1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Social Court, judgment of May 7, 2019 - L 10 AS 632/16
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. Former receipt of benefits does not oblige people who are not entitled to benefits under SGB II due to assets to treat these assets with restraint beyond the general level. Those affected are not obliged to maintain a particularly modest standard of living and are certainly not obliged to only spend monthly on their assets in the amount of SGB II benefits.
2. A claim for compensation according to Section 34 SGB II due to waste of assets is therefore only possible in exceptional cases. Socially antisocial behavior only occurs if the assets are squandered in a targeted manner in order to return to benefits as quickly as possible.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
Legal tip:
See SG Düsseldorf, court decision of August 31, 2015 - Ref.: S 35 AS 257/15 - Luxurious lifestyle - expenses of EUR 3,550 per month - of the non-recipient of basic security benefits does not constitute socially antisocial behavior and does not give rise to it Examination of a claim for damages according to Section 34 SGB II.
1.2 - Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Social Court, decision of June 24, 2019 - L 14 AS 452/17 NZB
Guiding Principle (Juris)
The legal principles regarding the burden of proof are assigned to substantive law (BGH of February 17, 1983 - III ZR 184/81), which is why their incorrect assessment results in an error in iudicando, which is usually irrelevant for the non-admission complaint, but not a procedural defect (error in procedendo ).
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
1.3 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision v.
06/24/2019 - L 7 AS 1916/19 ER-B There is no necessary need for legal protection in order to claim interim legal protection in accordance with Section 86b (2) SGG if the person seeking legal protection has not previously contacted the responsible authority in a timely manner with their request.
Guidance sentence (editor)
There is generally no need for legal protection if the person seeking legal protection has not previously contacted the authorities (LSG Bavaria, decision of June 14, 2016 - L 15 SB 97/16 B ER - juris paragraph 13; LSG North Rhine-Westphalia , decision of January 24, 2012 - L 12 AS 1773/11 B ER - juris paragraph 18; LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of April 9, 2018 - L 23 AY 6/18 B ER - juris paragraph 8; Keller in Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer/Schmidt, SGG, 12th edition 2017, § 86b Rn. 26b; Krodel/Feldbaum, The social court urgent procedure, 4th ed. 2016, para. 30; Meßling in Henning, SGG, § 86b Paragraph 143 [December 2014]). It is the person concerned's responsibility to submit an application in good time so that if the authority fails to act or a negative decision is made, he or she can then legally seek legal protection (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of April 9, 2018 - L 23 AY 6/18 B ER – juris paragraph 8; cf. BVerfG, decision of October 30, 2009 – 1 BvR 2442/09 – juris paragraph 4 – BVerfGK 16, 347 [348]).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – SG Düsseldorf, decision of. August 5, 2019 – S 35 AS 3046/19 ER
Important: Textbook decision for North Rhine-Westphalia: The job center has to cover the own contribution for textbooks
Now the SG Düsseldorf (decision of August 5, 2019 - S 35 AS 3046/19 ER) has decided in another urgent decision that the own contributions for textbook costs must be covered in full on a subsidy basis. The reasoning is clear and concise: “The applicants are entitled to reimbursement of the costs as additional hardship requirements in accordance with Section 21 Para. 6 SGB II. The Federal Social Court decided this in two cases in May 2019 (Az. B 14 AS 6/18 R and B 14 AS 13/18 R). Since there is obviously a claim in the matter, the requirements for the reason for the request according to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 SGG are withdrawn. The court cannot, for legal reasons - even in interim injunction proceedings - reject an obviously existing claim on the grounds that there is no urgency.
(With the last sentence, the court states that EUR 96.94, which was the subject matter of the dispute for four children, is in principle no reason for an order, i.e. the obligation to make an immediate urgent decision. However, since in this case the clear legal claim to the benefit clearly exists, but).
In practice, this means that in North Rhine-Westphalia all children receiving SGB II benefits can assert this claim against the job center if they have additional payments for school books. This applies at least to additional payments/own contributions from May 2019. This means that the claim is also possible retroactively.
Here is the decision of the SG Düsseldorf
In its judgment of May 29, 2019 - S 40 AS 352/19, the SG Cologne also ordered the responsible job center to take over its own contribution, in the present case in the amount of EUR 24 (according to Section 96 Para. 3 SchulG NRW in conjunction with the Regulation on Section 96 Para. 5 SchulG). The own shares in NRW can go up to EUR 234 . The SG Cologne sees the basis for the claim in an analogous application in the additional requirement according to Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II on a subsidy basis. This is systematically the same argument as in the Tacheles campaign on school supplies.
Here's the verdict
The advice centers and welfare associations in North Rhine-Westphalia are now required to make this claim known and to point out and support those entitled to benefits.
The state legislature is also required to make a legal change here and to ensure that learning materials are provided without any personal contributions.
