1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on social assistance (SGB XII)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of July 18, 2019 – B 8 SO 6/18 R
Among the requirements for a civil partnership-like relationship
Guiding principle (Editor):
According to Section 43 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), the income and assets of a community similar to a life partnership must also be taken into account for periods prior to January 1, 2011.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 20 November 2019 – L 2 AS 154/19
The job center will not reimburse costs for a project trip to London.
Guiding principle (Editor):
The study trip is not a multi-day class trip within the meaning of Section 28 Paragraph 2 No. 2 SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
The job center is not required to pay for school trips as part of a project week.
The LSG Halle has ruled that the job center does not have to cover the costs of a student study trip that is offered as one of several projects within a project week.
Source: Press release of the LSG Halle No. 3/2019 dated December 16, 2019: www.juris.de
2.2 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of 22 November 2019 – L 7 AS 1649/19 B – legally binding
Rejection of the reimbursement for newly purchased progressive lens glasses.
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. No legal aid granted, because in the case of a medical indication – as here – and a fundamental obligation of the health insurance fund to provide benefits, the insured person must adhere to the health insurance fund.
2. The Senate has also already ruled that the purchase of new glasses due to a change in visual acuity does not fall under Section 24 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (Judgment of 07.08.2014 – L 7 AS 269/14).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
This is the position of a Higher Social Court (LSG). With its rulings of May 8, 2019 (landmark rulings, BSG v. 08.05.2019 – B 14 AS 6/18 R and B 14 AS 13/18 R), the Federal Social Court (BSG) created an opening clause and stipulated that additional needs that arise once in the acquisition costsbut exist continuously as a needare also covered by the additional needs allowance pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
It is therefore recommended not to be discouraged by this decision, but to continue applying for glasses.
2.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 19 November 2019 – L 16 AS 782/16
Regarding the prerequisites for a claim for compensation under Section 34 of the German Social Code, Book Two (SGB II)
Guiding principle (Editor):
On the legal question of whether a lawful granting of benefits is a prerequisite for the claim for compensation under Section 34 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in the version of May 13, 2016, which is identical to Section 34 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in the version of July 26, 2016.
Principle (Juris):
1. A prerequisite for a claim for reimbursement under Section 34 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is that the benefits for which reimbursement is claimed were lawfully granted, i.e., were in accordance with substantive law. This follows from the wording of the provision, the systematic structure of the law, a historical interpretation, and the intent of the legislator.
2. A claim for reimbursement does not exist if the benefit could not be granted because the plaintiff possessed realizable assets. The question of whether the plaintiff can be accused of socially unacceptable behavior is then irrelevant.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Social Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 02.10.2019 – S 29 AS 3566/16
Solingen – Job centers must pay higher rents
Guideline (Editor):
For Solingen, instead of a monthly gross rent of €578.55, a maximum of €803.00 should now be considered appropriate for a 4-person household.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Düsseldorf Social Court: Neuss, Remscheid, Solingen – Job centers must pay higher rents
3.2 – Cologne Social Court, Judgment of 18 March 2019 – S 30 AS 2193/17
Cancellation and reimbursement of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is lawful – Section 1629a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) – Consideration of non-seizable assets when determining assets existing at the time of reaching adulthood
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. With regard to the limitation of liability regulated in § 1629a of the German Civil Code (BGB), the provisions on protection against attachment in the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) are not to be taken into account (contra: Higher Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of September 28, 2017 – L 2 AS 695/16 –, para. 43. The defendant's appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the Federal Social Court (BSG), cf. BSG hearing report no. 51/18 on basic income support for job seekers).
2. It is not apparent that, due to the protective effect intended by Section 1629a of the German Civil Code (BGB), assets existing in the form of cash or monetary claims should also be disregarded. In light of this, the application of corresponding provisions of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) is not possible. Rather, the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht) has already ruled that there are no fundamental objections to reducing a claim for reimbursement to a minor current account balance existing upon reaching the age of majority (Federal Social Court, Judgment of November 18, 2014 – B 4 AS 12/14 R). The Federal Social Court recently reaffirmed that, in accordance with the legal concept of Section 1629a of the German Civil Code (BGB), the amount of the reimbursement claim is considered solely within the framework of balancing debts and assets at the time of reaching the age of 18 (Federal Social Court, Judgment of November 28, 2018 – B 4 AS 43/17 R).
3. Measured against these principles, neither the small amount of the remaining claim nor the objection that the payment of vocational training assistance relevant to the credit balance had already been counted as income by the defendant during the continued receipt of benefits and that the further granted benefits were therefore only paid out in a reduced amount, preclude the defendant's further asserted claim for reimbursement.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Social Court Karlsruhe, Judgment of 03.06.2019 – S 5 SO 3426/18
Orthopedic work shoes; work area of a workshop for people with disabilities; services for participation in working life; integration assistance services; forwarding of the application; responsible rehabilitation provider; entitlement to reimbursement; suitable employment; employability
Principle (Juris):
If an insured person needs orthopedic safety shoes for their work in a workshop for disabled people, the social welfare provider is responsible for this service, not the pension insurance institution – even if the insured person receives a pension due to total incapacity for work.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
Federal Social Court (BSG), 14th Senate, Judgment of 11 July 2019 – B 14 AS 51/18 R
Author: Dietrich Hengelhaupt, Director SG
Requirements for the effectiveness of an application for basic income support via email and burden of proof for access
Guiding principle regarding the note:
The retroactive effect of benefit applications pursuant to Section 37 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 in conjunction with Paragraph 2 Sentences 1 and 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) to the first day of the month of application also applies in the case of applications submitted by email, even if the job center cannot be expected to take notice of the application until the beginning of the following month after normal business hours.
Further information: www.juris.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
We wish everyone a happy, healthy and above all peaceful year 2020!
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
