1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – LSG Munich, Judgment of 16.05.2019 – L 11 AS 447/17
Principle (Juris)
1. On the plausibility of the rent ceilings for one person determined by the defendant for the period from August 2013 to December 2015.
2. The recourse to the maximum values under housing benefit law plus a safety margin, made after the failure of local information possibilities, does not necessarily have to meet the requirement of always being above a rent ceiling determined by the job center – albeit inconclusively – and nationwide.
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
1.2 – Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, Judgment of 13 May 2019 – L 3 AS 85/16
Principle (Juris):
An income tax refund must also be considered as income if the refund amount generated from the income tax refund results wholly or partly from the tax law consideration of the care allowance pursuant to Section 33b Paragraph 6 of the Income Tax Act (EStG), the transferred disability allowance pursuant to Section 33b Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Income Tax Act (EStG), and from expenses pursuant to Section 33 Paragraphs 1-3 of the Income Tax Act (EStG).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.3 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Judgment of 30 April 2019 – L 20 AS 554/18
Social law administrative procedure – claim for exemption – invalidity of offsetting against claims of the basic income support provider – lack of similarity of claims
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. Inadmissibility of offsetting a claim for reimbursement of costs with a claim for indemnification.
2. A claim for reimbursement of expenses can be asserted as a claim for indemnification in the case of a continuing liability, and this claim for indemnification cannot be offset against a monetary claim due to a lack of similarity within the meaning of § 387 BGB.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See also LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of 13 October 2016, L 31 AS 1774/16 and LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 24 October 2018, L 32 AS 523/18 NZB
1.4 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 22 May 2019 – L 11 AS 209/19 B ER
Guiding principle (Editor):
Granting of provisional ALG II despite ownership of the foreign property in Thailand, because the foreign property is currently not a so-called "readily available asset".
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Osnabrück Social Court, Judgment of 16 April 2019 – S 16 AS 245/18
Basic income support for job seekers – final decision on initially provisionally granted benefits – obligation to provide evidence of facts relevant to benefits – intertemporal applicability of Section 41a Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – no requirement to provide evidence of facts relevant to benefits until the final decision – no subsequent submission of documents during legal proceedings
Principle (Juris)
1. The provisions regarding the final decision on benefits initially granted provisionally in Section 41a Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as amended on July 26, 2016, also apply to benefit periods that ended before August 1, 2016, if a final decision is made after August 1, 2016, pursuant to Section 80 Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the SGB II (contrary to: Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of September 12, 2018 – B 4 AS 39/17 R; following: Social Court (SG) Augsburg, judgment of July 3, 2017 – S 8 AS 400/17; Social Court (SG) Dortmund, judgment of December 8, 2017 – S 58 AS 2170/17).
2. This interpretation follows from the wording, meaning and purpose and legislative materials of Section 80 Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Nothing to the contrary follows from the (internal) systematic structure of the provision, nor from the principles of intertemporal law or constitutional reasons.
3. Documents submitted by the benefit recipient after the final decision by the Jobcenter (here, at the latest: issuance of the decision on the objection in proceedings pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X)) will not be taken into account (distinction from the Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of September 12, 2018 – B 4 AS 39/17 R). Section 41a, paragraph 3, sentences 3 and 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) have a preclusive effect in this respect.
4. This follows from the purpose of the 9th Amendment to Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) (Federal Law Gazette I 2016, 1824), which is to simplify and expedite administrative procedures. The constitutional requirements for such a preclusion period are met (a different view is indicated in: Federal Social Court, Judgment of September 12, 2018 – B 4 AS 39/17 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – SG Trier, Judgment of 22.05.2019 – S 4 AS 10/19
Filing a complaint with the authority via email with a scanned signature does not meet the requirements of Section 65a of the Social Court Act (SGG). A complaint is not considered formally valid even if the authority prints out the email and submits the printout to the court.
The guiding principle
of Section 65a of the Social Court Act (SGG) establishes, as mandatory law, the requirements for submitting electronic documents to the court.
If a statement of claim is received by the authority as an electronic document, the requirements of Section 65a SGG for compliance with the formal requirements apply – even if the authority prints out the document.
Reinstatement to the previous status is generally not possible if the party has been properly informed about the required form, as the failure to meet the deadline is not without fault.
