1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court, Judgment of 19 February 2020 – L 18 AS 1421/19
Integration administrative act – lack of regulations regarding review and updating
Job centers must now always justify the chosen duration of an EGV-VA (integration agreement/administrative act)
Guidance (Editor):
An administrative act replacing an integration agreement is unlawful if it does not contain a specific provision for a review and update mechanism that is aligned with the period of validity.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See also Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of November 7, 2019 – L 16 AS 813/17; North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of November 14, 2019 – L 21 AS 1444/19 B ER; Hanover Social Court, decision of October 30, 2019 – S 46 AS 626/19 ER
1.2 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 26 October 2019 – L 5 AS 365/19 B ER – legally binding
SGB II – Preliminary legal protection for housing costs, here: unavoidable expenses for maintenance and repair of owner-occupied residential property
Guidance (Editor):
Regarding the preliminary injunction for services to repair their water supply and bathroom, here affirmed.
Principle (Juris)
1. The granting of benefits for expenses for the maintenance and repair of owner-occupied residential property within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is not precluded by the possibility of further maintenance and repair expenses arising in the future. Section 22 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the SGB II, with its reference to the limits of reasonableness, taking into account the expenses incurred in the current and the following eleven calendar months, contains a sufficient limitation. This ensures that homeowners are neither better nor worse off than tenants.
2. If the responsible benefit provider has not renewed a “conclusive concept” for determining reasonable accommodation costs after four years, an update by the court based on the German consumer price index is not possible (see LSG Halle, judgment of 13.09.2017 – L 5 AS 1038/13 – juris RN 100).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.3 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Decision of 16.09.2019 – L 2 AS 291/17 NZB – legally
binding. Principle (Juris):
1. Even with regard to Section 28 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in the version in force until 31 July 2016, it is not necessary to clarify in the context of an appeal against the denial of leave to appeal whether a person who was not receiving benefits on 1 August of that year, but only became eligible for benefits during the month of August, is also entitled to the so-called school supplies package.
2. The reference to "August 1st of each year" in the regulation constitutes a payment date in the sense of a disbursement date, but not a date on which entitlement begins. The lump-sum payment does not decrease even if received later, because it is intended to cover the expenses incurred due to attending school.
Source: socialcourtsability.de/
1.4 – State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 15 April 2019 – L 4 AS 15/16
Guidance note (Editor):
On the seriousness of a tenancy agreement between relatives, here rejected.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.5 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 20 April 2020 – L 16 AS 170/20 B ER
Principle (Juris)
1. The presumption under § 67 para. 2 sentence 2 SGB II that no substantial assets exist does not apply if no personal information regarding assets is provided.
2. Section 67 paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not applicable if a benefit award has been revoked pursuant to Section 45 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) and the suspensive effect of the objection has not been ordered.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Corona offers no loophole for hidden savings – Munich Higher Social Court on Hartz IV benefits for the self-employed
More information: www.lto.de
1.6 – Hessian State Social Court, Judgment of 11 March 2020 – L 6 AS 471/19
Principle (Juris)
1. Even during pending court proceedings concerning a preliminary decision, it may be fictitiously transformed into a final determination pursuant to Section 41a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II); this becomes the subject of the court proceedings.
2. a) On the unobjectionable admission to an expansion of the claim in the appeal proceedings.
b) The State Social Court has jurisdiction to decide on a claim that has been extended in the appeal proceedings.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.7 – Hessian State Social Court, decision of 25 March 2020 – L 6 AS 614/19 NZB
Guidance (Editor):
The question raised by the plaintiffs as to whether, in a case where the exceeding of a payment deadline, here resulting in the plaintiff not being taken on the educational trip, constitutes a case of self-help under Section 30 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), does not address the factual prerequisites of Section 30 Sentence 2 of the SGB II (impossibility of submitting an application in time) and therefore does not represent a legal question requiring clarification within the framework of Section 30 Sentence 2 of the SGB II.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.8 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 19 December 2020 – L 19 AS 1426/18 – Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court – B 4 AS 24/20 R
Basic income support for job seekers – Exclusion of benefits for foreigners residing in Germany for the purpose of seeking employment – EU citizens – Cessation of continued effect – Employee status in cases of involuntary confirmed unemployment after less than one year of employment – No employee status during participation in a subsidized training measure – Constitutionality – Conformity with European law
Is the continued validity of a Union citizen's right of residence in Germany based on employee status, in the event of involuntary unemployment after less than one year of employment pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU 2004, also limited to six months if the Union citizen participates in a further training measure funded by the Federal Employment Agency (BA), and does this then lead to the exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 2 Letter b of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), after the expiry of the 6 months?
