in two expedited proceedings (Case Nos.: L 8 AY 118/20 B ER and L 8 AY 76/20 B ERsignificantly strengthened the rights of Roma refugees from Kosovo to grant the applicants considerably higher subsistence benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act, based on fundamental considerations. These decisions also affect the entitlements of all residents of the housing complex at Senkingstraße 10a in Hildesheim.
By decision of February 4, 2021 (Case No.: L 8 AY 118/20 B ER), the Higher Social Court (LSG) dismissed an appeal by the Hildesheim district against a decision of the Hildesheim Social Court (SG) of December 10, 2020 (Case No.: S 42 AY 4026/20 ER). The Hildesheim Social Court had ordered the district to grant a six-member Roma family from Kosovo full benefits, just like other recipients of basic income support, and to grant them access to the statutory health insurance system. For years, despite considerable efforts, the family had been unable to prove their identity, as neither Kosovo, Serbia, nor North Macedonia would recognize their nationality. The district authority has nevertheless denied the family access to standard subsistence benefits since 2015, arguing that the family had abused their rights by failing to submit passports and prove their citizenship. The Higher Social Court (LSG) disagrees, citing the UNHCR guidelines for determining the international protection needs of persons from Kosovo, according to which many Kosovo Roma living in Kosovo are unregistered and/or unable to document their marital status. Against this backdrop, the court found that the applicants could not be found to have failed to cooperate in obtaining identity documents. Furthermore, the applicants' statements regarding their identity had never been contradictory.
“Roma from Kosovo are systematically discriminated against there, often by being denied citizenship and residency rights. The Hildesheim district perpetuates this discrimination by reducing their subsistence benefits because, again, citizenship cannot be proven. The Roma families live in a constant spiral of discrimination stemming from institutional racism,” says lawyer Sven Adam, who represents the applicants, expressing his frustration with the years-long actions of, among others, the Hildesheim district.
In a further ruling dated February 11, 2021 (Case No.: L 8 AY 76/20 B ER), the court addressed in detail the question of whether the residential complex at Senkingstraße 10a in Hildesheim constitutes a so-called communal accommodation (GU) within the meaning of immigration law. The 21-year-old applicant argued, among other things, that his benefits should not be reduced by 10% due to alleged shared living expenses with other refugees in the complex. The Hildesheim district classifies the complex as a communal accommodation and reduces the monthly subsistence benefits of all single or single-parent adults living there. This is justified by the claim that shared living expenses in a communal accommodation supposedly lead to cost savings in household management. The Higher Social Court (LSG) also rejected this argument in its ruling of February 11, 2021. According to the court, the applicant is not housed in a communal accommodation facility, but in his own apartment, which, unlike in a communal accommodation facility, allows him to manage his own household independently. "In the building at Senkingstraße 10a, the living and sleeping areas, as well as the kitchen and bathroom/toilet, are all located in separate apartments. There is no communal kitchen(s) and no shared sanitary facilities," the court stated. The district was therefore ordered to grant full benefits.
"The decision of the Higher Social Court (LSG) of February 11, 2021, is significant for all single people and single parents at Senkingstraße 10a in Hildesheim whose benefits are currently being reduced. The legal regulation regarding the reduction of benefits in communal accommodations is already highly controversial under constitutional law. However, in the case of self-contained apartments like those at Senkingstraße 10a, applying this reduction is downright absurd," Adam concluded regarding the significance of this decision.
The two decisions of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court dated February 4, 2021 and February 11, 2021 are linked here:
For further questions, please contact attorney Sven Adam using the contact details provided.
