1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on social assistance (SGB XII)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of April 30, 2020 – B 8 SUN 12/18 R
Social assistance - basic security in old age and in the event of reduced earning capacity - use of assets - hardship - saved basic pension according to the OEG
Higher asset allowance if victim pension is paid in arrears
Guidance (editor)
The special position of those in need of help and the responsibility of the state towards those entitled to them is still reflected in the scope of application of the BVG even after the new version on July 1, 2011, by allowing significantly higher asset protection amounts than 2,600 euros. The plaintiff must therefore be granted an additional amount in accordance with the hardship regulation in accordance with Section 90 Paragraph 3 of the SGB
Guiding principle (editor)
The use of assets from saved basic pensions according to the OEG represents hardship according to Section 90 Paragraph 3 SGB XII.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
Note:
Higher asset allowance if victim pension is paid in arrears
further: www.evangelisch.de
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, court decision v. March 26, 2020 – L 37 SF 218/19 EK AS
Guiding principle (Juris)
Even if Section 198 Paragraph 3 GVG does not contain any express regulation as to when a complaint about delay must be received by the court at the latest, this does not mean that it can be brought to the court at any late date.
The point in time from which a notice of delay is to be regarded as late is to be determined based on the purpose of the notice, which is, on the one hand, to give the judge handling the case the opportunity to speed up the process and, on the other hand, to exclude the possibility of toleration and liquidation.
If a court has set a date for the oral hearing and sent the summons or notification of the date, a complaint about the delay received after that is considered late. This applies regardless of the time at which receipt of the notification is confirmed by the appointment.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, decision v. March 18, 2020 – L 31 AS 2802/16
Orientation aid (editor)
Regarding the additional nutritional requirements due to fructose and lactose intolerance, here negative, because leaving out food does not lead to higher costs. The diet does not become more expensive in the sense of Section 21 Paragraph 5 SGB II because the food left out would have to be replaced by other, compatible foods.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – LSG NRW, judgment of
01/23/2020 - L 19 AS 1492/18 - Revision pending at the BSG - B 4 AS 26/20 R SGB II claim for leave in prison
Full text now available
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - SG Berlin, decision of April 27, 2020 - S 128 AS 2387/20 ER
Sometimes hü, sometimes hott, a contribution from Attorney Kay Füßlein, Berlin
My clients live in an apartment in Berlin that the JobCenter believes is “too expensive”. There was a cost reduction request to reduce the rent by September 2020. Nevertheless, in the subsequent decision, the JobCenter approved the full rent for the entire approval period. This was probably “noticed” shortly afterwards and a new, additional notice was issued that retroactively adjusted the rent for part of the approval period. In order to have the full rent recognized, an urgent application was submitted to the SG Berlin.
The social court granted the application. My clients were able to rely on the continued existence of the first approval notice.
Once the rent has been approved, you cannot simply “reduce” it within the approval period.
The case is also interesting in that there was a cost reduction request before March 1st. had been announced and was supposed to take effect from September. However, according to the new Section 67 SGB II, cost-cutting efforts are not to be expected. This is very problematic from an equality perspective. However, since this was not the case, the court left this question open.
To the full text
Note:
See LSG Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, decision of November 6th, 2018 - L 10 AS 271/18 B ER, Rz. 34
“If the service provider approves unabridged benefits for the entire year, although he intends to reduce the costs of accommodation or heating in the current approval phase, he must - if he does not take advantage of the option under Section 41 Paragraph 3 No. 2 SGB II uses or does not already implement the intended reduction in the approval decision - when later implementing the reduction in the costs of the accommodation based on appropriateness, § 45 SGB This applies especially considering the fact that the service provider can determine the time at which the reduction in benefits is implemented.”
3.2 – Halle Social Court, decision of July 10, 2019 (S 26 AS 627/19 ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel Only a decision ordering the reimbursement of the services already provided by Jobcenter, which is either at the same time as determining the amount to be reimbursed in accordance with Section 50 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB X or within the four-year period of Section 50 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB
In addition to the reimbursement notice, the SGB II provider must always issue a further notice in a timely manner, namely an administrative act aimed at enforcing the established reimbursement claims.
3.3 - Halle Social Court, decision of February 10, 2020 (S 14 AS 1974/19):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel An action for failure to act is generally permissible after the expiry of the blocking period (here: in accordance with Section 88 Paragraph 2 SGG), regardless of the reason.
At this point, it is the duty of the SGB II provider to inform the person who raised the objection, for example, if this legal remedy is not decided. B. to make an interim notification in which there is a possible delay and the relevant reasons i.e. S.d. Section 88 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGG is pointed out.
This applies especially if the objection was already justified in detail when it was filed and the deadline set by the SGB II provider for submitting a final statement in the objection procedure was met by the applicant.
3.4 – Halle Social Court, decision of February 20, 2020 (S 14 AS 2178/19 ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel A reminder from the Federal Employment Agency for an amount requested by the job center by way of reimbursement for services already provided does not constitute an administrative act in accordance with Section 31 Sentence 1 SGB X due to the lack of regulatory effect.
This is merely the last opportunity for the debtor to voluntarily settle the accumulated arrears in order to avoid the initiation of compulsory enforcement measures.
This is an enforcement measure, since if this reminder has no effect, the compulsory collection of the demanded amount can be initiated immediately.
In principle, there is the possibility of claiming legal protection from social courts against unauthorized enforcement measures by SGB II providers. The same applies if a reminder with a notice of enforcement was issued without a prior payment request being made.