Source: Harald Thomé, Tacheles eV via Facebook
2.2 – Munich Social Court, court decision v. July 30, 2019 – S 52 AS 1319/17
Guidance sentence (editor)
1. The requirement of reciprocity means that it is not enough if the recipient of the benefit has to make numerous efforts to integrate, while the authority merely makes placement suggestions and covers application costs (at its discretion). Rather, it must be clear that the authority provides integration services tailored to individual needs. If such individual measures are to be refrained from, the exercise of discretion in this regard must be recognizable (cf. Federal Social Court, judgment of June 23, 2016, Ref. B 14 AS 42/15).
The administrative act did not meet these requirements.
Note:
In addition, it should be noted that the requirements for integration agreements have been fundamentally changed since August 1, 2016. Before concluding an integration agreement or before issuing an integration administrative act, a potential analysis must now be carried out, see Section 15 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II. This is the basis for an integration agreement or an integration administrative act. In addition, it is now mandatory to review and update the established mutual obligations on a regular basis, at the latest after six months.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – SG Stuttgart, judgment of May 15, 2019 – S 22 AS 3913/18
Action for failure to act is unsuccessful if a plaintiff has a large number of proceedings
The SG Stuttgart has decided that in the case of plaintiffs who involve the social administration and the social justice system in a large number of proceedings, there is sufficient reason for the social administration to exceed the statutory deadlines for issuing an administrative act.
In the opinion of the social court, the action for failure to act was unfounded from the start. The job center had sufficient objective reason not to decide on the plaintiff's objection within three months. The plaintiff is responsible for the fact that the defendant did not comply with the deadline set out in Section 88 (2) SGG. He keeps the job center busy with a large number of applications, objections, lawsuits, interim legal protection proceedings, appeals and complaints. At the time the objection decision was issued, the job center was handling around a hundred other objections and around 400 pending social court proceedings involving the plaintiff, his three children and their mother. As of May 2019, the plaintiff had filed over 1,150 lawsuits, the mother of his children had filed more than a thousand lawsuits, and each of their three children had filed more than 370, 360 or 290 lawsuits before the SG Stuttgart alone.
In the case of plaintiffs who employ the social administration and the social justice system with a large number of procedures, the job center is not obliged to focus its administrative activities primarily on those applicants who carry out a large number of procedures, to the detriment of the other benefit recipients.
The decision is not yet final.
juris editorial team
Source: Press release from the SG Stuttgart, excerpt from current case law (as of August 2019), v. August 2, 2019
Source: www.juris.de
2.4 – SG Karlsruhe, judgment of April 16, 2019 – S 24 AS 6803/18
Jobcenter does not have to cover costs for illegal continued use of an apartment
The SG Stuttgart has decided that costs that a recipient of benefits under SGB II incurs in enforcement protection proceedings because he does not fulfill his obligation to vacate his rented apartment cannot be covered by the job center as accommodation costs.
After termination by his landlord and eviction proceedings, the plaintiff had agreed in a court settlement to vacate his rented apartment by a specific date. Since he couldn't find another apartment and was threatened with homelessness, he stayed in the apartment even after the eviction date expired and filed an application for enforcement protection at the district court. This then suspended enforcement for a short period of time, but set an amount of 850 euros, which the plaintiff had to pay in cash to the responsible bailiff as “damages for the extended use of the living space”. The plaintiff demanded this amount be reimbursed from the job center as the costs of accommodation and heating within the meaning of Section 22 SGB II.
The SG Stuttgart dismissed the lawsuit.
According to the social court's opinion, the costs of 850 euros were not incurred through the proper use of the living space, but as compensation for the plaintiff's unlawful continued use of the apartment after the eviction period had expired. The job center had already taken over the compensation for use that arose after the end of the rental agreement until the plaintiff actually moved out. If one were to also include the 850 euros paid by the plaintiff due to the enforcement court requirement under the costs of accommodation within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, this would stretch the term.
The appeal was lodged with the State Social Court.
juris editorial team
Source: Press release from the SG Stuttgart, excerpt from current case law (as of August 2019), v. August 2, 2019
Source: www.juris.de
2.5 – SG Karlsruhe, judgment of March 21, 2019 – S 14 AS 3653/18
Danger of recurrence as a continuation interest of a single mother with two underage children on “Hartz IV” benefits
Short text:
The Integration Administrative Act (EGVA) is also illegal in its substance because it has exceeded the 6-month maximum standard review period in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II despite the EGVA having been assigned an expiry date. An EGVA is unlawful if it does not make any specific regulations regarding the review and updating of its contents and, in particular, does not specify a latest date in this regard, but only subjects the decisions to a non-specific, “regular” review and update (cf. Federal Social Court ruling of March 21st. 2019, Ref.: B 14 AS 28/18 R, previously Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of May 15, 2018, Ref.: L 9 AS 4118/17).
Source: www.socialcourt-karlsruhe.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 – SG Stuttgart, judgment of October 2, 2018 – S 6 AL 1479/18
Granting of a start-up grant: Placement priority is not an element of the offense
The SG Stuttgart has decided that a decision rejecting a start-up grant due to a lack of discretion is unlawful and that the employment agency should be sentenced to a new decision if, in accordance with its supra-regional instructions, it treats placement priority as a fact and not as a discretionary consideration.
