1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 - State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of March 24, 2021 - L 13 AS 161/20
Basic security for job seekers - claim for compensation in the event of socially unfavorable behavior - failure to take up a job - socially unfriendly behavior - causality
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. Not taking up a job does not automatically constitute socially unfavorable behavior. S. of Section 34 SGB II.
2. A time limit on the claim for compensation based on the blocking period in Section 159 Paragraph 3 SGB III is not supported in the wording of Section 34 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
1.2 – LSG Hessen, judgment of March 10, 2021 – L 6 AS 439/18
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. On the constitutionality of the determination of standard requirements for the years 2016 and 2017.
2. If those entitled to benefits in accordance with the Second Book of the Social Security Code do not make the full amount of payments for the accommodation owed by them to their landlord under the rental agreement, the claim in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II is limited to the actual payments if additional demands are made by the landlord are no longer possible due to the statute of limitations or the expiry of the deadline for billing advance payments for operating costs.
Source: www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de
1.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision v. 01/18/2021 – L 16 AS 654/20 B ER
Title:
No entitlement to provisional granting of benefits in accordance with Section 41a Paragraph 7 SGB II if the legal question relevant to the decision on the claim is not actually pending before the BVerfG, ECJ or BSG.
Guiding principles (Juris)
1. The residence card according to Section 5 FreizG/EU does not constitute an administrative act, but only has a declaratory effect. The existence of this does not release the social courts from examining whether there is a substantive right of residence that gives rise to a claim to benefits under SGB II. (Rn. 35) (editorial principle)
2. After the BVerfG rejected the SG Mainz's reference order as inadmissible, it has still not been clarified by the highest court whether Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II is compatible with the fundamental right to be granted a humane subsistence level (para. 38) (editorial principle )
3. The mere fact that the scope or constitutionality of the benefit exclusions has not yet been clarified by the highest court means that persons who are subject to the benefit exclusions in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II are not entitled to provisional granting of benefits in accordance with Section 41a Paragraph. 7 Sentence 1 SGB II, because this presupposes that the underlying legal question is actually the subject of proceedings before the BVerfG, ECJ or the BSG (paragraphs 38 - 39) (editorial principle)
4. The requirements for a provisional decision on the entitlement to benefits in the event of a legal issue of fundamental importance in accordance with Section 41a Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB II are already met if the decision on this issue has an impact on the decision on benefits in kind or in cash (Rn. 39) (editorial principle)
5. Due to the living nature of the benefits under SGB II, if the requirements of Section 41a Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 SGB II are met, the job center's discretion is regularly reduced to zero (paragraph 40) (editorial principle)
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
1.4 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment from April 9, 2021 – L 12 AS 1677/19
Hartz IV receipt despite the father's stay outside the time and location area due to the birth of the child
The LSG Stuttgart has decided in a groundbreaking ruling that the stay of a Hartz IV recipient outside the local time and place due to the birth of his child does not conflict with the entitlement to unemployment benefit II for a maximum of three weeks.
Guiding principle (Juris)
If the consent according to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 EAO is not given in a timely manner or is wrongly refused, this does not exclude accessibility if the absence cannot be postponed and the consent should have been given.
The ex ante view is decisive for the assessment of whether the benefit recipient within the meaning of Section 3 Paragraph 4 EAO wants to stay outside the time and location area for longer than 6 weeks.
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – SG Magdeburg, judgment of February 22, 2021 – S 32 AS 381/19 WA
Reasonable costs of accommodation and heating in the Harz district for the period 2016-2020
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. The inclusion of SGB II data in data collection corresponds to the minimum methodological requirements for a coherent concept, at least if the risk of incomplete recording of the housing market is recognized and is implemented through suitable countermeasures (recourse to a broader data base, extreme value capping, iterative calculation method) is defused.
2. The considerable amount of SGB II data included in the concept does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that apartments of the simple standard are methodologically incorrectly overrepresented when assessing the evidence in individual cases. The system of Section 22 SGB II does not allow conclusions to be drawn from the granting of benefits to the standard of living actually used, since a variety of reasons are conceivable why a benefit recipient does not live in an apartment of a simple standard, but of a medium or higher standard.