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.9 – LSG NRW, Decision of 16.03.2020 – L 19 AS 2035/19 B ER
EU foreigners: Consequences of the determination of loss of the right of residence.
The LSG Essen has ruled that the habitual residence required for the granting of SGB II benefits is lacking despite parallel administrative court proceedings if the immigration authority has determined the loss of the right of free movement.
Source: www.juris.de and full text: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1.10 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 05.12.2019 – L 7 AS 171/19 – Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court – B 14 AS 27/20 R:
The MLPD youth organization was not granted accreditation as a provider of services for social and cultural participation.
Guidance (Editor):
There is no explicit legal basis for providers of services under Section 28 Paragraph 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) to be recognized as suitable providers (see the Senate's decision of November 20, 2017 – L 7 AS 1956/17 B ER; Leopold in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB II, Section 29, marginal note 39). The legislator has specifically not introduced an approval procedure in the SGB II, such as the certification of providers of further education measures with a corresponding right to apply (cf., e.g., Section 181 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III)).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
The LSG Essen has ruled that the MLPD youth organization Rebell/Rotfüchse is not authorized to provide services for social and cultural participation.
Further information: www.juris.de
1.11 – LSG NRW, Judgment of 30.04.2020 – L 7 AS 635/20
No additional Hartz IV benefits due to Corona masks.
The LSG Essen has ruled that the face coverings currently required to protect against new infections with the coronavirus must be financed from the SGB II standard benefit, as they can be considered part of clothing.
A cloth or a scarf is sufficient to meet the requirements for the prescribed face covering, according to the State Social Court.
Summary:
In the opinion of the State Social Court, it could be left open whether there was any need for legal protection in relation to the extension of the application by seeking preliminary judicial protection, or whether the applicant would not have been obliged to first submit an application to the respondent.
In any case, the application for preliminary legal protection is unfounded, as no entitlement is apparent. According to Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), recipients of benefits are entitled to additional needs if, in an individual case, there is an unavoidable, ongoing, and not merely one-off special need. The additional need is considered unavoidable if, in particular, it is not covered by contributions from third parties and taking into account the recipient's potential savings, and if its amount deviates significantly from average needs.
According to Section 12a Paragraph 1 Sentence 3, Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Corona Protection Ordinance for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, in the version valid from April 27, 2020, only the wearing of a textile face covering (e.g., everyday mask, scarf, cloth) is required in certain situations. Similar regulations apply in the other federal states. The financing of such face coverings, which can be considered part of clothing, is possible from the standard allowance. Therefore, there is no unavoidable need.
juris editorial team.
Source: Press release from the LSG Essen dated May 6, 2020
Note:
Recipients of unemployment benefit II do not receive subsidies for face masks.
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Altenburg Social Court, Judgment of 06.02.2020 – S 47 AS 213/19 – legally binding – appeal allowed
To cover the costs of purchasing an internet-enabled personal computer, including printer, accessories and services.
The job center does not have to pay a subsidy for PCs, printers and accessories.
Guidance (Editor)
1. The entitlement to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is based on a calendar-month assessment, meaning that the needs of a month must be compared to the available resources for meeting those needs in that month. Therefore, a shortfall arising from a one-off, specific need – such as the need to purchase a private computer for school use in the month in question – may, under certain circumstances, only give rise to an entitlement to benefits for that period, possibly even for just one month (see Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of May 8, 2019 – B 14 AS 20/18 R, regarding the reimbursement of one-off costs for heating materials).
2. However, in the Chamber's opinion, the requirements of Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are not met in the case to be decided here.
3. The costs for the purchase of an internet-enabled personal computer, including printer and accessories, are not considered a current need (see also Social Court Karlsruhe, judgment of January 29, 2019 – S 15 AS 354/19, contrary to Social Court Gotha, judgment of August 17, 2018 – S 26 AS 3971/17).
4. The German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), does not provide a legal basis for the plaintiff's request for a subsidy to cover the acquisition costs of a home computer, printer, accessories and service for (also) school purposes.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
See Social Court Cottbus, decision of 18 December 2019 – S 29 AS 1540/19 ER
The job center must cover the purchase costs for an internet-enabled laptop including accessories (here 500 euros).
