney Sven Adam, who represents the plaintiffs, expressing his satisfaction with the success of the proceedings. Until now, the courts have generally rejected claims for interest on back payments under the AsylbLG, arguing that there was no legal basis for such interest. "The Federal Social Court sees things differently and has ordered the district to grant interest on the back payments according to the general rules of the German Civil Code (BGB). This decision affects all cases in which higher AsylbLG benefits are obtained through legal action," Adam continues, explaining the significance of the case.
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
