1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 20 October 2020 – L 9 AS 98/18
Claim for reimbursement due to socially unacceptable behavior for benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – Transfers to third parties in the amount of EUR 24,000.00 – Creating the need for assistance – Creating the need for assistance – Waste of assets – Exceptional case
To assert a claim for compensation in cases of socially unacceptable behavior towards the victim of a so-called romance scam
Providing a person with €24,000.00 interest-free without first securing any security, and thereby becoming dependent on social assistance under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), constitutes socially unacceptable behavior within the meaning of Section 34 of the SGB II only in exceptional cases.
No claim for reimbursement due to socially unacceptable behavior on the part of the job center if one has fallen victim to a fraudster.
Guiding principle (Editor):
A claim for compensation under Section 34 SGB II due to waste of assets is only considered in exceptional cases.
Guidance (Editor)
1. The plaintiff brought about her need for assistance by transferring €24,000.00 to a third party, since, regardless of whether the monthly needs according to the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) can be used as a benchmark for the period for which the assets must suffice (see Higher Social Court of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, judgment of May 7, 2019 – L 10 AS 632/16).
2. The plaintiff's conduct is not to be regarded as socially unacceptable.
3. It is generally not the responsibility of the state authorities tasked with fulfilling the aforementioned duty to verify whether the need for assistance arose in a verifiable manner. Consequently, a claim for reimbursement due to socially unacceptable behavior can only be based on the expenditure of assets in absolutely exceptional cases.
4. In particular, it is impermissible – not least in light of the general right to privacy – for the state to make any moralizing judgments as to which expenditures are acceptable and which are not. In this respect, it is not decisive what the money was spent on and whether this is understandable, naive, morally commendable, or reprehensible. Rather, the line should only be drawn where assets are squandered with the causal purpose of creating the need for assistance (see also the Higher Social Court of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, loc. cit., referring to Section 31 Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
1.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 20 October 2020 – L 9 AS 785/20 – Appeal allowed
Regarding the legal question of taking into account income tax arrears for past periods when calculating income from self-employment (§ 13 SGB II in conjunction with § 3 para. 2 Alg II-VO) or when deducting them from income (§ 11b para. 1 sentence 1 no. 1 SGB II)
Consideration of an income tax arrears payment as a business expense.
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. Income tax is a personal tax pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the Income Tax Act and not a business-related tax (see Social Court Karlsruhe, judgment of 16 December 2015 – S 12 AS 4451/14).
2. Based on this and in view of the conclusive regulation of income tax in Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB II, the – additional or alternative – consideration of the subsequent payment of income tax is therefore excluded both at the level of Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 5 SGB II and as a business expense within the meaning of Section 3 Paragraph 2 Alg II-V.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
See also the decision of the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg) of December 6, 2018 – L 31 AS 402/18 NZB – It is generally accepted that, according to Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), only taxes payable in the benefit period that relate to income earned during that period can be deducted. Tax arrears for past periods are not covered by this provision, as they are not paid on current income. Another view is that an income tax arrears constitute a business expense within the meaning of Section 3 Paragraph 2 of the German Regulation on Unemployment Benefit II (Alg II-V) if the arrears result from currently pursued self-employment (Chemnitz Social Court, judgment of May 25, 2016 – S 35 AS 3984/14).
1.3 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 27 January 2021 – L 13 AS 173/19 – Appeal allowed
Basic income support for job seekers – final decision on initially provisionally granted benefit claims – calculation of an average income – one-off income
Principle (Juris)
1. If a one-off payment does not lead to the loss of entitlement to benefits in a benefit month because, according to Section 11 Paragraph 3 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), it is to be divided equally over a period of six months and taken into account monthly with a corresponding partial amount, there is no exceptional case within the meaning of Section 41a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), in which an average income is not to be calculated.
2. The provision of Section 11 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) regarding the consideration of a one-off income in the following month also applies to provisional benefits.
