1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic income support under the (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of May 14, 2020 – B 14 AS 7/19 R
Job centers are allowed to store bank statements and other important documents about the income of Hartz IV recipients for ten years.
Guidance (Editor)
1. The job center had not yet deleted the plaintiff's bank statements that had been included in her benefits file.
2. Job centers are allowed to store bank statements and other important documents about the income situation of Hartz IV recipients for ten years.
Summary:
However, this is assessed according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and not according to the legal situation at the time of the authority's decision. Since the GDPR came into effect on May 25, 2018, the further processing of social data, such as through continued storage, is governed exclusively by the GDPR and supplementary national law. Whether the plaintiff can demand the removal of the bank statements stored in the benefits file is therefore determined by the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR. According to this article, bank statements must be deleted if they were processed without authorization from the outset or if the authorization for their further storage has since ceased to exist.
Neither of these is the case, because the defendant has been able to rely on sufficient processing powers since the beginning of the data collection and continues to do so at the time of the appeal decision. Job centers may collect, store, or otherwise process social data if this is necessary for their tasks and the purpose of the data collection is preserved when the data is stored (§ 67a para. 1 sentence 1, § 67c para. 1 sentence 1 SGB X). Accordingly, social data may be processed insofar as it is not unsuitable for the job center's performance of its tasks and no other means are reasonably available to it that are less burdensome for the data subject. Therefore, the defendant is justified in requesting bank statements when an application is submitted and in storing bank statements with information on incoming payments for a period of ten years after notification of the benefit award.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
Note:
Job centers are allowed to store bank statements and other important documents about the income of Hartz IV recipients for ten years.
This is also justified under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), because changes may still occur during this period
Continue reading: de.nachrichten.yahoo.com
1.2 – BSG, judgment of May 14, 2020 – B 14 AS 10/19 R
Basic income support for job seekers – social law administrative procedure – review procedure – revocation and reimbursement notice – applicability of Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II nF) to review applications submitted before August 1, 2016 – sufficient specificity
Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book 2 (SGB 2), in the version applicable from August 1, 2016, is not applicable to review applications submitted up to July 31, 2016.
Guidance (Editor):
The exclusion rule of Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 1 SGB II does not preclude a review application submitted before its entry into force, and the contested revocation and reimbursement decision must be revoked.
Summary:
With the introduction of Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) on August 1, 2016, the legislator, according to its legislative history, systematic structure, and materials, reacted to the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court (BSG), according to which the previously introduced time limit for the review of benefit award notices under the SGB II only applied to benefits payable retroactively. With this new regulation, the legislator also restricted the possibility of submitting other unlawful decisions under the SGB II for review without time limit. This constitutes a substantive change in the law and therefore only applies to review applications submitted before the regulation came into force if this is clearly expressed in the transitional provisions. This is not the case because the provision of Section 77 Paragraph 13 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not affect the changes made on August 1, 2016 by the 9th Amendment to the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), and the transitional provision of Section 80 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) to the 9th Amendment to the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not make any provision regarding Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG Munich, Judgment of 24.09.2019 – L 7 AS 417/19
Principle (Juris)
: Additional costs due to illness can be a factor to be considered when exercising discretion in deciding whether to reclaim a rental deposit loan.
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
2.2 – Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of April 29, 2020 – L 11 AS 656/19 – Appeal allowed.
Regarding the question of the assumption of garage costs.
The question of whether costs for accommodation and heating exist at all must be answered by determining whether the beneficiary can rent or retain the apartment without the other components such as a garage or parking space, while subletting represents a cost-reduction option – possibly limited in time.
Guidance (Editor)
1. As a first step, it must be checked whether the costs of a garage or an (underground) parking space, which are generally not included in the needs for accommodation and heating because parking spaces are not used for residential purposes, should exceptionally be added to these needs because the apartment in dispute can only be rented together with the garage or parking space ("lack of separability"). If, in exceptional cases, the expenses for a garage or parking space constitute accommodation needs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), then, in the second step of examining the eligibility of these expenses for reimbursement, it must logically follow that they are recognized insofar as the total expenses for the inseparably linked items of the rental agreement (apartment with parking space) are reasonable (this follows directly from Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II), and that if these total expenses are deemed unreasonable, the procedure according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II must be applied. Only within this framework, and not when considering the question of separability, is the possibility of subletting to be examined.
