1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Thuringian State Social Court, decision of January 8, 2021 – L 9 AS 862/20 B ER
Principle by lawyer Claudia Zimmermann:
1. The costs for the purchase of an internet-enabled computer and accessories for participation in pandemic-related homeschooling are not included in the standard allowance and generally constitute an additional need, which falls under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in a constitutionally compliant interpretation (following the decision of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia of May 22, 2020, L 7 AS 719/20 B ER; following the decision of the Federal Social Court of May 8, 2019, B 14 AS 13/18 R).
2. In the event of school closures, the purchase of an internet-enabled device is necessary to realize the child's right to education and equal opportunities. The existing option of collecting schoolwork in printed form at school is not a suitable substitute for the modalities of computer use.
3. The acquisition of an item for ongoing use can also constitute an ongoing need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). The sole determining factor is the existence of an atypical need situation that leads to a noticeable and lasting reduction in the subsistence minimum because a need arises for securing the subsistence minimum that deviates from average needs.
4. The need is unavoidable if the household of the person entitled to benefits only has one internet-enabled smartphone and third parties such as the school or school support association cannot provide a device. A smartphone is unsuitable for completing tasks and obtaining learning materials due to its small size.
Source: www.razimmermann.de
1.2 – Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of 11 November 2020 – L 6 AS 153/20 B ER and L 6 AS 356/20 B PKH – legally binding
No guarantee of adequate housing by way of an interim order during pandemic times
Guidance (Editor)
1. Hartz IV and Corona: Simplified checks due to Corona have limits – No guarantee for moving into unsuitable housing during Corona
2. The provision of Section 67 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not serve to suspend the general principles of basic income support law due to the crisis – in the sense of a special pandemic law (see also the decision of the Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen of September 22, 2020 – L 11 AS 415/20 B ER). Only the provisions explicitly mentioned in Section 67 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are to be modified or temporarily suspended. Section 67 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 refers exclusively to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and not, as the applicants believe, to Section 22 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
3. In preliminary legal protection proceedings, a social security provider under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) cannot generally be obliged to issue an assurance within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 4 of Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II), but at most to provisionally cover the actual costs of accommodation and heating.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Worth reading:
Berlin Social Court, decision of 20 May 2020, S 179 As 3426/20 ER
Job center must cover unreasonably high rent due to Corona.
The Berlin Social Court ruled in the case of a single mother that the job center must cover unreasonably high housing costs for at least six months due to the Corona pandemic.
According to the court, the claim arises from a special regulation introduced in response to the coronavirus crisis, which only came into effect at the end of March. With this provision, the legislature not only intended to benefit new applicants who have fallen into hardship due to the coronavirus pandemic, but also took into account that it is currently particularly difficult for benefit recipients to find more affordable housing.
More information: www.haufe.de
1.3 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 16 December 2020 – L 13 AS 261/19
Basic income support for job seekers – needs for accommodation and heating – home ownership – assumption of loan repayments
Principle (Juris)
1. Beyond the exceptional cases of largely completed real estate financing recognized in the case law of the Federal Social Court, there is no reason for further exceptions to the principle that benefits to secure the subsistence minimum do not serve the purpose of asset accumulation and that repayment payments therefore do not belong to the expenses for accommodation and heating within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
2. If, in order to secure accommodation that cannot be abandoned for health reasons, the assumption of repayment obligations is necessary, a loan may be granted in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 8 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
1.4 – Hamburg State Social Court, Judgment of 01.10.2020 – L 4 AS 354/18
Basic income support for job seekers – Exclusion of benefits for foreigners residing in Germany for the purpose of seeking employment – EU citizens – other right of residence – Exercise of parental custody of a child during school education
Principle (Editor)
1. Article 10 of Regulation No. 492/11/EU establishes a right of residence, independent of the purpose of job seeking, for every parent who has actual custody of a child exercising their right to attend school (cf. in this regard the Senate's decision of 27 May 2016 – L 4 AS 160/16 B ER).
