1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Social Court, decision of May 13, 2019 - L 14 AS 85/19 B ER
Guiding principle (Juris)
If there are obvious errors in the data evaluation and there is therefore a lack of a coherent concept, the rent upper limits of a KdU directive cannot be taken into account in the interim legal protection procedure; The maximum values to be used for the time being are the values in the housing benefit table plus a safety surcharge of 10% and heating costs according to the relevant heating index.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
1.2 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of February 8, 2019 – L 21 AS 1881/18 – legally binding
The plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement of the cable usage fees within the framework of Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II and Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II.
Orientation sentence (editor)
According to the case law of the BSG, the assumption of the costs of the accommodation is only possible within the scope of the compulsory obligation of the service recipient in the rental agreement, as he would otherwise be forced to pay the cable fees from the flat rate in accordance with Section 20 Paragraph 1 SGB II deny if he does not want to use this form of information gathering. This would possibly constitute an interference with Article 5 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Basic Law (BSG of February 19, 2009 – B 4 AS 48/08 R).
If the person in need of help voluntarily assumes the costs, for example in order to obtain a certain better standard, these are not accommodation costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II. Only the expenses that are legally and actually linked to the accommodation , must also be provided as services in accordance with Section 22 SGB II. It is undisputed that such an obligation does not exist in this case under the rental agreement.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.3 – LSG Munich, decision by. May 14, 2019 – L 16 AS 293/19 B ER
Credibility by means of an affidavit in an application for an order of suspensive effect
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. In the procedure for interim legal protection, the permissible type of application is against a decision that revokes finally approved benefits according to the Second Book of the Social Code (SGB II) and approves them at a lower amount, and an application for a withdrawal notice according to Section 66 of the First Book of the Social Code (SGB I). Order of the suspensive effect in accordance with Section 86b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 Social Court Act (SGG).
2. An annulment decision that annuls an initially illegal, final approval decision due to concealed income cannot be based on Section 40 Paragraph 4 of the Second Book of the Social Security Code (SGB II).
3. In order to provide credible evidence in accordance with Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 920 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), it is not sufficient to state under oath that there are no ready resources available. The question of whether the income is “ready funds” is a legal assessment that is left to the job center to examine.
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
1.4 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, judgment of April 30, 2019 – L 20 AS 1122/18 – Revision approved
Obligation of the plaintiff to apply for an early retirement pension - Federal Voluntary Service
Orientation sentence (editor)
The Senate does not follow the opinion of the 29th and 14th Senates of the Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court with the decisions of August 28, 2015 (ref.: L 29 AS 1604/15 B ER) and October 6, 2016 (L 14 AS 2033/16 B ER), according to which, when taking up federal voluntary service, it can be assumed that the pension application is unfair in accordance with Section 2 of the Unfairness Ordinance.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.5 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of May 22, 2019 - L 13 AS 207/18 ZVW
Basic security for job seekers - additional requirements due to decentralized hot water generation - hot water flat rate - different requirements - calculation
To determine any additional hot water demand that goes beyond the hot water flat rate.
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Osnabrück Social Court, judgment of April 16, 2019 – S 16 AS 245/18
Basic security for job seekers - final rejection of benefits after provisional approval due to violation of obligations to provide proof and information - applicability of Section 41a Paragraph 3 Sentence 4 SGB 2 to approval periods that ended before August 1, 2016
Orientation sentence (editor)
Restriction of the applicability of Section 41a SGB II for approval periods that ended before August 1st, 2016 (contrary to BSG, judgment of September 12th, 2018, B 4 AS 39/17 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – SG Würzburg, judgment of 06.05. 2019 – S 18 AS 455/18
Guidance sentence Attorney Christopher Richter LL.M. Eur
Care allowance must be credited towards the SGB II standard benefit (based on SG Munich, but contrary to SG Bayreuth).
Source: www.anwaltskanzlei-wue.de
A notice:
SG Munich, judgment of October 26, 2018 - S 46 AS 998/18 - is creditable income, whereas SG Bayreuth S 4 AS 363/17 from November 28, 2017
3. Decisions of the social courts on asylum law
3.1 – Aachen Social Court, judgment of April 2, 2019 – S 20 AY 8/18 – legally binding
No reductions in benefits within the meaning of Division 5 of Sections 5, 6 RBEG in shared accommodation - lack of discretionary decision according to Section 2 Paragraph 2 AsylbLG
Orientation sentence (editor)
1. It is inherently unreasonable to grant benefits in kind for the purpose of stigmatization or discrimination. If special, understandable reasons for accommodation on site in shared accommodation do not require those entitled to analogous benefits to be referred to benefits in kind, the discretion will generally have to be exercised to grant cash benefits. However, when applying Section 2 Paragraph 2 AsylbLG, restraint is required.
2. Precisely because of the need for integration of those entitled to analogue benefits into the rest of society, which is taken into account in Section 2 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG, they must be allowed to largely decide on the spending of the funds as a person entitled to basic benefits according to their individual wishes. A discretionary decision with the abstract justification that different forms of granting benefits could lead to social tensions is therefore legally unsustainable from the outset (LSG Bavaria, decision of November 19, 2018 - L 8 AY 23/18 B ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal books
4.1 – Tenant protectors against heating cost caps for Hartz IV recipients
From July 1, 2019, Essen only wants to reimburse Hartz IV recipients for heating costs up to a specified amount.
continue: www.waz.de
4.2 – Hartz IV recipient has to repay child benefit despite being credited
Hartz IV recipients have to pay back child benefit that they wrongly received. This also applies if the child benefit was previously counted as income by the job center.
The Federal Finance Court (BFH) decided this in a judgment published on Thursday. (AZ: III R 28/18) The Munich judges thus confirmed their previous case law of September 13, 2018. (AZ: III R 19/17 and III R 48/17).
The woman unsuccessfully applied for the repayment to be waived for “reasons of equity”. The fact that the job center deducted the child benefit from your Hartz IV benefits is not a reason to forego repayment for reasons of equity.
further: rp-online.de
We wish all readers a happy Pentecost!
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
