1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic security (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of November 28, 2018 – B 14 AS 47/17 R
Entitlement to unemployment benefit II - additional requirement for visits to the spouse living abroad - no entitlement to cover the costs of an annual visit to his wife living in China.
Guidance sentence (editor)
Costs for visiting the plaintiff's wife, who lives in China, are not to be reimbursed by the job center, because residence law obstacles to joining German nationals in the federal territory do not constitute a reason for benefits under SGB II to visit foreign spouses abroad.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 - Hamburg State Social Court, decision v. June 18, 2019 – L 4 AS 155/19 B ER
Bafög – deduction of training costs (school fees)
Guidance sentence (editor)
1. According to the new legal situation, the actual amount of school fees can be deducted from Bafög in accordance with Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 5, Paragraph 2 Sentence 5 SGB II.
2. From the Bafög, school fees are to be deducted as a necessary expense if there is no reasonable, free alternative to the chosen training.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – Hamburg State Social Court, decision v.
06/20/2019 - L 4 AS 34/19 B ER - legally binding orientation sentence (editor)
1. The exception formulated in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 SGB II from the exclusion of benefits according to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II only sets a one-time registration with the responsible registration authority (contrary to LSG Schleswig-Holstein, decision of May 4, 2018 - L 6 AS 59/18 B ER; leaving open LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of February 7, 2019 - L 2 AS 860/18 B ER ; as here LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of June 6, 2017 - L 15 SO 112/17 B ER; and LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of April 23, 2018 - L 7 AS 2162/17 B ER).
2. Neither from the wording of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 and 5 SGB II nor from the justification for the law (cf. again BT-Drucks. 18/10211, p. 13ff.) can the Senate infer that a return exemption from the exclusion of benefits is required Continuous registration of the beneficiary must be required.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – Hessian State Social Court, judgment of May 10, 2019 – L 9 AS 368/16
The Giessen district's concept from 2012 is not conclusive
Orientation sentence (editor)
1. The concept of the JobCenter is not conclusive in the sense of the case law of the Federal Social Court because it views the entire Giessen district as a comparison area and within this comparison area divides cities and communities into several housing market types with different adequacy limits. This is not permitted because there is no legal justification for such a division; In particular, the formation of housing market types cannot change the conditions for the formation and the legal consequences of a comparison area; In addition, there is a lack of factual justification for the individual housing market types (see BSG, judgment of January 30, 2019, B 14 AS 41/18 R, SGb 2019, 227, 228).
2. It remains to be seen whether the unreasonableness of a move may arise from the fact that the beneficiary is about to retire; This only comes into consideration if there is no longer enough time for adjustment and acclimatization (BSG, judgment of December 17, 2009 - B 4 AS 27/09 R -). Such a constellation does not exist.
3. In the case of older people, their right to remain in the social environment they have been familiar with for many years must be taken into account when granting subsistence benefits (see for basic security in old age BSG, judgment of March 23, 2010 B 8 SO 24/08 R -) . However, the plaintiff had only lived in the apartment in question for three years, so there can be no question of a familiar social environment for many years.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.4 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of May 23, 2019 – L 7 AS 1440/18
To assume additional operating and heating costs for a terminated tenancy - inappropriateness of the new accommodation costs
Guidance sentence (editor)
1. The case groups formed by the BSG, which enable the assumption of costs for an apartment that is no longer inhabited (fulfillment of a cost reduction obligation or assurance regarding the move), are not to be viewed as conclusive. This is already made clear by the word “in any case” in the BSG ruling of March 30, 2017 (B 14 AS 13/16 R), which allows for further case constellations.
2. In any case, there can be a connection between the additional costs for additional costs for the apartment occupied in the past and the current accommodation-related needs, which is relevant in terms of livelihood law, even if the move was not preceded by a request to reduce costs or a relocation assurance. The inappropriateness of the new accommodation costs alone does not prevent a link in the above sense, as this only has an impact on the new accommodation costs or on the moving-related costs such as deposit, renovation and moving costs.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.5 – State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision v.