2. The wording of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II aF) does not indicate that only residence rights under the Freedom of Movement Act/EU preclude an exclusion from benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 2 of the SGB II aF. Rather, Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 2 of the SGB II aF focuses solely on whether a residence right arises solely from the purpose of job seeking, without establishing further requirements regarding other residence rights independent of the purpose of job seeking. Other rights of residence that preclude an exclusion from benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) may also arise from Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (see also Federal Social Court, judgment of 3 December 2015 – B 4 AS 43/15 R; Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 27 January 2016 – L 19 AS 29/16 B ER; Higher Social Court of Schleswig-Holstein, decision of 17 February 2017 – L 6 AS 11/17 B ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
On October 6, 2020, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the exclusions from benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Book XII (SGB XII) for persons with a right of residence under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 492/2011 are contrary to EU law and therefore inadmissible. This welcome ruling affects EU citizens who have been employed in Germany and have children attending school here. The ruling will be implemented through a legislative amendment on January 1, 2021, but job centers and social welfare offices are already prohibited from applying these exclusions in such cases.
More information: www.ggua.de
1.5 – Hessian State Social Court, Judgment of 10 July 2019 – L 6 AS 565/17 – Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court – B 4 AS 81/20 R
Consideration of travel expenses in connection with medical and psychotherapeutic treatments as additional needs according to § 21 para. 6 SGB II, here denied
Principle (Editor):
1. If the expenses cited as the basis for the request for additional needs (and which can be reliably determined) consistently fall short of the amount that was included in the calculation of the standard benefit for corresponding expenses, there is no entitlement to higher benefits. In the present case, the resulting costs would already be covered by the allowances for healthcare and transportation.
2. Here, average monthly travel expenses of €21.37 were incurred. A total of €42.27 per month is included in the standard allowance for healthcare and transportation. Since this amount is not exceeded, the court sees no compelling need that would justify reimbursement of travel expenses under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
a. View (albeit with higher monthly travel expenses): Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 05.11.2020 – L 7 AS 83/17
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Social Court Magdeburg, Judgment of 13 November 2020 – S 5 AS 2702/17
Principle (Juris)
1. The rental housing market is not realistically represented if rental values from SGB II datasets clearly dominate. It cannot be readily assumed that these datasets represent a representative housing stock with basic, average, and high-end standards. If a realistic determination of the demand households in the lower segment is then applied to this distorted representation of the rental housing market, and the percentile limit is thus established, the concept is flawed.
2. A concept for the reasonable costs of heating is inconclusive if the limit is determined in the median of all collected values for apartments of basic, medium and high-end fittings plus standard deviation to take into account a different heating behavior of the service recipient, since less favorable energy concepts in the basic apartment standard and significant deviations in expenses according to the type of heating have then not been adequately considered.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.2 – SG Gießen, Judgment of 04.12.2020 – S 29 AS 700/19
Fictitious consideration of maintenance payments in the calculation of benefits under SGB II
Principle
1. Within the framework of her duty to cooperate pursuant to Section 60 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I), a single parent in need of assistance must provide the JobCenter with the name of the child's father known to her, so that possible maintenance claims can be realized.
2. This is not contrary to either the right to privacy or any obligation undertaken by the single mother not to mention the name of the father.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
Fictitious consideration of maintenance payments when calculating benefits under SGB II (German Social Code, Book II).
Continue to the press release
Legal tip:
See also Trier Social Court, judgment of August 3, 2015 – S 5 AS 150/15; contra Speyer Social Court, judgment of October 25, 2016 – S 6 AS 1011/15 – No exclusion from Hartz IV benefits due to the child's father's secrecy, read more here: www.dgbrechtsschutz.de
Brief comment from Harald Thomé/Tacheles:
There is no legal basis for a fictitious crediting of benefits; Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) exclusively governs the crediting of "income," but not of "non-income." The Federal Social Court (BSG) has repeatedly stated the same.
If another social benefit cannot be applied for by the job center itself under Section 5 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), for example, because the job center also does not know who the child's father is and therefore benefits under the Maintenance Advance Act are understandably and legally rejected, then the job center's only recourse is to claim reimbursement of costs due to intentionally created need for assistance, provided there is no important reason (Section 34 SGB II).