3. The risk of a disproportionate sample (e.g. due to underrepresented private landlords) exists even if the survey is methodologically error-free. It does not necessarily contradict the minimum methodological requirements, but must be checked in individual cases for its distorting effect. It is not apparent that tenancies with private landlords differ in such a significant way from tenancies with institutional landlords that representativeness can be rejected for this reason alone.
4. The examination of the minimum methodological requirements does not necessarily require an in-depth examination of the raw data of a concept, since the free judicial assessment of evidence (Section 128 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGG) is an evaluative process that is not subject to any mathematical-statistical rules. An isolated examination of the raw data would degenerate the assessment of evidence into a mathematical-statistical calculation process and raise detailed questions that cannot be answered by the court.
5. In the case of heating costs, prima facie evidence to the detriment of the benefit recipient can also be based on the exceeding of a limit value determined by the basic security provider itself, if this value was determined in a comprehensible manner within the scope of the freedom of methods. Recourse to the “nationwide heating level” is not absolutely necessary.
Source: www.landesrecht.sachsen-anhalt.de
3. Decisions of the state social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Munich, judgment by March 23, 2021 – L 10 AL 71/20
Title:
Discontinuation of employment services in accordance with Section 38 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 SGB III.
Guiding principle (Juris)
1. From a note by the clerk that a notice has been “sent”, it cannot be concluded that it was posted by post within the meaning of Section 37 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB X.
2. The cessation of employment services according to Section 38 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 SGB III by the employment agency requires action by the administration through an administrative act due to the intrusive quality of the decision.
3. The case law of the Federal Social Court on the necessity of specific, correct and complete information on the legal consequences in the event of an impending blocking period must also be transferred to the impending cessation of employment services in accordance with Section 38 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 SGB III.
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
4. Decisions on asylum law and AsylbLG
4.1 - LSG Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, decision of January 21, 2021 (L 9 AY 27/20 B ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel The granting of basic benefits in accordance with Section 3 AsylbLG corresponding to level 2 of need (Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 AsylbLG or Section 3a Paragraph 2 No. 2 AsylbLG) sets as an unwritten element the actual and verifiable joint household management according to Section 1 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG applies to persons entitled to claim with other people accommodated in collective accommodation. The responsible social authority bears the objective burden of proof for this.
There are considerable doubts about the constitutionality (Articles 1 and 20 of the Basic Law) of an undifferentiated application of the need level regulated in Section 3a Paragraph 1 and 2 AsylbLG for adult beneficiaries who are accommodated in reception facilities, shared accommodation and comparable facilities.
4.2 – LSG Hessen, decision of April 13, 2021 (L 4 AY 3/21 B ER):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel It is doubtful whether Sections 3a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2b), 3a Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 2 b) and 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 No. 1 AsylbLG are interpreted as constitutional when interpreted literally can.
A corresponding differentiation with regard to coverage of the subsistence minimum is not acceptable in this absolute level.
There are no proven data and facts to support this.
In such an accommodation situation, the existence of a family life and economic community can certainly represent a starting point for economic legal consequences, provided that this does not entail any discrimination against marriage and family, which would be incompatible with the constitutional protection according to Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.
However, pure residential communities are not subject to the obligation to do business together within the framework of the state's basic security systems.
Need level 1 also applies if several people entitled to benefits live in one apartment (multi-person constellations), unless they are partners.
At this point, it is always necessary to carry out a comprehensive examination in each individual case as to whether there is an actual and verifiable financial participation in the (joint) household management of various people.
Doubts are always at the expense of the service provider according to the AsylbLG.
This particularly applies if an asylum seeker lives at a distance from his or her roommates within the shared accommodation due to illness, so that constant, shared economic activities in the facility cannot be represented.
Note:
S.a. on this: Thomé Newsletter 15/2021 from April 18, 2021 - Point 5 - Hessian LSG on standard needs level 1 for single people in shared/collective accommodation
5. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal books
5.1 – SGB II / SGB XII applications from Union citizens: reporting obligations to the immigration authorities
continue: www.einwanderer.net
Editor's note:
Due to maintenance work on the server, the www.socialgerichtsabilities.de currently not accessible.
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