3. When calculating an average income in accordance with Section 41a Paragraph 4 Sentences 1 and 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), partial amounts of a one-off income that are to be taken into account during the benefit period must also be included.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Legal tip:
a. Opinion: The Senate does not follow the opinion expressed in the Federal Employment Agency's Technical Instructions on Section 41a SGB II (Section 5.1) that, when calculating average income according to Section 41a Paragraph 4 SGB II, one-off payments must always be taken into account in or from the month of receipt, because provisional benefits are provided subject to repayment anyway and therefore there is no case under Section 11 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 SGB II (as also reached by the Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of August 24, 2017 – L 19 AS 2006/16 – and the Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, judgment of March 18, 2020 – L 3 AS 2746/18 [each concerning the predecessor provision of Section 11 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 SGB II a. F.]).
1.4 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 21 January 2021 – L 7 AS 5/21 B ER
LSG NSB: Asset assessment during the pandemic – Instructions from the Federal Employment Agency on determining the asset allowance are not in accordance with the law
Guidance (Editor):
The view held by the Job Center, based on the professional guidelines of the Federal Employment Agency, that there is an asset allowance of €60,000 for the first household member to be considered, finds no support in either the wording of the law or its explanatory memorandum. This can mean that, in individual cases, even assets exceeding €60,000 may be considered irrelevant (e.g., business assets).
On the other hand, the simplified review procedure does not mean that general principles of basic income support law are suspended due to the crisis – in the sense of a special pandemic law – nor that job centers and courts must knowingly grant or award SGB II benefits unlawfully, which would later have to be revoked and reimbursed pursuant to Section 67 Paragraph 5 Sentence 5 of the SGB II (Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of September 22, 2020 – L 11 AS 415/20 B ER; Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of November 11, 2020 – L 6 AS 153/20 B ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Principle (Juris)
1) The simplified application procedure according to § 67 para. 2 SGB II with the applicant's self-declaration that they do not have significant assets does not cover persons whose need for assistance has already been denied in the past due to existing assets.
2) A tax-free allowance of €60,000 for the first household member to be taken into account during the Corona pandemic is not provided for by law.
3) Orienting oneself towards previous exemption limits of the wealth tax, which has been abolished for years, is not a suitable standard for determining protected assets under basic social security law.
Note:
Hartz IV: Principles of asset assessment during the Corona pandemic
During the Corona pandemic, an asset check for Hartz IV applications should only take place in cases of substantial assets.
Further information: www.juris.de
Legal tip:
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
The intended purpose of the “simplified procedure” regulated in Section 67 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is to provide preferential treatment to applicants who, as a result of pandemic-related income losses, apply for benefits under Sections 19 et seq. of the SGB II.
Assets within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are only to be considered substantial within the meaning of Section 67 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2, first half-sentence of the SGB II, if the corresponding funds are so significantly above the asset exemption limits according to Section 12 Paragraph 2 of the SGB II that the granting of subsistence-securing benefits must be considered unjustified.
In individual cases, however, this may well mean that, in the case of substantial business assets, assets exceeding EUR 60,000 may be considered insignificant, while in the case of an unemployed applicant living with her needy parents, a significant increase in the asset allowances according to § 12 para. 2 SGB II is not warranted.
A blanket transfer of asset allowances applicable to housing benefit to the law governing basic income support for jobseekers is not justifiable. Public welfare law always requires a thorough examination and proper assessment of the applicant's personal and economic circumstances that are decisive in each individual case.
1.5 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 18 January 2021 – L 16 AS 654/20 B ER
Unemployment benefit II – Accommodation and heating – Arrears due to unlawful denial of benefits – Assumption of interest and costs incurred through the dunning procedure as accommodation costs
Guiding principle (Editor):
Regarding the assumption of interest and costs incurred through the dunning procedure as costs of accommodation pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), here affirmed.