June 12, 2019 - L 7 AS 507/19 B ER and L 7 AS 508/19 B - legally binding Guidance sentence (editor)
1. Entitlement to ALG II for Kosovar citizens, because the reasons for exclusion in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II apply not because in the case of a fictional certificate in accordance with Section 81 Paragraph 4 of the Residence Act, the stay is generally considered permitted and not just for the purpose of looking for work (Senate judgment of February 25, 2016 - L 7 AS 1391/14).
2. The exception regulation in Section 36 Paragraph 2 SGB II is not relevant because the applicants are not subject to any residency requirements within the meaning of Section 12a AufenthG and do not have a residence permit within the meaning of this regulation. Rather, they had a residence permit in accordance with Section 25 Paragraph 5 of the Residence Act, which is why their residence obligation is based on Section 61 Paragraph 1d of the Residence Act. This regulation is not covered by the special regulation on local jurisdiction in Section 36 (2) SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Berlin Social Court, judgment of May 16, 2019 – S 150 AS 17766/15
pro bono; On Bill; statement of offsetting; offsetting situation; attorney fees; Refund; Lawyer
Guiding Principle (Juris)
It is not possible to offset a lawyer's claim to remuneration against claims against the recipient of the service if the lawyer has provided his services to the recipient of the service free of charge (pro bono).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the state social courts and social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Hamburg State Social Court, judgment of June 5, 2019 – L 4 SO 11/17 – Revision admitted because
The question of an entitlement to emergency help for the first day of hospital treatment has not been clearly clarified in the case law of the Federal Social Court. The decision of March 1, 2018 (B 8 SO 63/17) states that on the day a person in need of help is admitted to a hospital, there is already no moment for an emergency case under social welfare law within the meaning of Section 25 Sentence 1 SGB XII if there is time to The social welfare provider remains informed in order to first wait for its decision on granting the necessary help. At the same time, however, the Federal Social Court emphasizes the knowledge of the social welfare provider as a break for the mutually exclusive claims of the emergency worker and the beneficiary, so that it remains unclear how to proceed if the provider is aware but cannot wait for its decision for medical reasons .
Guidance sentence (editor)
1. The plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement of her expenses as emergency help costs, even for the costs incurred on the first day of the patient's treatment.
2. It corresponds to the case law of the Senate, which is known to those involved, that the day on which the social assistance provider became aware of it is at least assigned to the patient's social assistance entitlement and is no longer reimbursable as part of the emergency aid entitlement if - as here - all rescue and Treatment measures took place within the defendant's on-call time and the need for assistance was reported before or immediately upon admission of the patient. From this day onwards, only the beneficiary and no longer the emergency worker can be considered. (Judgment of August 30, 2018, L 4 SO 41/17).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the state social courts on asylum law
5.1 – LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, judgment of. May 23, 2019 – L 8 AY 49/18
Keywords: inflation adjustment, humane subsistence level
Provisionally entitled to adjusted higher standard requirements according to the AsylbLG
Guidance statements RA Christoph von Planta c/o vpmk Rechtsanwälte, Monbijouplatz 3a 10178 Berlin
1. The current benefit rates according to Section 3 Paragraphs 1 and 2 AsylbLG are probably unlawful for the years from 2017:
“In accordance with the first-instance decision, the Senate currently tends to have the requirement rates in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 8 AsylbLG (necessary personal needs) and in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 AsylbLG (necessary needs) for the period from 2017 as part of a judicial review (at least) in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 and 2 AsylbLG (also SG Stade, judgment of April 11, 2019′- S 19 A 5119 -juris Rn. 29 if.; SG Bremen , decision of April 15, 2019 - S 40 AY 23119 ER - juris para. 17 ff.). This is supported by an interpretation that is compatible with the wording of Section 3 Paragraphs 4 and 5 AsylbLG, which takes into account the legal history and system as well as the meaning and purpose of updating the benefit rates. The constitutional significance of the fundamental right to guarantee a humane minimum subsistence level is also of particular importance (Art. 1 Para. 1 GG in conjunction with Art. 20 Para. 1 GG).”
