1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of 09/12/2018 – B 14 AS 7/18 R, B 14 AS 4/18 R, B 4 AS 39/17 R
Section 41a paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not contain a preclusion rule.
Guiding principle (Editor):
Documents submitted in the objection procedure to prove facts relevant to benefits must be taken into account in final decisions pursuant to Section 41a Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See also: Federal Social Court, 4th Senate, Judgment of 12 September 2018 – B 4 AS 39/17 R
Author: Dr. Bettina Karl, Judge at the State Social Court
Karl, jurisPR-SozR 3/2019 Note 1 on Juris: www.juris.de
1.2 – BSG, judgment of September 12, 2018 – B 14 AS 45/17 R
A higher demand for heating electricity does not require a technical determination of consumption.
Guiding principle (Editor):
There is an entitlement to consideration of additional hot water requirements beyond the hot water flat rate, insofar as the expenses for hot water production are not fully covered by the hot water flat rate and are not unreasonable.
The decisive factor in determining whether a different need exists within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 7 Sentence 2 Half-Sentence 2 Alternative 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is the actual expenditure incurred for decentralized hot water generation; higher expenditure for decentralized hot water generation than the hot water flat rate is to be recognized as an additional hot water need, insofar as it is reasonable (for details see Federal Social Court [BSG] judgment of December 7, 2017 – B 14 AS 6/17 R).
Contrary to the opinion of the LSG, this recognition of a different additional hot water requirement does not require separate consumption recording by technical devices such as a consumption meter, but fundamentally requires investigations and findings based thereon.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 21 January 2019 – L 7 AS 24/19 B ER
Trial living in secure psychiatric care – Trial living within the framework of secure psychiatric care does not preclude benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if the sponsoring organization no longer had overall responsibility for the person concerned.
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. The applicant is not excluded from benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 in conjunction with Sentence 1 SGB II due to residence in a facility for the execution of judicially ordered deprivation of liberty.
2. Because a “trial stay” within the framework of preventive detention does not constitute a stay based on judicial deprivation of liberty in the sense of preventive detention law and does not justify an exclusion of benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 4 (BayLSG, Judgment of 17.09.2018, L 16 AS 813/13).
3. Although a formal release from the secure psychiatric facility has not occurred, the effect of the judicial order is nullified by the possibility of trial living outside the facility, granted in agreement with the penal enforcement authority. The individual is thus removed from the disciplinary regime of the correctional facility; they are now responsible for their own lifestyle and livelihood (Valgolio in Hauck/Noftz, SGB, 06/17, § 7 SGB II, marginal note 243a). According to the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court (BSG) (see, for example, BSG judgment of December 2, 2014, B 14 AS 66/13 R), insofar as a person on trial living is removed from the disciplinary regime of the correctional facility, they are no longer considered to be in a facility within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 in conjunction with Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), with the consequence that the exclusion from benefits does not apply.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – Mecklenburg-Vorpommern State Social Court, Judgment of 09.01.2019 – L 14 AS 524/13
Principle (Juris):
In cases of unreasonable heating costs caused by uneconomical heating behavior, a prior request to reduce costs is not required to exclude a claim for reimbursement of heating cost arrears within the framework of accommodation and heating costs.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
2.3 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision of 21 January 2019 – L 1 AS 4370/18 ER-B
Guiding principle (Editor):
Reimbursement of costs incurred in connection with a work-related relocation of the applicant is here rejected.
Principle (Juris):
For an effective application for a guarantee of housing procurement and relocation costs, in addition to the concrete announcement of the relocation, at least the location of the new apartment and the costs incurred for the new apartment and the relocation must be specified.
Section 44 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) precludes the subsequent claiming of costs for a move carried out independently without prior notification of the responsible SGB II provider as benefits for vocational integration (moving cost assistance).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Reutlingen Judgment of 6 December 2018 – S 7 AS 2010/18
Separate appeal against the decision on the objection after the objection has been rejected as inadmissible. Validity of an electronically granted power of attorney for a lawyer. Written proof of authorization in the objection proceedings by sending it via fax.
Principle (Juris):
Section 79 Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) applies accordingly in social court proceedings. The job center violates essential procedural rights if it wrongly rejects an objection as inadmissible. Such a decision on the objection can be appealed separately.
A power of attorney issued to a lawyer is not subject to any formal requirements and can also be issued electronically. Sending the (printed) electronic power of attorney by fax constitutes written proof within the meaning of Section 13 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book Ten (SGB X).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 – Osnabrück Social Court, Judgment of 14 January 2019 – S 29 AS 447/17
Guiding principle (Editor):
Interest on a loan agreement for financing their self-occupied residential property must be covered by the job center, regardless of who the debtor of this interest claim is.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.3 – Social Court Dresden, Judgment of 20 January 2019 – S 20 AS 6498/15
Guiding principle (Editor):
Regarding the additional needs according to § 21 para. 6 SGB II for travel expenses that significantly exceed the average needs to be covered by the standard allowance for physiotherapy and outpatient doctor visits, affirmed here.
Guiding principle (Editor):
Reimbursement of travel expenses for outpatient psychotherapy and outpatient doctor visits as an additional need within the framework of basic income support benefits.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
aA LSG Saxony, 25.09.2013 – L 7 AS 83/12 NZB
4. Decisions of the social courts on asylum law
4.1 – Social Court Stade, judgment of January 8, 2019 (Case No.: S 19 AY 11/18):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel:
Those persons who, despite having been granted a right of residence by another member state of the European Union, have been granted a temporary suspension of deportation (§ 60a para. 2 AufenthG, § 1 para. 1 no. 4 AsylbLG), are not affected by a restriction of benefits (§ 1a AsylbLG).
Anyone who is unable to travel for an extended period of time due to a serious illness cannot reasonably be expected to leave the federal territory, therefore no restriction of entitlement can be imposed pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
Periods of incapacity to travel due to illness shall be counted towards the period according to § 2 para. 1 AsylbLG, provided there is no evidence that the illness itself was brought about by abuse of rights (§ 1a para. 3 sentence 1 AsylbLG).
5. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – LSG NRW, judgment of November 29, 2018 – L 9 AL 260/17
No start-up grant for full-time employment.
The LSG Essen has ruled that a graduate engineer must reimburse the Federal Employment Agency for a start-up grant of around 9,500 euros, as there is no room for full-time self-employment alongside his dependent employment as a software developer.
Continue reading on Juris: www.juris.de
5.2 – Job center does not have to finance graduation ball
The Social Court of Düsseldorf has ruled that two high school graduates are not entitled to payment of approximately 200 euros each from the job center for a "graduation ball".
Continue reading on Juris: www.juris.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
