1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and on social assistance under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII)
1.1 – Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of 08.12.2020 – B 4 AS 30/20 R
Basic income support for job seekers – consideration of income – exclusion of disbursed installments of a bank student loan – private loans – intended purpose – repayment obligation
Guideline (Editor)
1. The disbursed installments from the student loan do not constitute income to be taken into account.
2. If a benefit recipient manages to obtain loans to finance further needs, which is not unlikely, especially with a favorable integration prognosis, this must not relieve the basic income support provider. If this were the case, taking out a loan would generally prove economically pointless for benefit recipients. They would be personally liable for repayment without ultimately having more funds available. Accordingly, savings made by the benefit recipient on individual living expenses in order to use benefits elsewhere cannot relieve the benefit provider, as this would contradict the concept of providing a lump sum for needs.
3. Finally, the so-called principle of self-help enshrined in Section 2 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not go so far as to effectively prohibit benefit recipients from financing uncovered needs through consumer loans.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
1.2 – BSG, judgment of March 23, 2021 – B 8 SO 2/20 R
Social assistance – housing benefit entitlement – principle of subsidiarity
Guiding principle (Editor):
The mere existence of an entitlement to housing benefit does not lead to an exclusion from benefits based on the principle of subsidiarity. Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) does not generally constitute an exclusion provision.
Note:
People without means may choose social assistance instead of housing benefit.
Forgoing a housing benefit application can be advantageous for people in need. If they are entitled to supplementary social assistance without housing benefit, they can sometimes take advantage of benefits available to social assistance recipients – such as cheaper monthly public transport tickets – the Federal Social Court (BSG) in Kassel clarified in a ruling announced on Tuesday. (Case number: B 8 SO 2/20 R) The court ruled that social assistance providers may not require indigent individuals to first apply for housing benefit in order to receive supplementary social assistance.
More information: www.evangelisch.de
See also attorney Kay Füßlein, the attorney responsible for this case:
Social assistance is not subordinate to housing benefit.
In its ruling of March 23, 2021, the Federal Social Court (B 8 SO 2/20 R) made a decision that can be described as fundamental.
The issue at hand is whether there is a choice between benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) and benefits under the Housing Benefit Act.
In recent years, social welfare offices had begun denying benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), citing Section 2 of the SGB XII – the principle of subsidiarity. The question therefore arose whether Section 2 of the SGB XII actually contains this provision. In its judgment of March 23, 2021, the Federal Social Court ruled:
The so-called principle of subsidiarity in Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) does not preclude the granting of benefits. The Senate has repeatedly ruled that the principle of subsidiarity is not, in principle, an isolated exclusionary rule, but rather a programmatic statement that merely constitutes a requirement of social assistance, from which no direct legal consequences can be derived. The Senate has rejected the previously open question of whether extreme exceptional cases justify an exception to this principle. Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the SGB XII does not generally constitute an exclusionary rule. The principle of subsidiarity is sufficiently implemented by specific provisions that concretize it.
Source: www.ra-fuesslein.de
Legal tip:
(similarly, in effect: LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 07.02.2017 – L 15 SO 252/16 B PKH (unpublished); LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 20.04.2018 – L 15 SO 213/17 B PKH; according to which there is even a “right to choose” between claiming housing benefit or claiming basic income support for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity; presumably also: LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of 25.10.2018 – L 23 SO 208/17).
1.3 – BSG, judgment of March 23, 2021 – B 8 SUN 14/19 R
Basic income support for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity – accommodation costs – heating costs – living with parents
Social welfare recipients with reduced earning capacity and disabilities can claim reimbursement of flat-rate accommodation costs from the social welfare agency, even if they live rent-free with relatives. The Federal Social Court (BSG) in Kassel ruled on Tuesday that neither the actual accommodation costs nor whether the relatives have already paid off their mortgage are relevant. (Case number: B 8 SO 14/19 R)
Source: www.evangelisch.de
Note:
See also: www.bsg.bund.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 10 March 2021 – L 9 AS 695/20 B
Regarding the allocation of child benefit according to Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in a three-generation household
Principle (Editor):
When three generations, each in need of assistance, live together in one household (mother, adult daughter, minor granddaughter), the child benefit paid to the parent entitled to child benefit of the adult child and passed on to that child must be taken into account in relation to the needs of the parent entitled to child benefit (BSG, Judgment of 17.07.2014 – B 14 AS 54/13 R).
