1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on social assistance (SGB XII)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 29.05.2019 – B 8 SO 14/17 R and B 8 SO 8/17 R
Passport procurement costs covered by standard benefits!
Guiding principle (Editor):
Passport procurement costs are not to be covered under Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII); the necessary atypical need is lacking because these costs are to be allocated to the standard needs allowance (based on the Federal Social Court's judgment of September 12, 2018 – B 4 AS 33/17 R).
Source: www.juris.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 02.04.2019 – L 6 AS 467/17
Matters under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – Adequacy of housing costs – Coherent concept Göttingen 2012/2014
Principle (Juris)
1. The concept for determining the limits of reasonable accommodation costs in the district of Göttingen in 2012 with the index update in 2014 does not meet the requirements of the Federal Social Court for a conclusive concept.
2. If a methodological approach is used to determine the limit values by surveying the entire housing market, the sample drawn must reflect this market, i.e., be representative.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
2.2 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 21 March 2019 – L 11 AS 1334/15
Unemployment benefit II – accommodation and heating – reasonable accommodation costs – coherent concept of the basic income support provider – inclusion of data on existing rents
Principle (Juris)
1. If the benefit provider determines the limit of appropriateness pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), exclusively by considering advertised rents and without existing rents, this does not constitute a conclusive concept within the meaning of the Federal Social Court's (BSG) case law due to the lack of representativeness of the data (following the decision of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court of May 24, 2018 – L 8 SO 193/13 –; BSG rejected the appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal, decision of January 28, 2019 – B 8 SO 41/18 B –).
2. The fact that existing rents must also be taken into account within the framework of a coherent concept for determining the abstractly reasonable expenses has been expressly confirmed again by the Federal Social Court (BSG) in recent times and therefore no longer requires clarification (BSG, judgment of December 12, 2017 – B 4 AS 33/16 R –, SozR 4-4200 § 22 No. 93, para. 17 with reference to the provision of § 22c para. 1 sentence 3 SGB II; see also BSG, decision of January 28, 2019 – B 8 SO 41/18 B –, para. 6).
3. Such a concept does not include existing rents simply because it can be assumed that apartments were rented at the asking rents collected in the past. These are not existing rents in the sense of a coherent concept because it is neither known nor plausibly verifiable which of the offered apartments were actually rented and under what specific conditions.
4. If the benefit provider deliberately chooses a method that considers only advertised rents without limiting it to a specific housing market segment, then the intended subsequent consideration of existing rents of transfer recipients is not an improvement of the existing concept, but rather a fundamentally different approach. Furthermore, the comparability of this data is lacking.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
2.3 – LSG Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, judgment of April 2, 2019 – L 10 AS 61/17
Guiding principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel:
An asset is only considered realizable within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II
(SGB II), if it is expected to generate income during the benefit period that will allow the person in need to cover their necessary living expenses. In each individual case, it must be examined whether the asset in question can be projected to be realizable within a maximum of one year (Section 41 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II).
For a marketable property, such realizability is generally assumed. However, this is not the case for a house plot located in a rural area with poor transport connections, which still needs to be completely resurveyed.
Source: www.dgbrechtsschutz.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Social Court Braunschweig of 11 April 2019 – S 41 AS 87/19 ER
Legal principle of attorney Michael Loewy:
A complete cessation of benefits for a single benefit recipient who takes up employment subject to social security contributions but does not cover their needs, and who faces rent payments, ongoing energy costs, and a need for food, hygiene products, and similar items is completely unacceptable.
Source: www.anwaltskanzlei-loewy.de
3.2 – Cologne Social Court, judgment of February 20, 2019 (Case No.: S 8 AS 4068/17):
Guiding principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel
on the applicability of § 28 SGB X (repeated application) when an application for unemployment benefit I was initially submitted, which was rejected by the Federal Employment Agency, and an application for unemployment benefit II (§§ 19 ff. SGB II) was subsequently received by the Jobcenter.
