1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic security according to (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of September 17, 2020 – B 4 AS 11/20 R
A concept is conclusive if, in addition to legal ones, it meets certain methodological requirements and is comprehensible.
Guidance (editor)
Even taking into account the so-called “Schürkes list”, using the values of the present concept without its final assessment does not meet the methodological requirements. The Senate has already decided that the values of the “Schürkes List” themselves were not determined as planned. This data collection does not sufficiently limit the subject of observation and does not adequately capture essential factors, such as the standard of housing.
Note: Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel BSG, judgment of September 17, 2020 (B 4 AS 11/20 R):
Unemployment benefit II - accommodation and heating - two-person household in Duisburg in North Rhine-Westphalia - appropriateness test - coherent concept - abstract appropriateness - methodological requirements - judicial control
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel In order to specify the adequacy of accommodation and heating needs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, a job center in a large metropolitan area may not only rely on a database of available apartments of all sizes, spread over the entire urban area. Such a weekly updated tabular list of affordable living space up to the upper rent limit for the respective household classes does not replace the planned approach of the SGB II provider or the ongoing examination of the conclusiveness of a corresponding concept: For example, whether decisive factors such as the standard of housing are also taken into account here taken into account so that points such as the representativeness and validity of the data collection and the execution of the data analysis do not have to be taken up critically.
Source: www.rechtrecht-im-internet.de
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, judgment of November 11, 2020 (L 10 AS 449/19):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel Even if income from scrap sales is only generated over five months, it is income from employment within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II in conjunction with Section 11b Paragraphs 2 and 3 SGB II.
Revenues generated in this context are to be regarded as income from a commercial operation within the meaning of Section 3 Alg II-VO. At this point, it must be assumed that the activity is sustainable, in view of which it is to be considered irrelevant whether the scrap trade was carried out legally or not.
Here, the job center must calculate an average income valid for the entire approval period in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Alg II-VO and, in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 Alg II-VO, the deductible amounts are in accordance with Section 11b Paragraphs 2 and 3 SGB II must be taken into account.
2.2 - Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of January 11, 2019 - L 6 AS 238/18 B ER - legally binding
School computers for low-income households
According to the certificate from the community school, the purchase of a PC/laptop is unavoidable - the applicant's unavoidable need is also an ongoing need.
Guideline (editor)
1. PC with printer, software and equipment for €600 must be granted by the job center in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II.
2. The PC/laptop is only paid for once, but it fulfills an ongoing need, namely being able to attend school properly, participate in classes on an equal basis and do homework without being disadvantaged compared to other students.
now published
Note:
Money from the job center for the purchase of a computer, a contribution from attorney Helge Hildebrandt
further: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
Legal tip: Guiding principle (Juris)
The costs of purchasing an internet-capable PC/laptop and accessories for attending school lessons generally represent an additional need to be recognized in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II.
This need must be met through a dedicated, one-off, non-repayable grant.
Appropriate use must be proven in interim legal protection proceedings and any overpayment that may have occurred must be repaid.
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 - Halle Social Court, decision of November 16, 2020, S 22 AS 825/20 ER
Guiding principle of lawyer Claudia Zimmermann
It is reasonable discretion to impose on the service provider the out-of-court costs of the person seeking legal protection for carrying out interim legal protection proceedings if the service provider has initiated the procedure through an unjustified enforcement notice and, after submitting the application, has declared that it wants to observe the suspensive effect of an appeal that is still pending .
3.2 – Nordhausen Social Court, judgment of September 28, 2020, S 13 AS 1667/18
Guiding principle of lawyer Claudia Zimmermann
The setting of the business fee in the amount of the threshold fee for an objection procedure in which, with the exception of the client's income and financial circumstances, all assessment criteria are average, is not unreasonable within the meaning of Section 14 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 RVG (affiliation with the Federal Social Court, judgment of December 12, 2019, B 14 AS 48/18 R; connection to the Halle Social Court, court decision of April 3, 2020, S 22 AS 3790/17).
Source: www.razimmermann.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion law
4.1 – Detmold Social Court, judgment of September 19, 2019 – S 12 AL 105/19 – legally binding
Participation in working life – accommodation costs
There is no entitlement to cover the accommodation costs for the apartment during the boarding school accommodation away from home as part of the educational measure
Guiding principle (editor)
Participation costs for a vocational training measure with boarding school accommodation according to §§ 127, 128 SGB III do not also include the costs of the apartment at the previous place of residence because it is not an additional requirement for the measure or disability (aA LSG Hamburg May 29, 2016 - L 2 AL 41/15).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
5. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision v. October 21, 2020 – L 7 SO 2772/20 ER-B
Guiding principle (Juris)
- An alternative subjective accumulation of applications is inadmissible in interim legal protection proceedings. The issuance of an interim order against the alternatively named respondent is not possible.
- The request in an interim legal protection procedure for a provisional assurance in accordance with Section 35 Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 SGB XII lacks the need for legal protection.
- On the habitual residence of a severely disabled beneficiary in need of care upon separation from a spouse.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. Decisions on asylum law and asylum law
6.1 – SG Bremen v. 12/16/20 – S 39 AY 135/20 ER
No “forced partnership” in collective accommodation – at least during “Corona”
According to AsylbLG, 10% is reduced if you are accommodated in collective accommodation. is because everyone should work together - that cannot be required during a pandemic
Source RA Volker Gerloff
7. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal books
7.1 – Limits to the collection of a youth welfare contribution from income earned in workshops for disabled people
The Federal Administrative Court has decided that if a young person's income comes from work in a workshop for disabled people that serves the purpose of providing youth welfare services, the youth welfare agency must use its due discretion to decide whether it is exempt from charging a cost contribution entirely or partially omits.
continue on Juris
7.2 – Tabular overview: Changing track between residence permits in the context of educational and employment migration
As of: December 17, 2020
The question of the possibilities of “changing lanes” between the different residence permits arises again and again in consulting practice. The following working aid is intended to provide information on this. Since this is a schematic overview, not every individual situation can of course be recorded, but only initial orientation can be provided. This does not replace an individual legal examination.
further: ggua.de
7.3 – Claudius Voigt
The “specter of social tourism” has (for now) been banished. Inadmissibility of benefit exclusions in German social law for people with a right of residence in accordance with Article 10 of the EU Freedom of Movement Regulation 492/2011; at the same time a comment on the decision of the ECJ of October 6, 2020 - C-181/19, Jobcenter Krefeld, objection office against JD - first published in Asylmagazin 12/2020, p. 446 ff.
further: www.asyl.net
I wish all readers a merry and happy Christmas!
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