This fictitious calculation is definitely not permissible and would, in the realm of arbitrariness, permanently fall below the subsistence minimum.
2.3 – Social Court Dortmund, Judgment of 29 June 2020 – S 32 AS 3361/19
No entitlement to ALG II for work of such a small scope that it is completely subordinate and insignificant (Landessozialgericht [LSG] NRW, decision of 23.12.2015, L 12 AS 2000/15 B ER referring to BSG, judgment of 19.10.2010, B 14 AS 23/10 R).
Cash payment of wages
Principle (Editor)
1. The working time of only five hours per week and the remuneration of EUR 100.00 were decisive arguments against the assumption of a more than negligible activity. In addition, the wages were paid in cash (cf. LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 22.06.2017, L 31 AS 848/17 B ER).
2. There is no legal principle stating that a wage of EUR 100.00 always leads to the assumption of employee status.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.4 – Social Court Cottbus, judgment of November 19, 2020 (S 29 AS 1164/18):
Guiding principle of Dr. Manfred Hammel
on the recognition of an additional need due to nutritional reasons pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) due to an affliction with liver cirrhosis and pancreatitis, as well as a dependence on a particularly high-protein and low-fat diet as a result of these illnesses.
The "Recommendations for Granting Additional Needs Allowances for Costly Diets pursuant to Section 30 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII" (SGB XII), prepared by the German Association for Public and Private Welfare on September 16, 2020, should be considered an important guideline in this context. According to these recommendations, liver cirrhosis is a disease that is frequently associated with malnutrition.
Therefore, if a corresponding diagnosis is confirmed, an additional allowance of 10% of the standard allowance level 1 is recommended at this point.
Furthermore, the concurrent pancreatitis can lead to impaired digestion.
2.5 – Social Court Halle, judgment of March 10, 2020 (S 18 AS 858/15):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
: Section 48 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 4 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) in conjunction with Section 40 Paragraph 2 No. 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Section 330 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) is not applicable if the job center was aware that the recipient of unemployment benefit II (Alg II) had been granted a reduced earning capacity pension (Section 43 of the German Social Code, Book VI (SGB VI)) by the German Federal Pension Insurance Fund, because this retrospective withdrawal is precluded by the deemed fulfillment provision of Section 107 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X).
The job center's claim is deemed fulfilled in accordance with Section 107 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), regardless of whether such a claim for reimbursement has been asserted or whether such a claim has actually been fulfilled.
In this context, the aspect is irrelevant if, in individual cases, a claim for reimbursement under Section 102 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) remains unsatisfied in the relationship between the participating social security institutions.
The same applies to the payment of a retroactive pension payment to a recipient of unemployment benefit II.
2.6 – Marburg Social Court, decision of 18 December 2020 – S 8 AS 167/20 ER
Principle (Juris)
1. Transgender benefit recipients have the right to separate management of their administrative files before and after their change of name and/or civil status in order to enforce the prohibition of disclosure under Section 5 Paragraph 1 of the Transsexuals Act (TSG).
2. The determination of the manner in which access to the previous data is restricted is at the discretion of the authority.
3. The assertion of claims for repayments from benefit periods prior to the change of name and/or civil status establishes a legal interest of the authority in breaching the prohibition of disclosure and thus access to the earlier files.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – Nuremberg Social Court, judgment of November 27, 2020 (S 4 SO 81/18):
Guiding principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel
on the home sign language course for a toddler who has been hearing impaired since birth (degree of disability: 100; award of the markers "G", "B", "H", "Gl" and "RF") as a benefit for social participation according to § 113 para. 1 SGB IX, if this child who is not yet of school age is dependent on knowledge of German Sign Language (DGS) for the purpose of communication with his parents.
Section 113 paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) does not provide an exhaustive list of application examples (see "in particular").
There is no alternative to learning German Sign Language (DGS) if, due to the disability, a future impairment of speech comprehension in noisy environments, auditory attention, and directional hearing is to be expected. Furthermore, important considerations support the necessity of learning DGS as a complementary skill – despite the severely disabled child having bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) – such as the fact that communication in noisy environments, during bathing and swimming lessons, and in the event of a fall that renders both CIs inoperable, are impossible.