See also:
Child benefit is not counted towards Hartz IV benefits for oneself
If three generations live in one house, the middle daughter does not have to have the child benefit paid to her mother counted as income by the job center. This also applies if the mother gives the money to her daughter, as the Federal Social Court (BSG) ruled on July 17, 2014 in Kassel (Case No.: B 14 AS 54/13 R).
Source: www.thorsten-blaufelder.de
2.2 – Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court, decision of 18 March 2021 – L 3 AS 28/21 B ER
Provision of digital devices for participation in distance learning – printer – twin sisters – entitlement generally exists for every child living in a household, provided they depend on the use of a computer to participate in school lessons – no reasonableness of a loan according to § 24 para. 1 SGB II – loan device – cessation of urgent need due to school reopening
Guiding principle (Editor):
The right to a laptop or tablet for home schooling generally applies to every child living in a household, provided that they depend on the use of a computer to participate in school lessons.
Guidance (Editor)
1. The acquisition of internet-enabled digital devices for participation in pandemic-related school lessons at home generally constitutes a potential unavoidable need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). (See also the decisions of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia of May 22, 2020, L 7 AS 719/20 B ER and the Higher Social Court of Thuringia of January 8, 2021, L9 AS 862/20 B ER).
2. The twin sisters would have been entitled to 2 computers and not just 1 device, at least if they are in the same year but attend different classes.
3. Although the special needs of one of the twin sisters were met in another way, because the school was able to provide the family with a loan device, the needs of the other twin sister remained unmet.
In principle, given the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, it must be possible for several school-age children to participate in digital distance learning simultaneously. This is all the more true when, as in this case, the applicants are in the same grade but different classes, because it can then be assumed that lessons will take place simultaneously in different video conferences. However, even if no video conferences are held, completing assignments on online learning platforms becomes significantly more difficult when several students use the same device and thus have to coordinate their time for completing the tasks. Contrary to the opinion of the Social Court, the applicants' needs were therefore not met simply by the option of choosing a device. Rather, it would have been necessary for both children to be able to participate in distance learning simultaneously using digital devices.
4. The reasonableness of a loan pursuant to Section 24 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not preclude the coverage of the additional needs pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the SGB II in this case, because, in the opinion of the Senate, taking out a loan is unreasonable if the digital device is a prerequisite for participation in school lessons. It is unreasonable to expect recipients of basic income support to incur (further) debt or, in effect, to accept benefit reductions pursuant to Section 42a of the SGB II if the devices to be purchased represent the only way for their children to maintain their participation in regular school lessons. This applies both when lessons are conducted entirely via distance learning and in the case of regular alternating instruction.
5. The need for a printer must be assessed differently. In this respect, one device is sufficient to meet the needs of a family of several people. The participation of school-age children in distance learning does not change this, because a printer only needs to be used for short periods. Whether a printer is even necessary for participation in this form of instruction depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
6. Currently, there is no longer an urgent need for the provision of internet-enabled digital devices, because from March 15, 2021, in-person classes will resume at primary schools and most other independent cities and districts in Schleswig-Holstein without a hybrid model.
Note:
Entitlement to a laptop or tablet for homeschooling
During a school closure due to the coronavirus pandemic, students receiving unemployment benefit II are entitled to reimbursement of the purchase costs for an internet-enabled device.
The entitlement generally applies to every child living in a household who requires a computer to participate in school lessons. Granting a loan from the job center, which would then be repaid in monthly installments, is insufficient. However, the need is met if the school provides a loaner device for the duration of distance learning. This was the ruling of the Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court (LSG Schleswig) in expedited proceedings.
The applicants were three girls who, together with their single mother, receive benefits from the job center. Two of the children, twins, are in the fourth grade of elementary school, but in different classes. The older sister is 16 years old and attends the final year of a comprehensive school. The elementary school had offered to lend the two fourth-graders an iPad to share. The children's mother felt this was insufficient. She also believed that the children would still need the devices when school resumed in-person classes.
