1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Hessian State Social Court, Judgment of 29 May 2019 – L 6 AS 361/18 – legally binding
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. The allowance under Section 12 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 1a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) cannot be considered a "family allowance" which benefits the household regardless of the actual existence of assets on the part of the child; rather, the allowance refers exclusively to assets actually attributable to the child (Federal Social Court, Judgment of May 13, 2009 – B 4 AS 58/08 R).
2. Similarly, the allowance under Section 12 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), insofar as it would have been applicable after the plaintiff's daughter's 18th birthday to protect her assets, was not a family allowance that could be transferred to assets within the family regardless of whether the child possessed any assets of her own. As is sufficiently clear from the wording of the provision, the protection of a third party's assets is limited to partners.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court, Decision of May 23, 2019 – L 31 AS 727/19 B – legally binding.
Principle (Juris):
The refusal of the Social Court to judicially recognize a settlement is a procedural order that cannot be appealed. In a dispute as to whether the legal dispute has been terminated by a settlement concluded between the parties, the remedy of appeal is not available; instead, an application for continuation of the proceedings must be filed with the Social Court.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – SG Stuttgart, judgment of December 4, 2018 – S 8 AS 3575/18
Feigning a community of need when determining the relevant standard benefit is inadmissible
The Stuttgart Social Court has ruled that, in the case of married couples who do not live together in a shared household, the standard allowance for single persons, and not the standard allowance for partners, must be taken into account when granting benefits to secure their livelihood under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Spouses are considered permanently separated within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 3 Number 3 a) of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if they do not maintain a joint household on a temporary basis. An intention to separate is not required for this, according to the Stuttgart Social Court.
In the case at hand, the plaintiff, who had been married since 2016, was not yet living with her spouse, who received supplementary benefits under Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII), for various understandable reasons. The defendant job center granted the plaintiff benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II), taking into account the standard allowance for partners, on the grounds that for a spouse to be considered a household community, either they live together or, if they do not, this is not due to one spouse's intention to separate. Since there was no intention to separate, the job center concluded that a household community existed.
The Stuttgart Social Court (SG Stuttgart) has granted the claim for the granting of the standard allowance for single persons.
According to the Social Court, contrary to the decision of the Federal Social Court (BSG) of February 18, 2010 (B 4 AS 49/09 R), the principles developed for the family law concept of "separation" (cf. Section 1567 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB)) are not applicable when interpreting the term "spouse not permanently separated" within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 3 Letter a) of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). The legislative concept for structuring the entitlement to a guaranteed minimum subsistence level implies that the existence of a community of need, insofar as it is linked to benefit-related consequences – as in Section 20 Paragraph 4 of the SGB II – always presupposes the existence of a shared household. Taking into account persons not belonging to the household when determining the relevant standard benefit for those entitled to benefits would be unconstitutional (see also SG Mainz, judgment of 26.03.2013 – S 17 AS 1159/12).
Further information: www.juris.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 26 February 2019 – L 2 SO 2529/18
Regarding the conditions for the assumption of necessary funeral costs under Section 74 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), and the question of reasonableness, to what extent the costs must be borne by the individual and, if applicable, co-heirs must be called upon.