Communication within the parent-child relationship is a key aspect of the child's right to participation.
Pursuant to Article 24, paragraphs 3b) and c) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Germany is also obliged to promote the learning of German Sign Language (DGS) through appropriate measures and thus the linguistic identity of deaf people.
If a hearing-impaired child does not also have a mental disability, the public youth welfare agency is not responsible for providing integration assistance services in accordance with Section 35a of the German Social Code, Book VIII (SGB VIII).
A home-based sign language course is not a medical treatment that can be prescribed at the expense of the statutory health insurance provider according to § 27 SGB V in conjunction with § 32 SGB V. This can only be justifiable in the case of necessary speech therapy for "developing spoken language for linguistic communication and maintaining spoken language.".
3.2 – Duisburg Social Court, Judgment of 15 October 2019 – S 48 SO 49/16 – legally binding
Guidance (Editor):
The plaintiff's entitlement to be provided with a wheelchair as a benefit for participation in the community, thus as a benefit of integration assistance under Chapter Six of the German Social Code, Book XII.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
4. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
4.1 – Marburg Social Court – Judgment of 31 December 2020 – Case No.: S 9 AY 1/20
Legal provisions: Sections 3, 3a AsylbLG, Section 3 para. 4 AsylbLG – Keywords: AsylbLG, communal accommodation, collective accommodation, continuation of benefits, standard benefit level 1, standard benefit level 2
Principle (Editor)
1. In the Chamber's view, an increase in the entitlement to benefits or an adjustment of the monetary amounts results directly from the law.
2. Standard benefit level 1 in collective accommodations, because a constitutionally compliant interpretation of the standard requires that, as an unwritten element of the offense, the actual and verifiable communal household management of the beneficiary with others accommodated in the collective accommodation is required, for which the objective burden of proof (and in urgent proceedings the burden of presentation) lies with the benefit provider.
Guidance (Editor)
1. If a possible reassessment does not occur, then, with a view to safeguarding the subsistence minimum, at least an adjustment of the benefit rates must be made in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in its former version (see, in general, Higher Social Court of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, decision of September 26, 2019 – L 9 AY 3/19 B ER; Social Court of Stade, judgment of November 13, 2018 – S 19 AY 15/18; Social Court of Kassel, judgment of September 18, 2019 – S 12 AY 20/19 –; Frerichsin: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 3rd edition 2020 (as of December 15, 2020), Section 3a AsylbLG, marginal notes 95 et seq.).
2. The plaintiff is entitled to benefits taking into account the standard benefit level 1.
3. The court is convinced that there is no plausible evidence to support the assumption that persons living in communal accommodations generally manage their finances jointly like partners in a household receiving social assistance. In this respect, the chamber concurs with the prevailing opinion on this issue in social court jurisprudence, as far as can be ascertained. A constitutionally compliant interpretation of the provision is possible in the present case and requires that, as an unwritten element of the offense, the actual and demonstrable shared household management of the benefit recipient with other persons housed in the communal accommodation is presupposed, for which the objective burden of proof in the main proceedings lies with the benefit provider (see LSG Meckl.-Vorp., decision of 10 June 2020 – L 9 AY22/19 B ER; Sächs. LSG, decision of 23 March 2020 – L 8 AY 4/20 B ER; SG Kassel, judgment of 19 November 2020 – S 12 AY 22/20 –; SG Landshut, decision of 28 January 2020 – S 11 AY 3/20 ER; decision of 23 January 2020 – S 11 AY 79/19 ER; decision of October 24, 2019 – S 11 AY 64/19 ER; Social Court Frankfurt, decision of January 14, 2020 – S 30 AY 26/19 ER; Social Court Bremen, decision of July 3, 2020 – S 39 AY 55/20 ER; Social Court Munich, decision of February 10, 2020 – S 42 AY 82/19 ER –; Social Court Freiburg (Breisgau), decision of January 20, 2020 – S 7 AY 5235/19 ER –; Oppermann/Filges in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 3rd ed. 2020, § 2 AsylbLG para. 170; Frerichsin: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 3rd ed. 2020, § 3a AsylbLG Rn. 41 ff.).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam, Göttingen
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on the Child Supplement
5.1 – North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, Judgment of 10 December 2020 – L 7 BK 1/19 – Appeal allowed
Persons who, in principle, do not have access to benefits to secure their livelihood under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), cannot claim a child supplement.