The 3rd Senate of the Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court generally considered a school-provided device sufficient for the duration of the lockdown, as a device is only mandatory for distance learning. However, for homeschooling, each schoolchild in the household receiving benefits must be able to use their own device, meaning that, in principle, there would have been an entitlement to at least one additional device. In this specific case, however, the urgent need for an additional device had already ceased by the time the court made its decision, as all applicants were able to return to in-person classes. The entitlement could arise again, however, if another lockdown were to occur after the Easter holidays.
The decision is legally binding.
Source: Press release from the Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court dated March 26, 2021
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – Social Court Berlin, judgment of 27 January 2021 (S 114 AS 3501/17):
Guiding principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel:
Due to the high importance of proper notification of legal consequences pursuant to Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for clients receiving unemployment benefit II (Alg II), the job center must, in this context, inform them not only about the duration of the expected benefit reduction, but also about its commencement. A mere repetition of the wording of the law does not constitute a sufficiently individualized notification of a potentially imposed sanction in the specific benefit case.
Imposed benefit reductions only comply with the rule-of-law principle of proportionality and uphold the social welfare principles arising from Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law if it is actually possible for the affected clientele to avert a reduction in subsistence-securing assistance through their own reasonable conduct and to regain the originally received social benefit even after an ordered reduction.
This must be explicitly pointed out by the SGB II provider within a notification of legal consequences, as well as the fact that in the case of exceptional hardship, a reduction of ALG II may be waived.
3.2 – SG Altenburg, judgment of November 9, 2020 – S 42 AS 1738/19
Principle (Juris)
1. Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentences 4 and 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) provide for the crediting of child benefit against the needs of a child even in the case of shared custody, irrespective of the number of days of membership in the household, as long as the needs are not covered.
2. The possibility, in the event of actual payment receipt by the person entitled to child benefit and the children belonging to that person's household, of reducing the attribution of child benefit to the separated parent, contrary to Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentences 4 and 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), does not find direct support in the provisions of the SGB II.
3. The exception provided for in Section 1 Paragraph 1 Number 8 of the Regulation on Unemployment Benefit II (AlG II-V) only applies to cases in which the child for whom child benefit is received does not belong to the household of the benefit recipient at all, with the consequence that the attribution rule of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentences 4 and 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not apply and the child benefit would therefore have to be included in the benefit calculation as income of the parent entitled to child benefit. This provision cannot be applied if children are cared for by both parents in a so-called shared custody arrangement.
4. An agreement or arrangement reached by mutual consent between the parents of a child, which provides for the transfer of child benefit or part thereof to the other parent who does not belong to the household, is not sufficient to justify an increased entitlement to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) due to a resulting shortfall in the child's needs.
5. Due to the connection between the maintenance obligations of the parents and the state child benefit payments, it appears possible, by analogy to Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), to deduct a partial amount from the child benefit that is to be assessed as income of the children by virtue of the attribution order (Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentences 4 and 5 SGB II) if there is a legal obligation to forward child benefit to the parent who does not belong to the household and is not entitled to child benefit, based on a court order or a notarized maintenance agreement.
Source: www.landesrecht.thueringen.de
3.3 – Social Court Frankfurt/Main, Decision of 09.03.2021 – S 9 AS 157/21 ER
No entitlement against the JobCenter to the provision of 20 FFP2 masks per week pursuant to Sections 7 Paragraph 1, 19 Paragraph 1 Sentences 1 and 3, 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II (cf. Social Court Mannheim, decision of 25.02.2021 – S 7 AS 301/21 ER)
Guiding principle (Editor):
There is generally no compelling, special need for the procurement of FFP2 masks or medical protective masks, as those entitled to benefits currently have sufficient opportunities to save money in other areas of life.