Guidance (Editor)
1. Under certain conditions, the assumption of court and lawyer fees incurred in connection with accommodation costs may also be considered as a so-called annex to the costs pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
2. If rent arrears arise as a result of an unjustified denial of benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) and the landlord therefore files an eviction lawsuit, the court costs imposed on the benefit recipient must also be taken into account as a one-time expense for accommodation in the month in which the arrears are due (see Baden-Württemberg Higher Social Court, judgment of June 27, 2014 – L 9 AS 1742/14, para. 56 juris, referring to the Federal Social Court, judgment of June 17, 2010 – B 14 AS 58/09 R, regarding the assumption of legal, court, and enforcement costs to secure accommodation in the case of the assumption of rent arrears pursuant to Section 22 para. 5 SGB II (old version); Bavarian Higher Social Court, judgment of January 30, 2014 – L 7 AS 676/13).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of 11.02.2021 – S 12 AS 213/21 ER
Due to the stricter requirements for wearing certain types of face coverings (MNBs) introduced at the end of January 2021 because of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic (Corona pandemic), the applicant seeks, in preliminary legal proceedings, from the provider of basic income support for job seekers under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the provision of corresponding masks on a needs-based basis, which is granted here!!
Hartz IV recipients receive an additional €129 per calendar month for FFP2 masks – 20 FFP2 masks per week for Hartz IV recipients
Even an unrestricted reference to surgical masks conforming to DIN EN 14683:2019-10 would violate the law. This would infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed right of job seekers to equal participation under Article 3 in conjunction with Article 20, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Basic Law.
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. Job seekers have a subjective right to the provision of 20 medical face masks per week to meet their special protection needs against infection with the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which meet the requirements of the standards FFP2 (DIN EN 149:2001), KN95, N95 or a comparable standard.
2. The providers of basic income support remain free to grant, instead of this benefit in kind, an increase in unemployment benefit 2 by EUR 129 per calendar month to cover the additional needs.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
20 FFP2 masks per week for recipients of Hartz IV benefits.
Following a successful emergency application, the job center must, in addition to the standard benefit rate, either send 20 FFP2 masks weekly as a benefit in kind or pay an additional €129 per month as a cash benefit for this purpose.
In a decision published today, the 12th Chamber of the Social Court of Karlsruhe granted the urgent application of a job seeker for the provision of FFP2 masks until the beginning of summer on June 21, 2021, in an individual case requiring hygiene measures due to the epidemic.
The court believes that a particularly high need for 20 FFP2 masks per week has been credibly demonstrated. Without face coverings of this standard, recipients of basic income support are disproportionately restricted in their fundamental right to social participation. After three months of lockdown, job seekers must be able to participate in community life again in a manner commensurate with their social minimum standard of living.
They should not have to be referred to everyday masks or surgical masks.
Continue on Juris
2.2 – Hamburg Social Court, decision of 19 October 2020 – S 13 AS 2583/20 ER
Principle (Editor):
The so-called Corona emergency aid should only be used to cover operating costs, since operating expenses can only be deducted from operating income to the extent that they are not already covered by the Corona emergency aid (Social Court Leipzig, decision of May 27, 2020, S 24 AS 817/20 ER). This means that the Corona emergency aid is not to be considered income, but only when determining the operating expenses to be deducted from income.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
2.3 – Hamburg Social Court, decision of 19 August 2020 – S 22 AS 2045/20 ER
Unemployment benefit II – additional needs allowance for unavoidable ongoing special needs – no analogous application for one-off needs – costs for the purchase of a PC for a schoolchild
SG Hamburg: Loans only for the purchase of an internet-enabled laptop, a printer, and a printer cartridge
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. The purchase of a computer and a printer should, in principle, be financed from the regularly granted standard benefits.
2. The costs for the purchase of a PC for a schoolchild are not an unavoidable ongoing need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (as in: Social Court Hamburg, decision of May 25, 2020 – S 41 AS 1144/20 ER).
