1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 14 November 2019 – L 4 AS 604/18 NZB
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. Regarding the consideration of fictitious income due to a failure to change the income tax bracket, here in the negative.
2. The fictitious imputation of income and the associated (partial) rejection of subsistence benefits amounts to a sanction provision “sui generis”.
Principle (Juris)
1. Only actual income received is suitable as "readily available funds" to cover the specific needs in the respective month; the crediting of fictitious income to reduce needs is excluded under the system of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
2. A basic income support provider is not entitled to fictitiously consider income pursuant to Sections 11 and 11a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), due to a failure to change the income tax bracket.
3. Failure to change the income tax bracket can give rise to claims for compensation under Section 34 of the German Social Code, Book II (see: Higher Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of August 20, 2014 – L 4 AS 272/14 B ER – juris RN 34).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of 07.11.2019 – L 16 AS 813/17
Job centers must now always justify the chosen duration of an EGV-VA (integration agreement - administrative act).
Guiding principle (Editor):
1. If the basic income support provider exercises its discretionary power ("should") by limiting the integration administrative act to six months, this is generally not objectionable. However, the integration administrative act must clearly state the discretionary considerations on which the regulation regarding the period of validity is based. According to the legislator's intention and the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court (BSG), this is necessary so that the beneficiary is aware of the time period of validity and the reasons for it, also in order to be able to seek legal recourse if necessary (see BSG, Judgment of March 21, 2019, B 14 AS 28/18 R). The contested integration administrative act contains no discretionary considerations regarding the decision on the period of validity. These considerations are not unnecessary simply because the administrative act had a limited validity period of six months.
2. The contested EVA is also unlawful because it does not contain a (concrete) regulation for review and updating that is aligned with the period of validity (cf. BSG, judgment of 21.03.2019, B 14 AS 28/18 R).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See also Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 14 November 2019 – L 21 AS 1444/19 B ER; Social Court of Hanover, decision of 30 October 2019 – S 46 AS 626/19 ER
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Hamburg Social Court, decision of 30 November 2018 – S 23 AS 3797/18 ER
Concept for the costs of accommodation and heating in 2018 for Hamburg unlawful – costs of water supply and drainage
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. The appropriateness of the costs for accommodation and heating was not determined on a sufficient basis and therefore does not meet the requirements for a coherent concept, which are specified in particular in the case law of the Federal Social Court.
2. Sound concepts must be reviewed regularly after a two-year period following data collection, data analysis, and implementation, and updated if necessary (see Federal Social Court, judgment of December 12, 2017, B 4 AS 33/16). As far as is known, no adjustment has been made to the new operating cost index published by the Hamburg Tenants' Association since January 2018.
3. Water supply and sewage disposal costs are operating costs that must be taken into account. "Including water costs in the gross rent allowance requires the statistical evaluation of valid data on water costs per square meter. In Hamburg, however, water costs have not yet been included in the overall allowance because there is insufficient data available to use for their determination within the framework of the allowance assessment. The tenants' association's operating cost index only provides an estimated value for water."
4. Until a corresponding conclusive concept is available, the appropriate gross rent excluding utilities is to be determined on the basis of the table values according to Section 12 of the Housing Benefit Act (WoGG), which are to be increased moderately.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – Munich Social Court, Judgment of 29 November 2019 – S 46 AS 208/18
Maintenance and repairs according to § 22 para. 2 SGB II
Guiding principle (editor):
Conversion of a loan for a special assessment for the condominium into a subsidy, rejected here.
Principle (Juris)
1. Calculation of benefits for expenses for maintenance and repair of owner-occupied residential property according to § 22 para. 2 SGB II, if several measures are carried out at intervals.
2. Expenses for the acquisition of a sauna based on a resolution of the owners' meeting are not expenses for maintenance and repair according to § 22 para. 2 SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – Social Court Düsseldorf, Judgment of 02.10.2019 – S 29 AS 4533/17
Job centers have to pay higher rents
Guideline (Editor):
For Kaarst (Rhein-Kreis Neuss), instead of a monthly gross rent (basic rent and cold ancillary costs excluding heating costs) of €643.20, a maximum of €764.50 should now be considered appropriate for a 3-person household.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
3.1 – JM 1/2020 with discussion of BSG, Judgment of 28.11.2018 – B 14 AS 47/17 R by Judge Jan Schiller
Job center benefits for visiting close relatives?
BSG, judgment of November 28, 2018 – B 14 AS 47/17 R and B 14 AS 48/17 R
by Judge Jan Schiller
JM 1/2020 p. 15 ff. –
Source: www.juris.de
3.2 – Hartz IV: Double rent can be considered accommodation costs, an article by attorney Helge Hildebrandt
The Federal Social Court has now ruled that double rent can be considered housing costs. This is because the regulations under Section 22, Paragraphs 1 and 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are not mutually exclusive. This should be understood to mean that double rent can be claimed as both rental costs and moving expenses. For those affected, this ruling means that double rent for a new apartment can also be claimed even if prior approval for its coverage was not obtained before the new lease was signed.
Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of 30 October 2019, B 14 AS 2/19 R
First published in HEMPELS 12/2019
3.3 – Has Hartz IV become an “unconditional basic income” after the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court? What nonsense!
January 1, 2020 by Stefan Sell
Read more: aktuelle-sozialpolitik.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