Source: www.landesrecht.rlp.de
2.3 – Social Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 08.04.2019 – S 35 AS 519/19
Judgment of the Jobcenter to pay costs due to fault pursuant to Section 192 of the Social Court Act (SGG) – Shared accommodation
Guiding principle (Editor):
The principle of equal shares applies regardless of who bears the costs of accommodation within the shared apartment (BSG, judgment of 14.06.2018 – B 4 AS 23/17 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.4 – Berlin Social Court, decision of 05.04.2019 – S 120 AL 135/19 ER
Preliminary injunction; rental deposit loan; repayment obligation; enforcement requirements; debt collection by the Federal Employment Agency; repayment due date; transition from Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) to Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII)
Headnote (Editor):
Court prohibits a Berlin job center from enforcing a rent deposit loan order (cf. SG Berlin v. 04.08.2015 – S 174 AS 15567/15 ER)
Principle (Juris):
The direct enforcement of the repayment of a rent deposit loan under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), against the person in need of assistance based on the notice of approval and/or the loan agreement is only permissible under certain conditions (relevant in particular for rent deposit loans granted before April 2011).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.5 – SG Cologne, judgment of February 20, 2019 – S 8 AS 4068/17
Regarding the applicability of Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book X (repeated applications), when an initial application for unemployment benefit I (Alg I) was rejected by the Federal Employment Agency (BA), and an application for unemployment benefit II (Alg II) was subsequently submitted to the Job Center. – Social law restitution claim – Retroactive function of Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X)
In exceptional cases, an application can also be backdated, namely if the JC has violated its advisory obligations.
Guiding principle (Editor):
1. Benefits from the former employer (here severance pay) are assets prior to the application for ALG II, because according to the principles of the social law restitution claim, the plaintiff was to be placed in the position he would have been in had he waived the retroactive function of § 28 SGB X.
2. However, according to established case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG), an obligation to provide information and advice also exists in exceptional cases where, during the processing of a specific case in a social security matter, the employee in question is aware of an obvious option that a reasonable beneficiary would take if they were aware of it (e.g., BSG, Judgment of April 2, 2014 – B 4 AS 29/13 R). This was the case here. An obvious option existed in the form of the plaintiff being able to waive the retroactive effect provision of Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X).
3. That was the case here. There was an obvious option for the plaintiff to waive the retroactive effect provision of Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X). Contrary to the defendant's view, this is possible. Section 28 SGB X is not to be interpreted as making retroactive effect mandatory for the benefit recipient. This is not evident from the wording of the provision. The purpose of the provision is primarily to benefit the benefit recipient. The application requirement of Section 37 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) makes the granting of benefits dependent on action by the recipient, thus realizing the principle of self-responsibility underlying the SGB II (see Sections 1 para. 2 sentence 1, 2 para. 2 SGB II). Section 28 SGB X does not indicate that this expressly provided option under the SGB II should be denied to benefit recipients who have previously applied for other social benefits.
4. Even considering the very different eligibility requirements for various social benefits, these beneficiaries must retain the options provided for in the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Note:
See also Hartz IV: Applying too early can also be a disadvantage
Further information: www.dgbrechtsschutz.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 16 May 2019 – L 7 SO 4797/16
Principle (Juris):
Integration assistance and long-term care assistance differ in their objectives. Therefore, residents of a fully residential care facility may also be entitled to integration assistance in the form of attending the work area of a sheltered workshop.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 28 May 2019 – L 8 SO 109/19 B ER
On the consequences of a loss determination pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU when granting subsistence benefits.
The exception under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Half-Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (in the version applicable since December 29, 2016) from the exclusions from benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II can apply if the loss of the right of free movement under Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act (FreizügG) has been established, but an objection has been lodged against the establishment and the objection has suspensive effect. In this respect, the establishment of the loss has no legal effect.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on asylum law
4.1 – Bremen Social Court, decision of 15 April 2019 – S 40 AY 23/19 ER – legally binding
Guiding principle (Editor):
Insofar as Section 3 Paragraph 5 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylblG) stipulates that the necessary personal needs (Section 3 Paragraph 1 AsylblG) and the amount of the necessary needs (Section 3 Paragraph 2 AsylblG) must be reassessed in the event of a new nationwide income and expenditure survey, this does not mean that an increase pursuant to Section 3 Paragraph 4 AsylblG is not required if this reassessment is omitted. Until an actual reassessment by the legislature, the legally prescribed increase pursuant to Section 3 Paragraph 4 AsylblG must continue to be implemented (cf. regarding the above: Social Court Stade, March 6, 2019 – S 19 AY 1/19 ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Miscellaneous on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – Administrative Court of Munich, decision of May 28, 2019 (Case No.: M 22 E 1 9.2257):
Guiding principle of Dr. Manfred Hammel:
The homelessness care to be provided by the responsible authority is not intended to provide "housing" for the affected clientele, but rather to provide temporary, simple accommodation.
The regulatory authority is granted broad discretion in the selection of accommodation.
The allocation of a single room is only considered if humane accommodation cannot be guaranteed in any other way.
It is not enough for a doctor to merely recommend that a homeless person be provided with their own apartment so that they can subsequently return to regular employment.
This statement does not prove a compelling medical necessity for accommodation in a single room.
At this point, the applicant must submit a sufficiently informative expert medical report.
Problems concerning the specific health needs of applicants, as well as the procurement of housing, cannot be resolved by the homelessness agency. In such cases, claims for social assistance benefits under Sections 67 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), may be made.
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
