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 28/19 R
Legal protection in the debt collection process by the Federal Employment Agency for a job center.
Summary:
Due to the transfer of debt collection authority (§ 44b para. 4 sentence 1 SGB II), the Federal Employment Agency (BA) assumes the powers of the Job Center to enforce monetary claims and, in return, is liable for the proper conduct of these proceedings no differently than the Job Center would be if it were collecting the claims itself. Accordingly, an effective transfer of debt collection authority empowers the BA, as the so-called ordering authority, on the one hand, to request the main customs office to enforce enforceable benefit notices issued by the Job Center, insofar as claims of the agencies cooperating in joint facilities are to be enforced (§ 40 para. 8 sentence 1 SGB II). On the other hand, as the requesting authority, it is obligated to react at every stage of the proceedings to changes or errors that affect the legality of its enforcement orders and thus to fulfill the duty of care associated with initiating enforcement proceedings.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 12.12.2019 – B 14 AS 26/18 R
Unemployment benefit II – Accommodation and heating – Accommodation needs – Owner-occupied house property – Payments on interest claims from real estate loans terminated before receiving benefits
There is no entitlement to recognition of the monthly payment to the bank as an expense for accommodation under Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), because these are debts from previous obligations. Instead, the assumption of debts to secure accommodation was governed during the period in question by Section 22 Paragraph 5 of the SGB II (now Section 22 Paragraph 8 of the SGB II).
Guidance (Editor)
1. All accommodation-related payment obligations to which the person entitled to benefits is subject in that month as the relevant benefit period, which they must therefore fulfill as a due claim regardless of actual payment in that month, are to be recognized as accommodation needs in the respective month.
2. Applied to the housing needs of homeowners, this means that, similar to the situation with tenants, only those payment obligations for the respective month that are due in that month as claims relating to the owner-occupied residential property are to be recognized as a need within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Accordingly, installment payment obligations arising from a payment agreement concluded with the lender after the termination of a mortgage loan agreement, in order to repay the outstanding balance and accrued interest in installments, are not to be recognized as housing-related needs in subsequent payment months. This is because in these later months, the payments no longer serve to fulfill ongoing obligations from the loan agreement for the acquisition of residential property, but rather to pay off debts.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 31 March 2020 – L 7 AS 74/20 NZB
Principle (Juris):
A sanction amounting to 60% can be reinterpreted as a sanction amounting to 30% of the standard benefit in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 25 June 2019 – L 8 AS 615/17 – legally binding
Reduction of unemployment benefit II – Failure to report – Requirements for the notification of legal consequences | Section 32 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, Section 309 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 SGB III
Guidance note (Editor)
1. The Senate does not, moreover, share the view of the Social Court of Leipzig (decision of 09.09.2016 – S 22 AS 2098/16 ER) that the instruction on legal consequences must also include information on the provision of Section 309 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (applicable via Section 59 of the German Social Code, Book II).
2. The term "legal consequences" does not, by its very wording, encompass individual modalities of fulfilling the elements of the offense that would trigger the sanction. Furthermore, the notification does not specify what constitutes relevant reporting purposes or important reasons. Nor does the purpose of the notification of legal consequences require such information. Given the significant relevance of sanctions, its primary function is to warn the individual concerned (see also Munich Social Court, decision of July 12, 2017, S 40 AS 1532/17 ER)
Guiding principle (Editor):
It is not necessary to provide instruction regarding the regulation of Section 309 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
a A. SG Berlin, Judgment of 31.01.2020 – S 37 AS 13932/16 –
1. The provision of Section 309 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) must be explained in the legal consequences notice.
2. The case law of the lower courts, which contradicts the ruling of the Social Court of Leipzig, is no longer convincing in light of the Federal Constitutional Court's judgment of November 5, 2019. The provision in Section 309 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) offers the opportunity to declare a commitment to law-abiding behavior, which, according to the standards of the Federal Constitutional Court's judgment, precludes the imposition of a sanction. This provision is therefore of central importance for older cases in which, unlike the expert guidance issued on December 3, 2019, it is not yet mandatory to draw attention to the reduction of the sanction period upon declaration of a change in behavior.
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Braunschweig, decision of 30.04.2020 – S 43 AS 117/20 ER
Coronavirus crisis: Job center must pay for tutoring
Learning support – as the term itself suggests – is more than just tutoring and basically encompasses any support for learners.
Guidance note (editor):
Regarding the entitlement to learning support, here affirmed.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
Coronavirus crisis – school operations restricted: Social court judges in Braunschweig see a special need for support for socially disadvantaged students
Read more at: www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG NRW, judgment of March 16, 2020 – L 20 SO 397/19
No SGB XII subsidy for new Turkish passport.
The LSG Essen has ruled that foreigners living in an institution and receiving further necessary living expenses there are not entitled to a subsidy instead of a loan for obtaining a foreign passport.
Summary:
The State Social Court held that there is no entitlement to a subsidy. The necessity of additional subsistence within the meaning of Section 27b Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is not apparent. According to the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG), a person in need can be referred to applying for a substitute identity document instead of a passport, at least if this does not appear obviously futile. This is the case here, as the plaintiff, according to his own statements, did not even apply for a substitute identity document.