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
a. Opinion: Thuringian State Social Court, decision of January 8, 2021 – L 9 AS 862/20 B ER, North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of May 22, 2020, L 7 AS 719/20 B ER, Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, decision of January 11, 2019 – L 6 AS 238/18 B ER and Chemnitz Social Court, decision of November 12, 2020 – S 10 AS 983/20 ER, Halle Social Court, judgment of August 25, 2020, file no.: S 5 AS 2203/18
Note:
Labor Minister Heil announces that job centers will now pay for digital devices.
2.4 – SG Braunschweig, Judgment of 18 January 2021 – S 52 AS 1405/19
Principle (Juris)
1. “Income to be taken into account” within the meaning of Section 41a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II is the income to be credited in the individual months of the benefit period according to general rules (Sections 11 et seq. SGB II).
2. For the determination of the amount of "income to be taken into account" within the meaning of Section 41a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II from self-employment, Section 3 Alg II-V is therefore to be applied without restrictions (contrary to the decision of the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court of 11 May 2020 – L 18 AS 732/18 – juris).
3. “Total income during the benefit period within the meaning of Section 41a Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) refers to the income that is generally to be taken into account during the benefit period according to the provisions of Sections 11 and 11a in conjunction with the Regulation on Unemployment Benefit II (Alg II-V). The total amount of this income (for each type of income) is then to be distributed across the months of the benefit period in accordance with the guidelines developed by the Federal Social Court (BSG, judgment of July 11, 2019 – B 14 AS 44/18 R – juris Rn. 21, 41) and subsequently adjusted by the deductions (Section 11b SGB II).”.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
2.5 – Social Court Lüneburg, Judgment of 17 December 2020 – S 44 AS 518/17
Matters under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – no litigation fees
Transfer of legal aid to UdG
Principle (Juris)
1. A loan is generally considered to exist even if the repayment obligation is deferred until payment is made by the social security agency responsible for benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II). The decisive factor is that neither a gift nor a maintenance payment is involved.
2. The tension between the subsidiarity of state aid and other forms of assistance cannot be resolved by referring those in need to services provided by social associations or relatives, who make these available until the responsible agency provides the assistance.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
2.6 – Nuremberg Social Court, Judgment of 29 January 2021 – S 22 AS 1385/19
Guiding principle (Editor)
1. For so-called "top-up recipients", no deduction of an operating cost credit if they have accumulated this credit entirely from their own funds – and not from social benefits – through corresponding monthly advance payments.
2. In accordance with the legislative intent, the Chamber is of the opinion that the new Section 22 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) must also apply to the plaintiffs, who, as supplementary benefit recipients, have built up their operating cost credit entirely from their own resources. Their situation is comparable to that of a benefit recipient who covers the unreasonable portion of their housing costs from their standard allowance.
2.7 – Social Court Berlin, Judgment of 20 January 2021 – S 123 AS 13858/17
Relationship between profit determination according to the ALG-II-VO (unemployment benefit II regulation) and the top-up calculation according to SGB II (German Social Code, Book II), profit determination for self-employed individuals, preliminary approval, final determination, income from self-employment, average income, top-up calculation
Principle (Juris):
1. Even after the introduction of Section 41a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), Section 3 Paragraph 4 of the Unemployment Benefit II Ordinance (ALG-II-VO) remains applicable and authoritative for the fundamental determination of the income of self-employed persons. Section 41a Paragraph 2 of the SGB II is complemented by Section 3 Paragraph 4 of the ALG-II-VO in an area where the latter does not itself contain any independent regulation. The determination of profit for self-employed persons continues to be regulated exclusively in Section 3 of the ALG-II-VO.
2. The question of the conflict between Section 41a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Section 3 Paragraph 4 of the German Ordinance on Unemployment Benefit II (ALG-II-VO) has not been conclusively resolved by the Federal Social Court (BSG) (judgment of July 11, 2019 – B 14 AS 44/18 R). In this respect, the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg) (judgment of May 11, 2020 – L 18 AS 732/18) cannot be followed. In the Chamber's view, both the legislative history and systematic structure, as well as the purpose and intent of the provisions in Section 41a Paragraph 4 SGB II and Section 3 Paragraph 4 ALG-II-VO, argue against the LSG's interpretation.