The general exclusion of persons incapable of working and subject to the legal framework of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), from the child supplement is not unconstitutional (see also Social Court Koblenz judgment of 18 May 2006 – S 11 KG 14/05).
Principle (Editor):
1. The exclusion of persons who, even within a shared household, have no access to benefits to secure their livelihood under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), from the child supplement is not unconstitutional. In particular, there is no violation of the general principle of equality under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law (GG).
2. Since benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) can generally only be received by persons who are incapable of working – apart from exceptions not relevant here (§ 21 sentence 1 SGB XII) – this purpose of the child supplement would be rendered meaningless if it could also be claimed by persons entitled to benefits under the SGB XII.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
6. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
6.1 – Hartz IV for disabled part-time students – Hessian State Social Court, decision of 15 December 2020 – L 9 AS 535/20 B ER
The LSG Darmstadt has ruled that part-time students who are not eligible for BAföG funding can claim unemployment benefit II.
Summary:
According to the State Social Court, trainees whose education is eligible for funding under the Federal Training Assistance Act (BAföG) are not entitled to benefits to secure their livelihood beyond the benefits provided under Section 27 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). The legal provision aims to ensure that educational assistance is only guaranteed through the designated system (BAföG). Part-time studies, however, are not eligible for funding under the BAföG because they do not fully utilize the student's labor. Hartz IV benefits are not excluded in these cases.
Whether to study part-time is to be decided for each semester and does not depend on the circumstances of the entire course of study.
The decision is final.
Source: Press release of the LSG Darmstadt No. 1/2021 dated 12.01.2021
Principle (Editor):
Recognition of the commencement of part-time studies when granting benefits to secure subsistence (cf., in effect, Thuringian State Social Court, decision of January 15, 2007 – L 7 AS 1130/06 ER).
Guidance (Editor)
1. For each semester that does not meet the requirements of Section 2 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 of the Federal Training Assistance Act (BAföG), benefits under the BAföG are excluded, and the exclusion from benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not applicable (similarly, Thuringian Higher Social Court, decision of January 15, 2007 – L 7 AS 1130/06 ER). This separate consideration of each semester also corresponds to the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG), according to which eligibility for funding under Section 2 Paragraph 5 of the BAföG, and thus the exclusion from benefits, may cease during a leave of absence semester (BSG, judgment of March 22, 2012 – B 4 AS 102/11 R).
2. The opposing view, according to which eligibility for funding under Section 2 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 of the Federal Training Assistance Act (BAföG) only ceases if the entire training is carried out on a part-time basis (in this sense, presumably, the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court, judgment of August 6, 2014 – L 18 AS 1672/13; Lower Saxony-Bremen Higher Social Court, decision of June 9, 2009 – L 13 AS 39/09 B ER), would, however, lead to the hardly justifiable result that a training course that is started as part-time training would be eligible for funding in its entirety if only one semester – possibly even the last one – were carried out full-time.
3. The even more far-reaching view that only those training courses which can only be carried out on a part-time basis are not eligible for funding under Section 2 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 of the Federal Training Assistance Act (SG Berlin, Judgment of August 26, 2019 – S 34 AS 2277/18), however, finds no support in either the wording or the legislative history of Section 2 Paragraph 5 of the Federal Training Assistance Act.
Full text here: sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
6.2 – Job center pays too little for rent – Werra-Meißner district
Welfare recipients have sued over insufficient rent reimbursement and won their case
More information: www.neues-deutschland.de
Note:
Attorney Sven Adam comments:
Press release – Jobcenter Werra-Meißner withdraws in appeal proceedings before the Hessian State Social Court regarding housing costs in subsistence benefits
In the long-running dispute over the limits of reasonable housing costs for social welfare recipients in the Werra-Meißner district, the Werra-Meißner Job Center has withdrawn its appeal from a 2016 case before the Hessian State Social Court (case number: L 6 AS 276/18). The dispute concerned housing cost benefits that the Job Center had reduced based on an expert opinion from the company Analyse und Konzepte from March 2014.
