1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 28 March 2019 – L 19 AS 586/18
Guiding principle (Editor):
The provision of Section 82 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 II. WoBauG, according to which a reduction in the number of persons after the initial occupancy of the apartment is harmless for the assessment of the appropriate living space of tax-privileged apartments, does not apply in basic income support law (BSG, Judgment of 12.10.2016 – B 4 AS 4/16 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 16 April 2019 – L 2 AS 473/19 B ER and L 2 AS 474/19 B – legally binding
Guiding principle (Editor):
1. No legal aid will be granted for unsuitable housing and if the applicant's right of access is not currently being exercised.
2. Furthermore, consideration of future visitation rights also fails due to the principle of current needs coverage, according to which basic income support benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), are only to be granted for currently existing needs, i.e., at most for a currently existing temporary community of need.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.3 – Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, Judgment of 23 November 2018 – L 3 AS 175/16 – legally binding.
Guiding principle (Editor):
To determine the reasonable expenses for accommodation and heating, even in the case of single parents living with a minor child who can cover their needs with their own income, the sole determining factor is the number of members of the household (based on BSG, Judgment of 25 April 2018, B 14 AS 14/17 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.4 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision of 09.04.2019 – L 32 AS 816/18 B PKH – legally binding
Final determination of benefits after preliminary benefit approval – no proof of facts relevant to benefits – incorrect information on legal consequences
Guiding principle (Editor):
If the information on legal consequences in the letter does not meet the requirements for a proper information on legal consequences, this precludes the occurrence of the legal consequences mentioned in Section 41a Paragraph 3 Sentences 3 and 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (BSG, Judgment of September 12, 2018 – B 4 AS 39/17 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.5 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Judgment of 28 March 2019 – L 32 AS 2223/17
Guiding principle (editor):
Request/pension application prematurely – Hardship Regulation – here, pension application properly submitted.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.6 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Judgment of 28 March 2019 – L 32 AS 1005/17
Plus-size clothing – additional needs
Guiding principle (Editor):
1. Replacing clothing and shoes is possible for a person like the plaintiff with the standard allowance. In light of this, there is no indication that clothing and shoes could exceptionally not be included in the standard allowance.
2. If, after all this, replacement within the scope of normal wear and tear is covered by the standard allowance pursuant to Section 20 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), and in the case of exceptional circumstances, coverage of needs as a special need pursuant to Section 24 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the SGB II is ensured, then an additional need pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the SGB II with the assumption of further costs for clothing and shoes is not applicable.
3. The same applies to medically necessary diabetic compression stockings. Such compression stockings are covered by statutory health insurance as medical aids up to the fixed amounts (§ 33 para. 1 sentence 1 and para. 7 SGB V).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – SG Cologne, GB v. April 11, 2019 – S 3 AS 3244/17
KdU – Appropriateness – Coherent Concept 2015 Cologne
Guiding principle (Editor):
The City of Cologne does not have a conclusive concept for determining abstractly reasonable housing costs (based on the Cologne Social Court ruling of 10 February 2015 – S 7 AS 2502/13).
2.2 – Social Court Berlin, Judgment of 29 April 2019 – S 144 AS 20797/15
EU citizens; involuntary unemployment; confirmation of involuntary unemployment; binding effect
Principle (Juris):
The confirmation of the involuntary nature of unemployment issued by the Federal Employment Agency pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 3 No. 2 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU is binding for the social courts.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
3.1 – Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, Judgment of 28 March 2019 – L 1 AL 12/18
Daily billing for the reimbursement of vocational training assistance
Legal principle (Juris):
If vocational training is terminated, entitlement to all components of vocational training assistance (BAB) exists only on a daily basis up to the date of settlement; overpaid benefits must be refunded. This also applies to accommodation costs granted within the framework of BAB.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on asylum law
4.1 – SG Landshut, decision of 06.05.2019 – S 11 AY 38/19 ER
Extension of stay due to failure to return
Principle (Juris)
1. According to the Chamber, Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) also includes, under the term "abusive self-influence of the length of stay", a subjectively reprehensible extension of stay by failing to return to the country actually responsible for the asylum procedure, which is disapproved of by the legal system.
2. Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) does not provide a basis for a permanent exclusion of analogous benefits.
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
4.2 – Social Court Münster, decision of 21 February 2019 – S 19 AY 3/19 ER
Guiding principle (Editor):
Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is not applicable to beneficiaries under Section 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) within the framework of the granting of benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
The eligibility for benefits under Section 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is specifically based on the fact that the named foreigners do not have a permanent right of residence. Therefore, the analogous application of Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) within the framework of granting benefits under Section 2 of the AsylbLG would mean that the preferential treatment under Section 2 of the AsylbLG would be rendered largely ineffective, at least for third-country nationals who belong to the groups of persons named in Section 1 of the AsylbLG.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Miscellaneous on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – Kiel Local Court: In matters of legal aid, an appointment must be made, a contribution by attorney Helge Hildebrandt
Since May 2, 2019, appointments for legal aid matters at the Kiel District Court must be scheduled by telephone in advance. The eligibility certificate will still be issued directly at the appointment. Appointments can be scheduled by calling the service point at extension 604-2001 (link to information). The district court cites the increased demand for eligibility certificates for legal advice and/or representation by citizens with low incomes as the reason for this change.
More information: sozialberatung-kiel.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
