Since September 1st, 2019, new regulations regarding the right to secure a livelihood for refugees have been in effect in Germany. According to this, among other things, the basic security benefits for single people in shared accommodation will be reduced to 90% of the benefits. The reason for this is that joint economic activity would supposedly lead to savings in budget management. Various urgent proceedings are pending across Germany against this empirically unproven change in the law. Due to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on people in shared accommodation, additional emergency social court applications have now been submitted to the social courts in Hildesheim and Kassel.
The situation for residents of shared accommodation has changed dramatically as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The social workers have already been withdrawn from various community accommodations due to the pandemic and/or are only providing telephone support. Many people in shared accommodation stay in their rooms. A life together cannot and should not take place. Nevertheless, the risk of the pandemic spreading in shared accommodation remains high. The shared accommodation should therefore also be closed because of the need for “social distancing” and the people should be accommodated in a decentralized manner (cf. demand from pro asylum ( https://www.proasyl.de/news/covid-19-und-fluechtlingspolitik-was- Germany-must-do-now/ ).
Until this has happened, alleged savings effects that no longer exist cannot and should not justify a reduction in the standard benefit for single people and single parents.
“ As an example, we have submitted additional urgent applications to the Hildesheim and Kassel social courts for three residents of shared accommodation in Göttingen and Witzenhausen to have full standard benefits granted. The poorest people in our society receive up to €42.00 a month, ” explains lawyer Sven Adam, who legally represents the applicants.
“ The standard benefit for single people and single parents in shared accommodation must be increased back to the standard benefit for people outside of shared accommodation at least during the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. “This is both actually necessary to further limit the pandemic with the possibility of individual economic activity and constitutionally with a view to the dignity of the people in the shared accommodation, ” Adam continued.
The urgent social court proceedings are carried out in writing and the social justice system is currently still operational.
If you have any questions, lawyer Sven Adam is available using the contact details provided - ideally by email.
Background:
The so-called “Ordered Return Act” came into force on August 21, 2019 and the Third Act Amending the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act on September 1, 2019. Both laws contain massive cuts in benefits, especially for single people and single parents in shared accommodation.
With the new regulation in the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act, the requirement rates have finally been adjusted (after the last increase took place in 2016 and the authorities did not update them despite a legal obligation). However, the legislature has introduced a new requirement level for single people who do not yet live in their own apartment. In the future, you will receive the same amount as your spouse and therefore only around 90% of the full benefits.
According to the purpose of the law, “the special needs of those entitled to benefits in collective accommodation” should be taken into account. It can be assumed that shared accommodation results in savings for the residents of such accommodation that are ultimately comparable to those in couple households.
This regulation is considered unconstitutional by various German social courts in urgent proceedings even without the effects of the Covid-19 virus (see: SG Landshut, decision of October 24th, 2019 - S 11 AY 64/19 ER; SG Hannover, decision of December 20th .2019 - S 53 AY 107/19 ER; SG Freiburg, resolution of January 20, 2020 - S 7 AY 5235/19 ER; SG Frankfurt/Main, resolution of January 14, 2020 - S 30 AY 26/19 ER; SG Leipzig, Decision of January 8th, 2020 - S 10 AY 40/19; SG Dresden, decision of February 4th, 2020 - S 20 AY 86/19 ER; SG Munich, judicial notice of January 31st, 2020 - S 42 AY 4/20 ER; LSG Saxony , decision of March 23, 2020 - L 8 AY 4/20 B ER).