Continue at: anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
6.3 – Housing allowance limits rise: Job center increases rent limit at the turn of the year – Saalekreis
For the purposes of housing costs (KdU), the Saalekreis district is divided into two parts according to the old district boundaries: North and South.
In the southern part of the district, the job center now covers a gross rent of €318.50 for a single-person household. That's €5 more than before. A two-person household receives up to €358.80, and a five-person household €538. In contrast, the income thresholds in the former Saale district have increased significantly in some areas. These are €314 for a single person, €373.20 for two people, and €592 for five people.
Continue reading: www.mz-web.de
6.4 – Thomé Newsletter on: FFP2 masks and the SGB II/SGB XII and AsylbLG – standard benefit rates
As of January 18, 2021, a statewide FFP2 mask mandate is in effect in Bavaria; these masks must be worn in shops and on public transport (https://t1p.de/gemi). It is expected that this FFP2 mask mandate will be introduced nationwide, either fully or partially.
FFP2 masks differ significantly from regular masks, as they filter out up to 95 percent of pollutants and aerosols in the ambient air. However, these FFP masks differ from regular face masks not only in function but also in price. FFP2 masks cost around €2-3 online, and up to €6 in pharmacies.
One mask is required per day.
FFP2 masks are not included in the standard allowance. Therefore, individuals receiving benefits under SGB II/SGB XII and AsylbLG have an independent entitlement to reimbursement of these costs. This entitlement is granted under SGB II via hardship allowance according to § 21 para. 6 SGB II, under SGB XII via a deviation from the standard allowance according to § 27a para. 4 SGB II, and under AsylbLG via other benefits according to § 6 para. 1 AsylbLG.
Further information can be found here: tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
Note:
Katja Kipping also calls for financial assistance for Hartz IV recipients when FFP2 masks are mandatory.
More information: www.rnd.de
Worth reading:
Mask or nothing, an article by Luisa Thomé, freelance journalist
Imagine if Markus Söder were poor. Admittedly, a somewhat bizarre thought, but during a global pandemic, nothing seems impossible anymore.
Even in wealthy Bavaria, around 25,000 people have lost their jobs since the start of the pandemic, and nearly 300,000 are currently living on welfare. And if these people haven't stocked up on expensive FFP2 masks in recent days, they'll face a problem starting tomorrow: they won't be allowed to go shopping anymore.
Even without a pandemic, there was no money for shopping and travel
More information: www.zdf.de
Breaking news:
No mask allowance for welfare recipients (simply appalling – editor's note)
Those who are poor and live on welfare (Hartz IV) must continue to save up for masks from their subsistence allowance… or simply eat less. The SPD-led Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs sees no reason to change this…
Excerpt from the Federal Press Conference of January 13, 2021 – Full version here: www.facebook.com and here: twitter.com
6.5 – Deportation of unaccompanied minor refugees only if suitable accommodation is available
The European Court of Justice has ruled that unaccompanied minor refugees may only be deported to their country of origin if a suitable reception facility is available for them there.
Otherwise, they should be granted temporary residence, according to the ECJ.
Further information: www.juris.de
6.6 – No waiting period for EU citizens already entitled to child benefit
The Münster Finance Court has ruled that the three-month waiting period for EU foreigners who have moved to Germany does not apply if they were already entitled to child benefit before establishing their residence in Germany.
Continue on Juris
6.7 – New values for accommodation costs under SGB II / SGB XII in Wuppertal
Due to significantly increased rents and a new rent index, the values for accommodation costs in SGB II and SGB XII have been raised.
The current rates, valid from January 1, 2021, can be found here in the Wuppertal Job Center's KdU guidelines: wuppertal.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de
Several comments regarding the guideline:
The association Tacheles considers the values set therein to be too low. This is based on several reasons: www.njuuz.de
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