Note:
See also Kiel Social Court, decision of 18 March 2021 – S 31 AS 21/21 ER; Kiel Social Court, decision of 16 March 2021 – S 35 AS 35/21 ER; Saarbrücken Social Court, decision of 12 March 2021 – S 16 AS 35/21 ER; Saarbrücken Social Court, decision of 9 March 2021 – S 26 AS 23/21 ER, S 26 AS 26/21 ER; Mannheim Social Court, decision of 1 March 2021 – S 5 AS 456/21 ER; Osnabrück Social Court, decisions of 10 March 2021 – S 50 AS 39/21 ER, S 50 AS 51/21 ER; Social Court Reutlingen, decision of March 9, 2021 – S 4 AS 376/21 ER – legally binding and decision of March 10, 2021 – S 7 AS 410/21 ER – not yet legally binding; Social Court Oldenburg, decision of March 8, 2021 – S 37 AS 48/21 ER; Social Court Karlsruhe, decisions of March 3, 2021 – S 4 AS 470/21 ER, S 18 AS 469/21 ER, S 3 AS 472/21 ER, S 17 AS 471/21 ER; Social Court Dresden, decision of March 1, 2021 – S 29 AS 289/21 ER not published; Social Court Mannheim, decision of February 25, 2021 – S 7 AS 301/21 ER; Social Court Munich, Decision of 22 February 2021 – S 52 AS 127/21 ER; Social Court Munich, Decision of 10 February 2021 – S 37 AS 98/21 ER; Social Court Munich, Decision of 2 February 2021 – S 13 AS 104/21 ER (not published); Social Court Lüneburg, Decision of 10 February 2021 – S 23 AS 13/21 ER; regarding the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII): Social Court Munich, Decision of 3 February 2021 – S 46 SO 29/21 ER; a. Opinion: Social Court Karlsruhe, Decision of February 11, 2021 – S 12 AS 213/21 ER – Hartz IV additional needs allowance of €129 per calendar month due to FFP2 masks – 20 FFP2 masks weekly for Hartz IV recipients, and most recently, the decision of the 12th Chamber of the Social Court Karlsruhe – S 12 AS 565/21 ER (quote from Juris: “A constitutionally and federally compliant guarantee of social participation most likely requires, at least until April 30, 2021, that job seekers under the conditions of the Corona pandemic continue to be provided with an average of 20 new mouth and nose protection masks per week, in accordance with the requirements of the standards FFP2 (DIN EN 149:2001), KN95, N95 or a comparable standard without an exhalation valve (continuation of: Social Court Karlsruhe, February 11, 2021, S 12 AS) 213/21 ER)..“
Legal tip:
Job centers are neither required to provide nor pay for FFP2 masks.
The Frankfurt Social Court has ruled that the job center is neither required to provide nor pay for FFP2 masks.
The applicant receives basic income support (Hartz IV) and, in urgent court proceedings, citing a decision of the Social Court of Karlsruhe dated February 11, 2021 (file number S 12 AS 213/21 ER), has demanded that the job center be ordered to provisionally grant 20 FFP2 masks per week or the amount of money required for self-procurement.
Source: socialcourtsability.hessen.de
3.4 – SG Speyer, decision of 12.03.2021 – S 3 AS 232/21 ER
No additional costs for the purchase of FFP2 masks
A recipient of social assistance benefits (SGB-II) from Kusel has failed in his urgent application before the Social Court of Speyer for the provisional granting of higher benefits, which he claims for the purchase of FFP2 masks.
The decisive legal basis for the claim here is Section 21 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). According to this provision, additional needs are recognized for benefit recipients if an unavoidable, special need exists in an individual case. However, this need has neither been credibly demonstrated nor is there any particular urgency. The Hartz IV payments already received by the applicant are, in fact, sufficient.
Further information: www.juris.de
3.5 – Social Court Braunschweig, decision of February 26, 2021 (S 22 AS 46/21 ER):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel:
Denial of an unavoidable, special need within the meaning of § 21 para. 6 SGB II for the financing of 20 FFP2 masks weekly and a corresponding subsidy of EUR 129,- monthly.
According to § 1 para. 1 no. 3 Coronavirus Protection Mask Ordinance, there is the possibility of using ten free FFP2 masks.
Recipients of unemployment benefit II (ALG II) can reasonably be expected to reuse their protective masks. The "7-day drying at room temperature" method poses no health risks.
Each mask can be used up to five times.
FFP2 masks can regularly be purchased for a unit price of between EUR 0.54 and 0.88.
The statements made by the Social Court of Karlsruhe in its decision of February 11, 2021 (S 12 AS 213/21.ER) are not to be followed.
Note:
Press release 1-21
Despite the obligation to wear medical masks: Job centers do not have to pay extra.
Social Court Braunschweig (Decision of February 26, 2021 – S 22 AS 46/21 ER):
The Chamber considers the claimed need for 20 masks per week or €129.00 per month to be incomprehensible in terms of scope and, moreover, to be covered.
