1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 24 March 2021 – L 13 AS 161/20
Basic income support for job seekers – Claim for compensation in cases of socially unacceptable behavior – Failure to take up employment – Social unacceptability – Causality
Principle (Juris)
1. Failure to take up employment does not automatically constitute socially unacceptable behavior within the meaning of Section 34 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
2. A time limit on the claim for compensation based on the blocking period provision of Section 159 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) finds no support in the wording of Section 34 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
1.2 – LSG Hessen, judgment of March 10, 2021 – L 6 AS 439/18
Principle (Juris)
1. On the constitutionality of the determination of standard benefit rates for the years 2016 and 2017.
2. If persons entitled to benefits under the German Social Code, Book Two (SGB II) do not make the full payments owed to their landlord for accommodation under their tenancy agreement, the claim under Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II is limited to the actual payments, if subsequent claims by the landlord are no longer possible due to the statute of limitations or the expiry of the deadline for the settlement of advance payments for operating costs.
Source: www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de
1.3 – Bavarian State Social Court, decision of 18 January 2021 – L 16 AS 654/20 B ER
Title:
No entitlement to provisional benefits pursuant to Section 41a Paragraph 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) if the legal question relevant for the decision on the claim is not actually pending before the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) or the Federal Social Court (BSG).
Headnotes (Juris):
1. The residence card pursuant to Section 5 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU does not constitute an administrative act, but merely has declaratory effect. Its existence does not relieve the social courts from examining whether a substantive right of residence exists that establishes an entitlement to benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II). (Paragraph 35) (Editorial headnote)
2. Following the Federal Constitutional Court's rejection of the referral decision of the Social Court of Mainz as inadmissible, it remains unclear at the highest court level whether Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is compatible with the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living (paragraph 38) (editorial summary)
3. The mere fact that the scope or constitutionality of the benefit exclusions has not yet been clarified by the highest court does not give rise to an entitlement to provisional benefits pursuant to Section 41a Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), for persons who fall under the benefit exclusions of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II, because this requires that the underlying legal question is actually the subject of proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court, the European Court of Justice, or the Federal Social Court (paragraphs 38-39) (editorial principle)
4. The prerequisites for a preliminary decision on the benefit claim when a legal question of fundamental importance is pending pursuant to Section 41a Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), are already met if the decision on this question has an impact on the decision on benefits in kind or cash benefits (Paragraph 39) (Editorial Note)
5. Due to the subsistence-securing nature of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the discretion of the job center is regularly reduced to zero if the conditions of Section 41a Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 of the SGB II are met (Paragraph 40) (Editorial Note)
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
1.4 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment from April 9, 2021 – L 12 AS 1677/19
Receipt of Hartz IV benefits despite the father's residence outside the local area due to the birth of the child
In a landmark ruling, the Stuttgart State Social Court (LSG Stuttgart) decided that a Hartz IV recipient's stay outside the local area due to the birth of their child does not preclude their entitlement to unemployment benefit II for a maximum of three weeks.
Principle (Juris):
If consent pursuant to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 EAO is not granted in a timely manner or is wrongfully refused, this does not preclude accessibility if the absence from the place of residence is unavoidable and consent should have been granted.
The decisive factor for assessing whether the recipient of benefits within the meaning of Section 3 Paragraph 4 EAO intends to stay outside the local area for a continuous period of more than 6 weeks is the ex ante perspective.
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support 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
Principle (Juris)
1. The inclusion of SGB II data in data collection meets the minimum methodological requirements for a coherent concept, at least if the risk of incomplete recording of the housing market is recognized and mitigated by suitable countermeasures (recourse to a broader data basis, capping of extreme values, iterative calculation procedure).
2. The considerable volume of SGB II data included in the concept does not necessarily lead to the conclusion, within the framework of the evaluation of evidence in individual cases, that apartments of a basic standard are methodologically overrepresented. The structure of Section 22 of the SGB II does not permit inferences about the actual housing standard based solely on the granting of benefits, as there are numerous conceivable reasons why a benefit recipient might live in an apartment of a medium or high standard rather than a basic one.
3. The risk of a disproportionate sample (e.g., due to underrepresented private landlords) exists even with a methodologically sound survey. This does not necessarily contradict the minimum methodological requirements, but its distorting effect must be examined on a case-by-case basis. It is not apparent that tenancy agreements with private landlords differ so significantly from those with institutional landlords that representativeness should be rejected solely on this basis.
4. The examination of the minimum methodological requirements does not necessarily require an in-depth analysis of the raw data of a concept, since the free judicial evaluation of evidence (§ 128 para. 1 sentence 1 SGG) is a value-based process that is not subject to mathematical-statistical rules. An isolated examination of the raw data would reduce the evaluation of evidence to a purely mathematical-statistical calculation procedure and raise detailed questions that the court cannot answer.
5. Regarding heating costs, a prima facie case against the benefit recipient can also be based on exceeding a limit value determined by the basic income support provider itself, provided this value was determined in a verifiable manner within the bounds of methodological freedom. Recourse to the "Nationwide Heating Cost Index" is not mandatory.
Source: www.landesrecht.sachsen-anhalt.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Munich, Judgment of 23.03.2021 – L 10 AL 71/20
Title:
Cessation of job placement services pursuant to Section 38 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book III.
Principle (Juris)
1. A note by the case worker stating that a decision has been "sent" cannot be construed as meaning that it has been handed over to the postal service within the meaning of Section 37 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X.
2. The cessation of job placement services pursuant to Section 38 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) by the Federal Employment Agency requires administrative action by means of an administrative act due to the intervention-like nature of the decision.
3. The case law of the Federal Social Court regarding the necessity of a concrete, correct and complete instruction on legal consequences in the event of a threatened suspension period is also to be applied to the threatened cessation of job placement pursuant to Section 38 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book III.
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
4. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
4.1 – LSG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, decision of 21 January 2021 (L 9 AY 27/20 B ER):
Guiding principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel:
The granting of basic benefits pursuant to Section 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in accordance with needs level 2 (Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 AsylbLG or Section 3a Paragraph 2 No. 2 AsylbLG) presupposes, as an unwritten requirement, the actual and verifiable joint household management of persons entitled to benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG with other people housed in collective accommodation. The responsible social welfare 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 needs level regulated in Section 3a Paragraph 1 or 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act for adult beneficiaries who are housed in reception centers, communal accommodations and comparable facilities.
4.2 – LSG Hessen, decision of 13 April 2021 (L 4 AY 3/21 B ER):
Guiding 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 can be considered constitutional when interpreted literally.
Such a differentiation with regard to the coverage of the subsistence minimum is not acceptable in this absolute form.
There is no proven data or facts to support this.
In such an accommodation situation, the existence of a family life and economic community can certainly be a point of reference for economic legal consequences, provided that this does not entail any disadvantage to marriage and family that would be incompatible with the constitutional protection under Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.
However, purely shared living arrangements are not subject to the obligation to share resources under the state's basic social security systems.
Level 1 of the benefit level also applies if several eligible persons live in one apartment (multi-person constellations), unless these are partners.
At this point, a comprehensive examination in each individual case is always required to determine whether there is an actual and verifiable financial participation of various persons in the (joint) management of the household.
Any doubts here are always to the detriment of the benefit provider under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
This is especially true if an asylum seeker lives at a distance from his fellow residents within the communal accommodation due to illness, so that constant, joint economic activity within the facility is not justifiable.
5. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – Applications for benefits under SGB II / SGB XII from EU citizens: Reporting obligations to the immigration authorities
Continue reading: www.einwanderer.net
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