3. For a self-employed person, income and expenses typically do not correspond in a given month. A solution based solely on Section 41a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), with its monthly consideration of income, would significantly distort the economic picture of the activity.
4. On the one hand, this could have a significant negative impact on the self-employed person, and on the other hand, it could make the final calculation of benefits susceptible to manipulation to the detriment of the benefit provider due to the certain degree of control over income available to the self-employed person.
Note:
cf. SG Braunschweig, judgment of 18 January 2021 – S 52 AS 1405/19
2.8 – Social Court Regensburg, judgment of 15 July 2019 – S 11 AS 519/18
Guidance note (Attorney Johannes Christian Heemann, Dresden):
The (potential) breach of a duty to cooperate by the beneficiary does not constitute sufficient grounds within the meaning of Section 88 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) and does not, in principle, justify inaction by the authority, since in such cases it has the power to deny the requested benefits in accordance with the provisions of Sections 60 and 66 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) (Hessian State Social Court, Decision of March 27, 2013 – L 6 AS 400/12 B-ER; Berlin Administrative Court, Judgment of March 3, 2015 – 21 K 65.14; Meyer-Ladewig et al./B. Schmidt, 12th edition 2017, SGG Section 88, marginal note 7a).
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
3.1 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 07.01.2021 – L 3 AL 5/19
Maintenance allowance for a legal trainee
Principle (Editor):
The full granting of a maintenance allowance to legal trainees for the last month of training in which the training relationship ends on the day of passing the second state examination in law does not constitute remuneration for the period after the termination of the training relationship that would lead to the suspension of benefits pursuant to Section 157 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book III.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Legal tip:
see also: Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of September 19, 2017 – L 10 AL 239/16 and Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, judgment of July 14, 2020 – L 7 AL 121/18
3.2 – LSG NRW, judgment November 23, 2020 – L 20 AL 53/19
No double bonus for further training success
Anyone taking a two-part final examination is not entitled to a bonus for the first part of the examination due to the successful completion of an intermediate examination.
Summary:
She does not meet the eligibility requirements because she did not pass an intermediate examination regulated by federal or state law. While the first part of the final examination did take place during her continuing education, it was a component of the final examination, which was simply conducted in separate sessions, thus rendering the intermediate examination invalid. Section 131a, paragraph 3, number 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) cannot be interpreted broadly to include the first part of a final examination. By its very definition, a part of a final examination cannot be considered an intermediate examination. The regulation cannot be applied analogously either. It cannot be established that the legislature intended passing the first part of a final examination to trigger the bonus without exception, even in the case of short continuing education programs, and that a corresponding explicit provision was inadvertently omitted from the law. Furthermore, the interests involved are not comparable. The bonus for successful intermediate examinations serves to motivate participants to continue and complete their training. In the plaintiff's case, such a measure was not necessary, as there were only about two months between the first part and the start of the second part of the final examination.
The LSG has granted leave to appeal.
Source: Press release from the LSG Essen dated February 5, 2021
Legal tip:
see LSG Baden-Württemberg, 12.11.2019 – L 13 AL 142/19
4. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
4.1 – Nuremberg Social Court, Judgment of 19 October 2020 – S 5 AY 137/20
No entitlement to adjusted higher standard allowances under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
Guiding principle (Editor):
It is solely the responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS), within the scope of its legislative competence granted under Section 3 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), to determine the amount of the monetary payments (Hamburg Social Court, decision of July 8, 2019 – S 28 AY 48/19 ER -). It is not the responsibility of the administration to determine the amount of the monetary payments under Section 3 Paragraph 5 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) itself without legal provisions.