Summary:
Firstly, as mentioned above, the cost coverage under Section 74 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) only covers the funeral expenses themselves. To limit the burden on the community under social welfare law, the legislator deliberately did not include all costs arising from a death, but rather limited the assistance from the outset to the "necessary costs of a funeral." According to the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG) (decision of February 24, 2016 – B 8 SO 103/15 B and judgment of August 25, 2011 – B 8 SO 20/10 R), social assistance therefore only covers those costs that directly serve the funeral, including the initial preparation of the grave, or that are inextricably linked to carrying out the funeral. Other costs incurred in connection with the death, but not specifically related to the actual funeral (such as obituaries, thank-you notes, funeral reception, travel expenses, clothing), are not reimbursable.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 17 April 2019 – L 2 SO 1477/18
Regarding the requirements under the European Social Security Convention (EFA) as well as for a legitimate residence permit under the Freedom of Movement Act/EU or a hardship case under Section 36 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Residence Act.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3.3 – Frankfurt Social Court, Judgment of 17 June 2019 – S 20 SO 17/17
Guiding principle (Editor):
Housing benefit is considered income, because the wording of Section 83 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) implies that housing benefit must be taken into account as income. It cannot be inferred from this provision that it must be considered as reducing the need for benefits, as the plaintiff argues. The SGB XII does not contain a provision that mandates a reduction in the need for benefits.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Asylum Law
4.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court – Case No.: L 8 AY 13/19 B of 25 July 2019
Legal norms: Section 3 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), Section 2 AsylbLG – Keywords: expedited proceedings, legal aid, value of appeal in expedited proceedings
Guiding principle (Editor)
: Granting legal aid is unnecessary because, with regard to the claim for an injunction, it can remain open whether the eligibility requirements under Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) are met. Should this not be the case, the question arises whether the basic benefits should be continued (Section 3 Paragraph 4 AsylbLG). This is a difficult and unresolved legal question that cannot be answered in legal aid proceedings. Furthermore, the Senate tends to believe that the rates of need under Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 8, Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 AsylbLG should be continued even without notification by the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (Section 3 Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 AsylbLG) (Senate judgment of May 23, 2019 – L 8 AY 49/18 -).
Source: www.anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
4.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 08.07.2019 – L 18 AY 21/19 B ER
Principle (Juris)
1. There are no fundamental concerns regarding the constitutionality of Section 1a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act.
2. On the requirement of sufficient specificity for a restriction of entitlement pursuant to Section 1a AsylbLG
3. On the interpretation of a decision issued on the basis of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.3 – SG Oldenburg, decision of 12 July 2019 – S 26 AY 18/19 ER
Disputes under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act [no dispute fee]
Until the legislature reassesses the needs, benefits under Section 3 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) are to be adjusted on January 1st of each year according to the corresponding rate of change as defined in Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII). The law directly establishes an entitlement to increased/adjusted benefits. The adjustment for 2017 is based on the rate of change from the 2016 Regional Guidelines for Social Security (RBSFV 2016).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
cf. (Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, judgment of May 23, 2019 – L 8 AY 49/18; Bremen Social Court, decision of April 15, 2019 – S 40 AY 23/19 ER; Stade Social Court, judgment of April 11, 2019 – S 19 AY 5/19; contra Hohm, ZFSH SGB 2/2019, pp. 68 ff.; Hamburg Social Court, decision of July 8, 2019 – S 28 AY 48/19 ER).
5. Miscellaneous on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – Hartz IV: Inheritance can become wealth, an article by attorney Helge Hildebrandt
If an heir receives benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) at the time of inheritance, but the funds from the inheritance are only received after an interruption of the need for assistance (here through receipt of unemployment benefit I and housing benefit) during a renewed receipt of benefits, the amount received from the inheritance is not to be regarded as income, but as assets.
More information: sozialberatung-kiel.de
5.2 – Commentary on: SG Braunschweig 10th Chamber, Decision of 21 March 2019 – S 10 AS 75/19 ER
Author: Dr. Jens Blüggel, Presiding Judge of the Higher Social Court
Assessment of employability within the meaning of Section 8 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) by the Job Center
Guiding principles
1. The burden of proof for the existence of changed personal circumstances (here: loss of employability within the meaning of Section 8 Paragraph 1 SGB II) always lies with the basic income support provider.
2. The concept of employability in Section 8 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is based on the definition of total incapacity for work used by the statutory pension insurance. Therefore, a person is considered employable if they are not totally incapacitated for work within the meaning of Section 43 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book VI (SGB VI).
3. In the context of statutory pension insurance, "for an indefinite period" within the meaning of Section 8 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is understood to mean a period of at least six months.
Source: www.juris.de
5.3 – Excerpt of the current case law of the Stuttgart Social Court (as of August 2019)
More information: www.sg-stuttgart.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