The applicant should have been placed in the position he was in under the principles of the social security restitution claim, as if he had waived the retroactive effect provision of Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), and had already claimed benefits at an earlier date. The authorities committed a breach of their duty to provide information and advice (Sections 14 and 15 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I)).
A severance payment received by the applicant prior to the application date pursuant to Section 1a of the German Protection Against Unfair Dismissal Act (KSchG) does not preclude the assertion of a claim for benefits pursuant to Sections 19 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), regardless of whether this amount is to be regarded as advance payment of remuneration, provided that this capital inflow constitutes protected assets that can be subsumed under Section 12 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Assets within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – and not income in accordance with Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – are to be assessed as everything that was already available to an applicant in terms of value before the application was submitted.
Source: www.dgbrechtsschutz.de
3.3 – Social Law Heilbronn, Judgment of February 6, 2019 (Case No.: S 10 AS 1963/18):
Principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel:
A "relocation allowance" (here: EUR 2,500) granted by the former landlord of an ALG II recipient for the purpose of promoting the voluntary eviction of the previously occupied rental property may not be taken into account by the job center as income reducing the need for benefits in accordance with § 11 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB II.
A transfer of assets took place here. The tenant exchanged his right to use and possess the apartment for the "relocation allowance" from his (former) landlord.
If income is solely based on the conversion of an asset into cash or monetary value, it is not considered income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). This amount, however, must be added to the assets (Section 12 Paragraph 1 SGB II).
Source: www.dgbrechtsschutz.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
4.1 – Hamburg State Social Court, Judgment of 10 April 2019 – L 2 AL 55/18
Personal registration as unemployed pursuant to Section 141 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) is also permissible if unemployment has not yet occurred, but the occurrence of unemployment is expected within the next three months.
Guiding principle (Editor)
: If it turns out that, contrary to expectations, unemployment occurs at a later date, the registration as unemployed remains valid if unemployment actually occurs and this happens within the three-month period.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.2 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 13 May 2019 – L 7 AL 84/18
Principle (Juris)
1) A waiting period due to job abandonment also applies to an employee who is normally protected from dismissal if almost three years lie between the termination agreement and the termination of the employment relationship.
2) The claim for unemployment benefit for the reduction of the benefit period as a result of a disqualification period can be pursued by means of an action for performance.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
5. Decisions of the social courts on asylum law
5.1 – Social Court Dresden, decision of 20 September 2018 (Case No.: S 20 AY48/18 ER)
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel:
A constitutionally compliant interpretation of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) requires that an applicant entitled to benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 AsylbLG, even if he is undertaking school education eligible for funding under Section 2 Paragraph 1 No. 4 in conjunction with Paragraph 5 BAföG in an evening high school, may apply for basic benefits in accordance with Section 3 AsylbLG.
This follows from the paramount importance of the fundamental right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living that ensures human dignity (Article 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law). The applicant cannot exercise this fundamental right outside of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act. Due to his status, he is excluded from benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Book XII (SGB XII) (Section 7, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, No. 3 of the SGB II in conjunction with Section 23, Paragraph 2 of the SGB XII).
Section 2 paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) must therefore be interpreted restrictively in a manner consistent with the constitution, such that in the case of an exclusion ground under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), the entitlement to basic benefits pursuant to Section 3 of the AsylbLG remains unaffected.
Source: www.saechsischer-fluechtlingsrat.de
6. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
6.1 – Benefits for asylum seekers and those with tolerated stay status: no adjustment since 2016, a contribution by lawyer Zahra Oubensalh
Benefit levels have been unconstitutional since 2017
More information: www.anwalt.de
6.2 – Entitlement of disabled students to a rent subsidy, an article by attorney Helge Hildebrandt
Disabled students who, due to receiving benefits under the Federal Training Assistance Act (BAföG), are not entitled to ongoing benefits under the German Social Code Book II (SGB II, Hartz IV) or social assistance (SGB XII), can receive integration assistance as a subsidy to cover ongoing accommodation costs as a benefit for participation in community life.
More information: sozialberatung-kiel.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