2. “An update of the amounts of money for all necessary personal needs in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 8 AsylbLG and the necessary needs in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 AsylbLG in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 and 2 AsylbLG is not available in the court proceedings contrary to the fact that the BMAS did not announce the requirement rates applicable in 2017, 2018 and 2019 (aA Hohm in ZSFH SGB 2019, 68 if.).”
3. “However, even if the requirements rates are updated for the years 2017 to 2019, there is still a need to carry out a fundamental examination, at least in main proceedings, as to whether the requirements rates according to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 8 AsylbLG (in the law on the introduction of accelerated asylum procedures dated March 11, 2016, BGBI. 1390, established amount) actually meet the procedural requirements of the BVerfG (see, for example, judgment of July 18, 2012 - 1 BvL 10/10 and 2111 Rn. 62 if.) for determining a humane minimum subsistence level (cf . in addition, Senate resolutions of November 1, 2018 - L 8 A 37118 B ER - and May 9, 2018 - L 8 AY 7118 NZB - mwN; LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, resolution of July 11, 2017 - L 20 A 4117 B -juris Rn . 28; also criticize Frerichs in juris PK-AsylbLG, 2nd edition 2014, § 3 Rn. 60.1 if.; Oppermann, jurisPR-SozR 1612016 note 1; Siefert in Siefert, AsylbLG, 1st edition 2018, § 3 Rn. 40 f; on the state of opinion, see also Cantzier, AsylbLG, 1st edition 2019, § 3 Rn. 44)."
Full text now published: Sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Note:
Press release LSG NSB v.
July 3, 2019: Basic benefits for asylum seekers: Consequences of failure to adjust benefits
The LSG Celle-Bremen has shown the consequences of not adjusting the basic benefits for asylum seekers, as these have not been increased since 2017, contrary to legal requirements.
Due to its fundamental importance, the State Social Court has given an outlook on its likely case law. Like the social court, the state social court is leaning towards the fact that the basic benefits for the period from 2017 should be updated in accordance with the legal requirements due to the fact that the legislature did not re-determine them as part of a judicial review. This would be supported by an interpretation that is consistent with the wording of the AsylbLG and takes into account the legal history and system as well as the meaning and purpose of updating the benefit rates. The benefit rates according to the AsylbLG remained unchanged from 1993 to 2012 and were not adjusted to the living conditions in Germany. The review and further development of the services based on the current circumstances are also required in accordance with the requirements of the BVerfG. This requires human dignity.
Source: www.juris.de
5.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision v. 05/19/2019 – L 18 AY 14/19 B ER
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. An administrative act that establishes a restriction of entitlement in accordance with Section 1a AsylbLG must describe the circumstances of life on which the restriction of entitlement is based in sufficient detail.
2. Before such an administrative act is issued, the benefit recipient concerned must be heard.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal books
6.1 - BSG: No insolvency money after the transfer of the business
SGB III § 165;
BGB § 613a 1. In the event of a business transfer before the insolvency event, the insolvency benefit period ends with the takeover of the business by the new purchaser, despite the employee's continued employment relationship.
2. If it is no longer possible to determine in the administrative and court proceedings concerning the claim to insolvency money whether a transfer of business has taken place, the defendant Federal Employment Agency bears the objective burden of proof. (author's principles)
BSG, judgment of February 26, 2019 – B 11 AL 3/18 R, BeckRS 2019, 8512
Comment from lawyer Prof. Dr. Hermann Plagemann, Plagemann Rechtsanwälte Partnership mbB, Frankfurt am Main
From beck-fachdienst social insurance law 12/2019 from June 21, 2019
further: rsw.beck.de
6.2 – Hartz IV for the month of the heating oil order, a contribution from RA Helge Hildebrandt
Even people who do not receive ongoing benefits to secure their livelihood according to SGB II (Hartz IV) can be entitled to benefits according to SGB II for their heating costs for the month in which they order heating material.
further: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