Further information: www.sozialgericht-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de
Legal tip from the editor:
See also Kiel Social Court, decision of March 18, 2021 – S 31 AS 21/21 ER; Kiel Social Court, decision of March 16, 2021 – S 35 AS 35/21 ER; Saarbrücken Social Court, decision of March 12, 2021 – S 16 AS 35/21 ER; Saarbrücken Social Court, decision of March 9, 2021 – S 26 AS 23/21 ER, S 26 AS 26/21 ER; Speyer Social Court, decision of March 12, 2021 – S 3 AS 232/21 ER; Frankfurt/Main Social Court, decision of March 9, 2021 – S 9 AS 157/21 ER; Landshut Social Court, decision of... March 9, 2021 – S 7 AS 106/21 ER; Mannheim Social Court, decision of March 1, 2021 – S 5 AS 456/21 ER; Osnabrück Social Court, decisions of March 10, 2021 – S 50 AS 39/21 ER, S 50 AS 51/21 ER; Reutlingen Social Court, decision of March 9, 2021 – S 4 AS 376/21 ER – legally binding and decision of March 10, 2021 – S 7 AS 410/21 ER – not yet legally binding; Oldenburg Social Court, decision of March 8, 2021 – S 37 AS 48/21 ER; Karlsruhe Social Court, decisions of March 3, 2021 – S 4 AS 470/21 ER, S 18 AS 469/21 ER, S 3 AS 472/21 ER, S 17 AS 471/21 ER; Social Court Dresden, Decision of March 1, 2021 – S 29 AS 289/21 ER (not published); Social Court Braunschweig, Decision of February 26, 2021 – S 22 AS 46/21 ER; Social Court Mannheim, Decision of February 25, 2021 – S 7 AS 301/21 ER; Social Court Munich, Decision of February 22, 2021 – S 52 AS 127/21 ER; Social Court Munich, Decision of February 10, 2021 – S 37 AS 98/21 ER; Social Court Munich, decision of February 2, 2021 – S 13 AS 104/21 ER (not published); Social Court Lüneburg, decision of February 10, 2021 – S 23 AS 13/21 ER; regarding the German Social Code, Book XII: Social Court Munich, decision of February 3, 2021 – S 46 SO 29/21 ER;
a. Opinion:
SG Karlsruhe, decision of February 11, 2021 – S 12 AS 213/21 ER – Hartz IV additional needs allowance of €129 per calendar month due to FFP2 masks – 20 FFP2 masks weekly for Hartz IV recipients, and most recently, the decision of the 12th Chamber of the Social Court Karlsruhe – S 12 AS 565/21 ER (quote from Juris: “A constitutionally and federally compliant guarantee of social participation most likely requires, at least until April 30, 2021, that job seekers under the conditions of the Corona pandemic continue to be provided with an average of 20 new face masks per week, in accordance with the requirements of the standards FFP2 (DIN EN 149:2001), KN95, N95 or a comparable standard without an exhalation valve (continued from: Social Court Karlsruhe, February 11, 2021, p. 12) AS 213/21 ER)..“
3.6 – Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of 24 March 2021 – S 12 AS 711/21 ER
Karlsruhe Social Court: Corona supplement of 150 euros unconstitutional – an increase in the standard rate of approximately 100 euros for each month of the pandemic is necessary (Editor)
The federal government's planned coronavirus supplement for recipients of basic income support is too low and unconstitutional, according to the Social Court in Karlsruhe. A single mother had unsuccessfully applied to the job center for FFP2 masks.
The German government's planned €150 coronavirus supplement for recipients of basic income support is too low and unconstitutional, according to the Karlsruhe Social Court. The supplement is intended for adults who were entitled to unemployment benefit II or social assistance in May 2021. The court ruled that the minimum subsistence level of job seekers for January to April should not be covered only in May. Furthermore, the court criticized the procedural requirements for determining the amount of subsistence-level benefits in a statement released on Friday.
An increase in the standard benefit rate of approximately 100 euros for each month of the pandemic is necessary.
A single mother from the Rastatt district successfully filed an emergency appeal. She had previously applied unsuccessfully for FFP2 masks at the job center. The court ruled that she can now safely transport her two-year-old daughter, who has a heart condition, to her weekly hospital and physiotherapy appointments using public transportation. The court stated that the legally binding decision is enforceable for all parties directly involved in the emergency proceedings.