Legal tip:
See LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of December 14, 2018, L 34 AS 2224/18 B ER
and also Verdamp long ago, damned long ago….. Limitation of reimbursement claims in SGB II, a contribution by Attorney Kay Füßlein, Berlin
here: www.ra-fuesslein.de
3.5 - SG Osnabrück, judgment of February 19, 2020 - S 23 AS 69/18
Guiding principle (Juris)
Fiction of provisionally approved basic security benefits as final due to the passage of time.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Detmold Social Court, judgment of February 27, 2020 – S 11 SO 59/18
Help with living expenses according to SGB XII during your stay in a psychiatric hospital - not an inpatient facility
Orientation aid (editor)
1. Help with living expenses according to SGB XII during the stay in a psychiatric hospital affirmative.
2. For the duration of an inpatient stay in the psychiatric ward of a hospital, the recipient of benefits according to SGB 12 is entitled to the standard rate according to standard level 1 (aA LSG Sachsen-Anhalt, resolution of November 3, 2011 - L 8 SO 30/10 B ).
3. The plaintiff's standard requirements cannot be determined differently during the time of treatment in the hospitals and income cannot be taken into account.
4. The free meals in hospitals cannot be valued as monetary benefits in kind and then offset against the benefits.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the state social courts and social courts on asylum law
5.1 – LSG Hessen, decision of. 02/26/2020 – L 4 AY 14/19 B ER
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. Section 1a paragraph 1 sentence 3 AsylbLG is in light of the judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 18, 2012 - 1 BvL 10/10, 1 BvL 2/11 - and of November 5, 2019 - 1 BvL 7/ 16 – to be interpreted in accordance with the constitution.
2. The individual case regulation there to take special circumstances into account must cover every case of need under Section 3 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG - not just Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 AsylbLG - outside of the benefits reduced in accordance with Section 1a Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 AsylbLG. The sanction therefore consists in the fact that the applicant is referred to the flat-rate benefit model of Section 2 AsylbLG and Sections 3, 3a AsylbLG to register individual needs, particularly in the area of socio-cultural existence, and in the event that the need is not stated, also not from can benefit from the flat rate.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5.2 – LSG Hessen, decision by. March 31, 2020 – L 4 AY 4/20 B ER
Norms: § 1a AsylbLG - Keywords: § 1a para. 1 AsylbLG old version and § 1a para. 2 AsylbLG must remain unapplied if the application achieves the repressive objective of the norms, not a relativization of human dignity in migration policy
Guidance (editor)
On the question, § 1a AsylbLG may be unconstitutional (see LSG NSB, resolutions of March 19, 2020 - L 8 AY 4/20 B ER and of December 4, 2019 - L 8 AY 36/19 B ER ( both lawyers Jan Sürig, Bremen)
Guidance sentences (RA Sven Adam, Göttingen)
1. § 1a paragraph 1 AsylbLG old version and § 1a paragraph 2 in conjunction with § 1a paragraph 1 AsylbLG in the version in force since August 21, 2019 require a constitutionally compliant interpretation. The circle of legitimate purposes for imposing obligations to cooperate or refrain from cooperation and for sanctioning them must therefore be narrowed down, because the Basic Law does not recognize any general basic duties of citizens. In particular, human dignity is guaranteed without regard to characteristics and social status, as well as without regard to achievements; It does not have to be worked out, but is available to every person on their own initiative.
2. A limitation of claims can only meet the requirements of Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 GG if it is not aimed at repressively punishing misconduct, but rather at ensuring that obligations to cooperate are fulfilled serve to avoid or overcome existential need. This presupposes that those affected are actually able to avert the reduction in state benefits through their own reasonable behavior and to regain the benefit that secures their existence.
3. A requested departure is not such reasonable behavior because the departure results in the originally authorized person leaving the spatial guarantee area of Art. 1 Para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 20 Para. 1 GG and the scope of application of the AsylbLG and their claim perishes through this supposed act of cooperation.
Guiding principle (Juris)
The application of the limitation of claims according to Section 1a Paragraph 2 in conjunction with Section 1a Paragraph 1 AsylbLG in the version applicable since August 21, 2019 and its predecessor regulations is based on the requirements of the BVerfG, judgment of November 5, 2019 - 1 BvL 7/16 - excluded if, in individual cases, the application of the standards resulted in their repressive objective being achieved.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
S.a. Claudius Voigt: LSG Hessen: Section 1a reduction due to entry to receive social assistance is per se inapplicable
The Hesse State Social Court (decision of March 31, 2020; L 4 AY 4/20 B ER) declared the benefit reduction according to Section 1a Paragraph 2 AsylbLG (entry to receive social assistance) to be per se inapplicable in a pleasingly clear decision, as it is It is a purely repressive sanction that can no longer be influenced by one's own behavior. A constitutionally compliant interpretation is only possible if this norm remains unapplied.
5.3 - SG Münster, decision of April 21, 2020 - S 20 AY 4/20 ER
SG Münster: Reduction in benefits according to Section 1a Paragraph 5 No. 2 AsylbLG is not permitted if the passport was no longer present upon entry
Orientation aid (editor)
1. No reduction in benefits according to Section 1a Paragraph 5 No. 2 AsylbLG if the passport is not handed over during the asylum procedure.
2. The obligation to hand over the passport in accordance with Section 15 Paragraph 2 No. 4 AsylG can only exist if those affected actually still have a passport.
Source: Claudius Voigt
Project Q – Office for the Qualification of Refugee and Migration Advice
Legal tip:
See SG Detmold, decision of June 27, 2019 - S 16 AY 16/19 ER
6. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal books
6.1 - VG Dresden v. April 24, 2020 – Ref.: 11 L 269/20.A
Removal of an obligation to reside in an initial reception center for heavily pregnant asylum seekers
The VG Dresden has decided that an asylum seeker who is about to give birth does not have to continue to live in the initial reception center for refugees in Dresden.
further: www.juris.de
Please hang in there and stay healthy!!!!
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