2. Subletting is not a measure to establish the separability of the garage rent from the apartment rent. The opposing view of the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court (judgment of September 21, 2018 – L 12 AS 346/18 –), which it initially developed with regard to Section 42 No. 4 in conjunction with Section 35 of Book Twelve of the German Social Code (SGB XII) (judgment of December 10, 2014 – L 2 SO 4042/14 –, cited according to juris), is not convincing, at least in the context of Book Two of the German Social Code (SGB II).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note: Legal principle (Juris):
Expenses for a garage or an underground parking space exceptionally constitute housing costs pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if the specific apartment in dispute can only be rented or retained together with the garage or parking space ("lack of separability"). The legal or factual possibility of subletting the garage or underground parking space is not systematically related to the question of separability in this sense, but rather to the question of whether the benefit recipient is obligated to reduce costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the SGB II. If the total expenses for the gross rent, including the non-separable expenses for a garage or underground parking space, are reasonable, they must be covered by the provider of basic income support under the SGB II.
2.3 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 06.02.2020 – L 3 AS 741/17
Assurance for necessary relocation – the new assurance has not been invalidated due to a change in the factual or legal situation; here, a new, coherent concept has come into effect
Guidance (Editor):
The defendant's obligation to uphold the assurance has not lapsed due to a change in the factual or legal circumstances. This is because the assurance was not based on a coherent concept for determining reasonable housing cost limits, but rather in light of the short-term housing needs arising from urban redevelopment. Therefore, the entry into force of a new, coherent concept has not altered the factual circumstances underlying the assurance.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Dortmund, decision of 16.04.2020 – S 33 AS 2069/19
Guidance (Attorney Johannes Christian Heemann, 01099 Dresden):
A job center cannot simply withdraw approved benefits when a person changes their place of residence. This follows from Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), according to which, in the event of a change of local jurisdiction, the previously responsible authority must continue to provide benefits until they are taken over by the newly responsible authority.
Legal tip:
Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court, judgment of 12 April 2011 – L 6 AS 45/10; Saxony-Anhalt Higher Social Court, decision of 27 January 2015 – L 4 AS 969/13 NZB; Berlin Social Court, decision of 11 September 2014 – S 147 AS 20920/14; Berlin Social Court, decision of 1 October 2018 – S 123 AS 9514/18 ER.
Regarding the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII): Social Court of Konstanz, judgment of November 17, 2015 – S 8 SO 1418/15 – legally binding
4. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 – Social Court Karlsruhe, Judgment of 30 January 2020 – S 11 AL 3366/18
Unemployment insurance: Imposition of a waiting period due to refusal of a vocational integration measure – important reason – unreasonableness of participation in the measure
Principle (Juris)
: Even taking into account existing prior knowledge, no excessive demands should be placed on the suitability prognosis of the assigned measure.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 14 April 2020 – L 18 SO 153/18 NZB
Guidance (Editor):
The social welfare office does not have to cover the costs of non-prescription medications such as Gelomyrtol forte capsules and Legalon forte capsules, nor the procurement of non-prescription test strips for blood glucose measurement.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. Decisions of the administrative courts on asylum law
6.1 – Administrative Court of Münster, decision of 12 May 2020 – 5 L 399/20
Guidance (Editor):
The obligation of an asylum seeker to live in a reception facility can be terminated for reasons of public health.
Source: ggua.de
7. Miscellaneous on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
7.1 – Note on: BSG 14th Senate, Judgment of 30.10.2019 – B 14 AS 2/19 R
Author: Dr. Bettina Karl, Ri'in LSG
Eligibility to cover double rent payments in the month of moving
Guiding principle for the note:
In exceptional cases, the benefit provider must cover double rent for the month of the move, amounting to the actual expenses for the entire month, in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
The regulations in Section 22 Paragraphs 1 and 6 of the SGB II regarding accommodation needs in moving situations are not mutually exclusive. The distinguishing criterion is the actual use of the accommodation during the month of the move.
Source: www.juris.de
7.2 – Social Court of Konstanz, decision of 02.04.2020 – S 1 AS 560/20 ER
Emergency stockpiling is not an additional requirement
Note by research assistant Madeleine Beul, Plagemann Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB, Frankfurt am Main
Continue reading: rsw.beck.de
7.3 – Guidance for EU citizens: SGB II benefit entitlements for unmarried parents with children.
This guidance is available as a PDF here: ggua.de
7.4 – Corona crisis: Pregnant asylum seeker does not have to live in a refugee reception center.
The Münster Administrative Court has ruled in an expedited procedure that a pregnant asylum seeker does not have to continue living in a refugee reception center due to the risk of corona infection.
Further information: www.juris.de
7.5 – Advocate General of the European Court of Justice on the exclusion of “EU foreigners” from benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II)
Advocate General Giovanni Pitruzzella is of the opinion that the exclusion of Union citizens who have a right of residence under Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 492/2011 from benefits violates the principle of equal treatment under Union law.
Further information: www.juris.de
See also:
German job center faces defeat before the ECJ
Continue reading: www.finanzen.net
7.6 – Sanctions under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – Karlsruhe has spoken, the case is closed? by Prof. Dr. Marc Sieper, Mag. rer. publ., JM 5/2020, 202.
Further information: www.juris.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
