1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic income support under the (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of September 17, 2020 – B 4 AS 11/20 R
A concept is considered sound if, in addition to legal requirements, it fulfills certain methodological prerequisites and is comprehensible.
Guidance (Editor)
: Even considering the so-called "Schürkes List," using the values of the present concept without a final evaluation of that concept does not meet methodological requirements. The Senate has already ruled that the values of the "Schürkes List" themselves were not determined systematically. This data collection does not sufficiently define the scope of observation and fails to adequately capture essential factors, such as housing standards.
Note: Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
BSG, judgment of 17 September 2020 (B 4 AS 11/20 R):
Unemployment benefit II – Accommodation and heating – Two-person household in Duisburg, North Rhine-Westphalia – Adequacy assessment – Coherent concept – Abstract adequacy – Methodological requirements – Judicial review
Guiding principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel:
To specify the appropriateness of housing and heating costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), a job center in a large metropolitan area may not rely solely on a database of available apartments of all sizes distributed throughout the entire city. Such a weekly updated, tabular list of affordable housing up to the rent ceiling for the respective household categories does not replace a systematic approach by the SGB II agency, nor does it replace the ongoing review of the coherence of the corresponding concept. For example, it does not replace the review of whether relevant factors such as housing standards are adequately considered, so that issues such as the representativeness and validity of the data collection and the implementation of the data analysis do not need to be critically examined.
Source: www.rechtrecht-im-internet.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Judgment of November 11, 2020 (L 10 AS 449/19):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
: Even income from scrap metal sales earned over only five months constitutes income from gainful employment within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II in conjunction with Section 11b Paragraphs 2 and 3 SGB II.
In this context, proceeds generated are to be considered income from a commercial enterprise within the meaning of Section 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). It must be assumed that this activity is ongoing, and therefore it is irrelevant whether the scrap metal trading was conducted legally or not.
In accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the Jobcenter must calculate an average income valid for the entire benefit period and, in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), take into account the deductions pursuant to Section 11b Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
2.2 – Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of 11 January 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.
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. A PC with printer, software and setup for €600 must be granted by the job center according to § 21 para. 6 SGB II.
2. Although the PC/laptop is only paid for once, it fulfills an ongoing need, namely the ability to attend school properly, participate equally in lessons and do homework without being disadvantaged compared to classmates.
now published
Note:
Money from the job center for the purchase of a computer, an article by attorney Helge Hildebrandt
More information: sozialberatung-kiel.de
Legal tip: Principle (Juris)
The costs for the purchase of an internet-enabled PC/laptop along with accessories for participation in school lessons generally constitute an additional need to be recognized under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
This need is to be met through a dedicated, one-off, non-repayable grant.
The proper use of the funds must be proven in the preliminary injunction proceedings, and any overpayment that may have occurred must be refunded.
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Social Court Halle, decision of November 16, 2020, S 22 AS 825/20 ER
Principle by lawyer Claudia Zimmermann:
It is equitable to impose the extrajudicial costs of the person seeking legal protection for conducting preliminary legal protection proceedings on the benefit provider if the benefit provider initiated the proceedings by means of an unjustified enforcement notice and, after the application was filed, declared its intention to respect the suspensive effect of a pending appeal.
3.2 – Social Court Nordhausen, Judgment of September 28, 2020, S 13 AS 1667/18
Principle by lawyer Claudia Zimmermann:
Setting the business fee at the level of the threshold fee for an objection procedure in which, with the exception of the client's income and assets, all assessment criteria are average, is not unreasonable within the meaning of Section 14 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the German Lawyers' Fees Act (RVG) (following the Federal Social Court, judgment of December 12, 2019, B 14 AS 48/18 R; following the Social Court of Halle, judgment 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 – Social Court Detmold, Judgment of 19.09.2019 – S 12 AL 105/19 – legally binding
Participation in working life – costs of accommodation
No entitlement to reimbursement of accommodation costs for the apartment during the external boarding school stay as part of the educational program
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 this is not an additional need due to the measure or disability (contra LSG Hamburg 29.05.2016 – 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 of 21 October 2020 – L 7 SO 2772/20 ER-B
Principle (Juris)
- An alternative, subjective joinder of claims is inadmissible in preliminary injunction proceedings. The issuance of a preliminary injunction against the alternatively named respondent is therefore precluded.
- The request in preliminary legal protection proceedings for a provisional assurance pursuant to Section 35 Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) lacks a legitimate interest in legal protection.
- Regarding the usual place of residence of a severely disabled and care-dependent beneficiary in the event of separation from their spouse.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. Decisions on asylum law and asylum seeker benefits
6.1 – SG Bremen v. 12/16/20 – S 39 AY 135/20 ER
No forced partnerships in communal accommodations – at least during the “Corona” pandemic
Under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), benefits are reduced by 10% if one is housed in communal accommodation, because everyone is supposed to share the household expenses – this cannot be demanded during a pandemic
Source: Attorney Volker Gerloff
7. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
7.1 – Limits of levying a contribution towards costs under youth welfare law from income earned in a workshop for disabled people
The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) has ruled that if a young person's income comes from work in a workshop for disabled people that serves the purpose of youth welfare services, the youth welfare provider must exercise its discretion to decide whether to waive the cost contribution in whole or in part.
Continue on Juris
7.2 – Tabular overview: Changes of status between residence permits in the context of educational and labor migration
As of December 17, 2020:
The question of the possibilities of "changing status" between different residence permits arises repeatedly in our advisory practice. The following guide is intended to provide some information on this topic. Since this is a schematic overview, it naturally cannot cover every individual situation, but only offers initial guidance. This does not replace an individual legal review.
Continue reading: ggua.de
7.3 – Claudius Voigt
The "spectre of welfare tourism" has (for now) been banished: Inadmissibility of the exclusions from benefits in German social law for persons with a right of residence under Article 10 of EU Regulation 492/2011 on the free movement of persons; also a comment on the decision of the ECJ of 6 October 2020 – C-181/19, Jobcenter Krefeld, Appeals Board against JD – first published in Asylmagazin 12/2020, pp. 446 ff.
More information: www.asyl.net
I wish all readers a merry and happy Christmas!
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