Laptop including accessories for €500 (SG Cottbus v. 18.12.2019 – S 29 AS 1540/19 ER),
PC with printer, software and setup for €600 (LSG Schleswig-Holstein v. 11.01.2019 – L 6 AS 238/18 B ER),
internet-enabled PC, including necessary accessories and services amounting to €600 (SG Gotha v. 17.08.2018 – S 26 AS 3971/17),
tablet worth €369, which is required by the school (SG Hannover v. 06.02.2018 – S 68 AS 344/18 ER),
laptop worth €399, which is explicitly necessary for the school (SG Stade v. 29.08.2018 – S 39 AS 102/18 ER),
internet-enabled PC worth €350 (SG Cottbus v. 13.10.2016 – S 42 AS 1914/13),
laptop for €379 (SG Kiel v. 25.10.2019 – S 38 AS 348/18),
used PC for €150 when attending the vocational school I for information processing and media design (SG Mainz v. 07.10.2019 – S 14 AS 582/19 ER)
Campaign: School computers now!
Editor's note:
One can only shake one's head, because the legal basis here is Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (see Federal Social Court ruling B 14 AS 13/18 R regarding schoolbooks).
Note: Legal principle (Juris):
The costs for the purchase of an internet-enabled personal computer and accessories for (also) school purposes are not an unavoidable ongoing need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). A secondary school student in grades 5 and 6 can generally be expected to share a computer already available in the household.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – Hessian State Social Court, decision of 28 April 2020 – L 4 SO 92/10 B ER
Coronavirus pandemic: No additional needs for social welfare recipients due to stockpiling
The LSG Darmstadt has ruled that social welfare recipients are not entitled to additional benefits for stockpiling food.
The recommended (emergency) stockpiling for 10 to 14 days during the Corona pandemic does not lead to an unavoidable or inescapable need within the meaning of social welfare law, according to the State Social Court.
Continue on juris
3.2 – Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of 06.04.2020 – L 9 SO 48/20 B ER – legally binding
Guidance (Editor):
Denial of benefits due to lack of cooperation is unlawful, because Section 66 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) is not a suitable legal basis for a denial decision, since this provision only concerns the consequences of a breach of cooperation obligations in the administrative procedure conducted by the benefit provider named in Section 66 Paragraph 1 of the SGB I, and not breaches of cooperation in an administrative procedure of another benefit provider, which, in view of the principle of subsidiarity, can only have an indirect effect on the substantive benefit claim.
Principle (Juris):
Neither the violation of cooperation obligations in the administrative procedure for the granting of a reduced earning capacity pension nor the failure to inform the social welfare agency about expected cooperation in the reduced earning capacity pension procedure can, in principle, justify a partial refusal of subsistence assistance.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Miscellaneous on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
4.1 – Special asset protection for victims of violent crimes
The Federal Social Court (BSG) has ruled that assets accumulated from basic pension payments to a victim of a violent crime do not always have to be used up before an entitlement to social assistance exists, because they may be protected under the aspect of particular hardship.
Further information: www.juris.de
4.2 – Berlin demands a temporary supplement for Hartz IV benefit recipients from the federal government
On May 5, 2020, the Berlin Senate decided to submit a resolution to the Bundesrat (Federal Council) with the aim of granting recipients of basic income support for job seekers (SGB II) a temporary supplement of 100 euros per month to the standard rates for the duration of the Corona pandemic in order to secure their socio-cultural minimum standard of living.
Further information: www.juris.de
Note:
Trade unions and social organizations are demanding an additional €100 in coronavirus relief payments, immediately! – Thomé Newsletter 16/2020, May 4, 2020
4.3 – Ministry: Corona emergency aid will not be counted towards Hartz IV benefits
BERLIN (dpa-AFX) – If freelancers or self-employed individuals receiving Hartz IV benefits also receive "Corona emergency aid," this special payment may generally not be counted towards their unemployment benefit II. This was pointed out by the Federal Ministry of Labor in response to an inquiry from the Left Party. If "Corona emergency aid" serves purposes other than unemployment benefit II, "it is therefore not to be considered income. According to the Federal Government, this applies to the majority of 'Corona emergency aid' payments," the statement reads.
Continue reading: www.finanzen.net
Please hang in there and stay healthy!!!!
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