Furthermore, the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), no longer provides for supplementary benefits for eligible individuals who do not live in an institution. The same applies to those who live in institutions, such as the plaintiff. Any additional necessary living expenses are limited to those covered by the standard allowance outside of residential care. However, the cost of obtaining a foreign passport is not included in this, even if it significantly exceeds the fees charged in Germany and already factored into the standard allowance. An increase in the standard allowance pursuant to Section 27a, Paragraph 4 of the SGB XII is intended to cover ongoing, not one-off, expenses outside of institutions. Therefore, the assumption of higher costs is not an option for benefit recipients living in institutions. Otherwise, they would be in a better position than benefit recipients living outside of institutions.
The LSG Essen has granted leave to appeal.
juris editorial team.
Source: Press release from the LSG Essen dated May 19, 2020
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Asylum Law
5.1 – LSG NRW, Decision of 27.03.2020 – L 20 AY 20/20 B ER
Asylum seeker benefits without restrictions.
The LSG Essen has ruled that the granting of international protection by Greece does not justify any restriction of the benefits to be claimed in Germany under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
Summary:
According to the State Social Court, Section 1a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) presupposes, as an unwritten element of the offense, that a return to the country granting protection is legally and practically possible and reasonable for the individuals concerned. This could not be established for the applicants upon preliminary review. Withholding benefits for the socio-cultural component of the subsistence minimum is constitutionally prohibited. An exceptional justification does not arise from the fact that the benefit restriction sanctions behavior undesirable under asylum law – in this case, seeking asylum in Germany while already receiving protection from Greece. This is solely a sanction motivated by migration policy. The fundamental right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living in a dignified manner, however, cannot be relativized by migration policy considerations.
In any case, as long as a stay in Germany is tolerated under immigration law – as is the case with the applicants through the suspension of the deportation order – a restriction of the provision of basic necessities is not justified by the existence of a possibility of departure. In any event, the ongoing administrative court proceedings must still clarify whether those entitled to protection returning to Greece face inhuman or degrading treatment due to the living conditions for which the state is responsible, as recent findings suggest.
juris editorial team.
Source: Press release from the LSG Essen dated May 20, 2020
5.2 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court – Case No.: L 8 AY 32/20 B of 04.05.2020
Legal provisions: Section 3a AsylbLG, Section 2 AsylbLG – Keywords: Legal aid, standard benefit level 2 in collective accommodations
Guidance (Editor)
Granting of legal aid, because
1. The compatibility of this benefit calculation pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 lit. b and Paragraph 2 No. 2 lit. b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (or pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act) with the fundamental right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living in accordance with human dignity (Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law) is – measured against the procedural requirements established by the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court (see in detail Federal Constitutional Court of 9 February 2010 – 1 BvL 1/09, 1 BvL 3/09, 1 BvL 4/09 – juris Rn. 133-139) – controversially discussed in case law and legal literature (Social Court Landshut, decision of 24 October 2019 – S 11). AY 64/19 ER – juris para. 53 et seq.; Social Court of Hanover, decision of 20 December 2019 – S 53 AY 107/19 – juris para. 6 et seq.; Social Court of Frankfurt, decision of 14 January 2020 – S 30 AY 26/19 ER – juris para. 16 et seq.; Social Court of Munich, decision of 10 February 2020 – S 42 AY 82/19 ER – juris para. 53 et seq.; Frerichs in jurisPK-SGB XII, 3rd ed. 2020, § 3a AsylbLG para. 42 et seq.).
2. In some cases, a constitutionally compliant interpretation of the regulations is advocated, according to which the application of needs level 2, as an unwritten criterion, presupposes the actual and verifiable shared household management of the benefit recipient with other persons accommodated in the collective accommodation (Social Court Landshut, judgment of 23 January 2020 – S 11 AY 79/19 ER – juris para. 40 et seq.; Social Court Landshut, judgment of 28 January 2020 – S 11 AY 3/20 ER – juris para. 63 et seq.; Social Court Munich, judgment of 10 February 2020 – S 42 AY 82/19 ER – juris para. 56 et seq.; see also Frerichs in jurisPK-SGB XII, 3rd ed. 2020, § 3a AsylbLG para. 44).
Source: www.anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
6. Miscellaneous on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
6.1 – Seizure of Corona emergency aid is inadmissible
The Münster Tax Court has ruled that a seizure of bank accounts by the tax office, which also includes amounts of Corona emergency aid, is unlawful.
Further information: www.juris.de
6.2 Immediate aid does not replace Hartz IV (unemployment benefits)
Some job centers are denying basic income support because of coronavirus aid
New applications for basic income support are being rejected by various job centers if the applicants have previously applied for financial assistance from the federal government's emergency aid program.
More information: www.neues-deutschland.de
6.3 – Can the Corona emergency aid be counted towards unemployment benefit II? An article by lawyer Magnus C. Hömberg,
more information at: www.anwalt.de
6.4 – Living in refugee accommodations – Right to relocation due to inadequate infection prevention:
Advice and support for residents regarding preliminary legal protection and legal proceedings
More information: www.nds-fluerat.org
6.5 – Poor children in distance learning: Empty stomachs instead of laptops
No more school lunches, but a laptop is still needed: Distance learning threatens poor families with financial hardship. Government support is cumbersome and arrives too late.
Read more at: www.spiegel.de
Please hang in there and stay healthy!!!!
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