In any case, a breach of discretion occurs if the employment agency does not carry out an individual examination of the case, but instead rejects the granting of the start-up grant across the board, citing an alleged placement priority, according to the social court.
further: www.juris.de
4. Decisions of the state social courts and social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Munich, decision of. July 16, 2019 – L 18 SO 46/19 B ER
Social assistance: No entitlement to cover treatment costs if a private insurer is obliged to take out a basic tariff
Guiding principle (Juris)
There is no legal basis for an insurer's request that the person to be insured have medical examinations carried out at their own expense before taking out health insurance in the basic tariff.
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
4.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of April 17, 2019 – L 2 SO 4004/18
As part of basic security in old age and in the event of reduced earning capacity in accordance with SGB
In principle, a grandfather has no right to an increase in the standard rate in accordance with Section 27 Letter a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB XII for visiting grandchildren.
Guidance sentence (editor)
In the case of the plaintiff, as a grandfather, there is no atypical additional need in relation to his grandchildren who live far away in Switzerland with regard to travel and accommodation expenses. Maintaining social contacts with relatives living in other cities is a typical need, even for those receiving basic social security benefits, which is taken into account when determining standard needs. The case law regarding travel costs for access to children with separated parents is not comparable.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.3 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of April 17, 2019 – L 2 SO 4356/18
Care allowance according to § 37 SGB
Guidance sentence (editor)
The care allowance payment received on the day of the death of the plaintiff's husband is not to be taken into account in the question of need or reasonableness with regard to the funeral costs to be borne by the plaintiff and which are also recognized by the defendant in this respect.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4.4 - LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of July 11, 2019 on Ref. L 15 SO 181/18
Comments and full text by Attorney Sebastian Lingens
The LSG Berlin-Brandenburg decided in its judgment of July 11, 2019 on Ref. L 15 SO 181/18 that a Czech citizen without a right of residence, but who is legally residing in Germany due to the lack of a determination that freedom of movement does not exist , is entitled to bridging benefits in accordance with Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 5 SGB XII. The period is not limited to one month, but can also extend over years (in this case it is almost 2 years).
The court essentially justifies this by saying that EU citizens who are actually tolerated in Germany cannot be permanently excluded from social benefits. This would not be compatible with the fundamental right to guarantee a humane minimum subsistence level under Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.
The judgment is available to me and should be published shortly. The appeal was allowed.
Sebastian Lingens
lawyer
, specialist lawyer for social law
Badensche Str. 33, 10715 Berlin
Tel: 030 609 876 580
Fax: 030 609 876 589
5. Decisions of the state social courts and social courts on asylum law
5.1 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of. March 18, 2019 – L 8 AY 8/18 B ER – legally binding
Orientation sentence (editor)
The Senate has no fundamental objections to the application of Section 1a Paragraph 3 AsylbLG.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5.2 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of.
June 11, 2019 - L 8 AY 5/19 B ER - legally binding orientation sentence (editor)
On the question of the constitutionality of Section 1a Paragraph 4 AsylbLG.
Guiding Principle (Juris)
1. Reinstatement to the previous status is to be granted if the actual delivery of the statement of appeal to the letter distribution center on the afternoon of Maundy Thursday is sufficiently credible, since the complainant is thereby relying on the statement of appeal in accordance with the Postal Universal Services Ordinance received by the LSG on the Tuesday after Easter (reference to BGH, decision of July 19, 2007 - I ZB 100/06 -, juris).
2. Interim legal protection in the area of suspensive effect requires an objection to challenge; i.e. the authority must have previously intervened in existing legal positions. If, on the other hand, the aim is to receive higher benefits without higher benefits having previously been definitively granted for the period in question, interim legal protection can only be permissibly achieved with an application pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 and 2 SGG for the issuance of an interim order.
3. The Senate has no fundamental objections to the application of Section 1a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 AsylbLG in the version in force since August 3, 2016.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5.3 – Social Court Dresden, decision v. 08/02/2019 – S 20 AY 55/19 ER
On the failure to redefine or update basic benefits in accordance with Section 3 AsylbLG since 2017
Guidance sentence (editor)
1. This increase in the entitlement to benefits results directly from the law. The standard level of requirements in the AsylblG is linked to the increase in standard requirements according to SGB XII. As far as the changes in benefits according to SGB XII are determined, the benefits according to Section 3 AsylblG must be adjusted accordingly. The update of the standard requirements serves to make the services more dynamic in order to avoid years of static adherence to determinations that are no longer realistic (Wahrendorf, AsylblG, Commentary 2017, § 3 Rn. 67). The benefit recipient therefore has a legally enforceable claim to benefits at an adjusted amount (aA Hohm, ZFSH SGB 2/2019, p. 68 ff.)
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
Likewise Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court - Ref.: L 8 AY 13/19 B from July 25, 2019
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