The full text of the decision: t1p.de/uxmo
Source: www.wz.de
Note:
Green Party spokesperson: "A slap in the face for the federal government's crisis policy"
“The ruling by the Karlsruhe Social Court is a slap in the face for the federal government’s crisis management. The court rejects the grand coalition’s election-tactical handouts and demands real aid,” said Sven Lehmann, the Green Party’s spokesperson for social policy in the Bundestag. Pascal Kober, the FDP’s spokesperson for social policy in the Bundestag, called on Federal Labor Minister Hubertus Heil (SPD) to urgently enable immediate disbursement. “The aid will arrive too late in May.”
Source: www.focus.de
Legal tip:
Same chamber of the Social Court Karlsruhe: Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of 12 March 2021 – S 12 AS 565/21 ER
On the evident unconstitutionality of the one-off payment to basic income support recipients decided for May 2021 in the “Social Protection Package III” on the occasion of the COVID-19 pandemic (Juris)
4. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
4.1 – Social Court Lüneburg, 23rd Chamber, Decision of 10 February 2021 – S 23 AS 13/21 ER
Author: Dr. Jens Blüggel, Chairman of the Judges' Court
Additional mask allowance under SGB II?
Guiding principles
1. For the obligation of the benefit provider under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) to assume the costs of acquiring medical masks by way of an interim injunction, there is – regardless of the existence of a claim – in any case no ground for an injunction.
2. The purchase price of surgical masks sufficient for use on public transport and for shopping in retail stores is so low that it can be covered by the available resources of a person in need of assistance, and awaiting the outcome of potential main proceedings appears reasonable. This is particularly true given that, due to the pandemic-related ban on cultural events, the portion of the standard benefit earmarked for culture can be reallocated to the purchase of masks.
Note:
The presiding judge of the Essen State Social Court, Dr. Jens Blüggel, writes the following in his commentary on the decision of the Lüneburg Social Court, 23rd Chamber, dated February 10, 2021 – S 23 AS 13/21 ER: “Therefore, the entitlement to an additional allowance for masks from April 1, 2021, provided that this additional allowance falls within the period from January to June 2021, is governed by Section 70 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which, as a special provision, takes precedence over Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the SGB II.”
Source: www.juris.de
4.2 – Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia of 22 March 2021 – 14 A 3439/18.A
No refugee protection for draft dodgers
The Higher Administrative Court of Münster has ruled that a Syrian asylum seeker who had already completed his military service but feared being drafted into reserve military service should not be granted refugee status due to draft evasion.
According to the previous jurisprudence of the 14th Senate, Syrians who stated that they left Syria for military service were not to be granted refugee status on that basis (see press release of May 4, 2017). The reassessment following a ruling by the European Court of Justice on November 19, 2020, has not led to a different result.
Further information: www.juris.de
4.3 – Family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection
Five years ago, family reunification for those granted subsidiary protection was suspended; two years later, this regulation was even enshrined in law. Since then, thousands of families have been separated. An expert report by PRO ASYL and JUMEN exposes invisible obstacles and the unconstitutionality of the denied family reunification.
Download here: www.ggua.de
4.4 – Every second Hartz IV recipient successfully defends themselves against benefit cuts
The Left Party demands the abolition of sanctions
Osnabrück. Recipients of Hartz IV benefits are increasingly successful in fighting back against reductions in their payments due to sanctions. Almost half of all appeals and 70 percent of all lawsuits were successful in 2020. These figures come from a response by the Federal Ministry of Labor to an inquiry from Left Party MP Katja Kipping, which was obtained by the "Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung" (NOZ).
The success rate has risen significantly in recent years: While authorities granted only 40 percent of appeals, either fully or partially, in 2018, this figure rose to 41 percent in 2019 and then to 48 percent in 2020. For lawsuits, the success rate increased from 61 percent in 2018 to 70 percent in 2020. Kipping, social policy spokesperson for the Left Party, told the "NOZ": "This shows that it pays to stand up for your rights. Moreover, every sanction is one too many."
More information: www.presseportal.de
Editor's note:
Due to server maintenance, the website www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de currently unavailable.
Author of the legal news ticker: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles
Source: Tacheles legal case law ticker