Source: socialcourtsability.de
Note:
a. Opinion: The social courts evidently see things differently. Their decisions calculate back payment claims directly from the mandatory regulations in Section 3 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for updating the standard benefit rate based on the rate of change according to Section 28a of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), in conjunction with the respective applicable regulations for updating the standard benefit levels (see Social Court Stade, Judgment of November 13, 2018 – S 19 AY 15/18 –; Social Court Stade, Decision of March 6, 2019 – S 19 AY 1/19 –; Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, Decision of November 1, 2018 – L 8 AY 37/18 B ER –; see also: Legal Aid Decision of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia of July 11, 2017 – L 20 AY 4/17 B – and Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen). Decision of 2 November 2017 – L 8 AY 22/17 B – on the amount of basic benefits).
4.2 – Social Court Kassel – Decision of 07.02.2021 – S 12 AY 2/21 ER
Legal provisions: Sections 3, 3a AsylbLG, Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGG – Keywords: Benefits under the AsylbLG even despite residence outside the assigned district, no jurisdictional dispute at the expense of the benefit recipient
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – Assumption of costs for PC equipment for pupils under SGB II, SGB XII, AsylbLG and SGB VIII, a contribution by Claudius Voigt
On February 1, 2021, the Federal Employment Agency (BA) published a directive obligating job centers to cover the costs of digital devices for all students receiving benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) as part of a subsidy, provided these devices are not otherwise provided (e.g., as loaner devices). This is certainly welcome news. However, unlike the SGB II system, there is no correspondingly clear directive for the SGB XII system and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), and the legal frameworks differ. Nevertheless, it is clear that students receiving benefits under SGB XII and AsylbLG cannot and must not be disadvantaged compared to those receiving benefits under SGB II, given the same level of need. Therefore, this guide aims to outline the legal situation and the directive, and to provide supporting arguments.
Continue reading: ggua.de
5.2 – Social Court Berlin, decision of January 27, 2021 (S 169 KR 2465/20 ER):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel:
In the case of persons with statutory health insurance who receive benefits for home nursing care from their health insurance provider in accordance with Section 37 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V), the statutory health insurance fund must also reimburse a multimorbid, needy insured person for the costs of necessary equipment for the care workers he has procured himself with FFP2 masks in accordance with Section 37 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V).
Here, the wearing of FFP2 masks by the three caregivers, each present for eight hours daily, was deemed necessary to protect the applicant from infection with Covid-19, so that the demonstrably incurred expenses for (a maximum of) three FFP2 masks per day were to be financed by the statutory health insurance provider as reasonable costs within the meaning of Section 37 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book V.
Especially for people in this particular situation, it is necessary to ensure effective infection control, similar to that in nursing homes.
The same applies to the reimbursement of the proven costs of testing nursing staff for coronavirus infection using a point-of-care antigen test, regularly every two days during the period of nursing service.
In the context of home-based nursing care, there is also a risk of nursing staff inadvertently introducing an infection.
5.3 – Entitlement to unemployment benefit I for residence permits with employer ties (§ 18a/b, § 19c AufenthG) after job loss, a contribution by Claudius Voigt
More information: www.ggua.de
5.4 – New rent limits for Hartz IV recipients
The district of Görlitz has adjusted the costs for accommodation from Zittau to Weißwasser. There is also a south-north divide.
The Görlitz district adjusted the allowances for reasonable housing costs for Hartz IV recipients on February 1, 2021. "They have mostly increased," spokeswoman Julia Bjar stated. However, rents in the district remain at a generally low price level.
What are the current rent limits? www.saechsische.de
5.5 – Note on: BSG 11th Senate, Judgment of 14 October 2020 – B 11 AL 8/19 R
Author: Dietrich Hengelhaupt, Director SG aD.
Vocational training allowance: Coverage of travel expenses for commuting to block release courses at the vocational school
Guiding principle regarding the note:
When granting vocational training assistance (BAB), the (fictitious) travel costs to the training location, and not the actual travel costs to the vocational school, are to be used as the basis for calculating commuting expenses for attending block-release vocational school classes in accordance with Section 65 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) in conjunction with Section 63 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the SGB III as amended and in force from April 1, 2012. This applies regardless of the commuting distance and the associated costs, and even if these costs are already known at the time of the initial BAB grant.
Continue on Juris
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
