1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – LSG NRW, judgment of March 11, 2021 – L 19 AS 466/20
Double bonus for further training success:
Passing the first part of a staggered final examination is equivalent to an intermediate examination and entitles the holder to an additional bonus.
Summary:
The plaintiff is entitled to a further training bonus for passing an intermediate examination. Such an examination is comparable to passing the theoretical part of the vocational school examination in the field of social pedagogy. While this marks the end of vocational training, as the period of practical training in the form of a professional internship does not constitute vocational training within the meaning of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), the school-based vocational training to become an educator is not completed with the passing of the theoretical part of the examination, but only with the passing of the practical part of the vocational school examination. This practical part determines the overall qualification acquired in the course of study. It corresponds to the final examination of in-company vocational training regulated in the Vocational Training Act, specifically in the form of a two-part final examination. Section 131a Paragraph 3 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), which refers to an intermediate examination in company-based vocational training, should be applied analogously to the completion of the first part of such an examination, at least in the case of multi-year training programs (contrary to the ruling of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (LSG NRW), judgment of November 23, 2020, L 20 AL 53/19, press release of February 5, 2021, appeal pending: B 11 AL 2/21 R). The further training bonuses are intended to strengthen perseverance in multi-year training programs, which is why, in principle, a multi-year training program served as the model for the statutory regulation. However, the legislative materials do not indicate a restriction to company-based vocational training, so school-based vocational training is also included.
The appeal is pending before the Federal Social Court (BSG) (B 14 AS 31/21 R).
Source: Press release from the LSG Essen dated May 6, 2021
Note:
a A. LSG NRW, Judgment of 23.11.2020 – 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.
1.2 – LSG Munich, Judgment of 23 November 2020 – L 7 AS 267/18
Title:
Basic income support for job seekers: Munich concept for reasonable housing rent
Legal basis:
SGB II § 22 para. 1 sentence 1
Principle (Juris):
The Munich concept for reasonable residential rent, which the Federal Social Court (BSG) has recognized as conclusive, is also conclusive in its updates for subsequent years (here: 2015 and 2016). (Paragraphs 29-31)
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
1.3 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 18 March 2021 – L 11 AS 33/21 B ER
Regarding the entitlement of a service provider to access paid debt counselling pursuant to Section 16a No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) within the framework of preliminary legal protection proceedings.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Social Court Lüneburg, Judgment of 03.11.2020 – S 44 AS 323/17
Principle (Juris)
1. A direct transfer of the standard benefit to the landlord is only possible after a discretionary decision pursuant to Section 53 SGB I.
2. The Job Center may transfer the benefits it approves for housing and heating costs directly to the landlord, in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 Paragraph 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). A further direct transfer of the standard benefit to cover rent exceeding the approved benefits for housing and heating costs is only possible after a discretionary decision pursuant to Section 53 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
2.2 – Osnabrück Social Court, decisions of 10 March 2021 – S 50 AS 39/21 ER, S 50 AS 51/21 ER
Hartz IV: No entitlement to reimbursement for additional FFP2 masks
Recipients of Hartz IV benefits are not entitled to reimbursement of costs for the procurement of additional FFP2 masks by the responsible job center.
Full text now available: www.rechtsprechung.niedersachsen.de and www.rechtsprechung.niedersachsen.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – SG Konstanz, decision of 01.04.2021 – S 3 SO 338/21 ER
No entitlement to reimbursement of costs for FFP2 masks in preliminary injunction proceedings
Source: Juris
4. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
4.1 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, Judgment of March 25, 2021 (L 8 AY 33/16):
Guiding principle by Dr. Manfred Hammel
: In the case of so-called "in order to enter" within the meaning of Section 1a Paragraph 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), the intended receipt of social benefits must have been the decisive motive for the applicant at the time of arrival in Germany. Merely accepting the possibility of needing assistance is insufficient.
A binding rejection of an asylum application alone does not automatically lead authorities to conclude that applicants intended to enter the country solely for the purpose of receiving benefits.
Convincing evidence must be provided here that allows for a reliable conclusion regarding the primary motivation for entry for each individual adult family member.
In this context, living conditions in the country of origin can also be important.
If a person entitled to benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) was exposed to an extreme material hardship before entering the federal territory, which can be considered a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, then this precludes the application of Section 1a Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the AsylbLG.
The purpose and any potential wrongfulness of the (illegal) entry do not justify a restriction of benefits based on the motive for entry pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), especially if the person concerned is exposed to imminent human rights violations within the country of origin: for example, if a single mother with a minor daughter is completely on her own and literally has to live on the street for a longer period of time.
The current reception conditions in Italy are similar: people with protected status, including women, single mothers, families, as well as the mentally ill and disabled, are regularly threatened with homelessness in this EU state due to significant shortcomings within the social system there.
Note:
Assessment of the reason for entry to restrict benefits according to § 1a AsylbLG
The LSG Celle-Bremen has clarified its case law on assessing the motive for entry of asylum seekers, thereby strengthening the rights of refugees.
Further information: www.juris.de
4.2 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 29 April 2021 – L 8 AY 21/18
Disputes under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act / Reduction – Section 1a / Somalia
– No court fees will be charged!!! –
1. A prerequisite for the restriction of benefits under Section 1a No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in its former version or Section 1a Paragraph 2 of the AsylbLG is that the receipt of benefits was the primary motivation for entering Germany. All specific circumstances of the individual case must be taken into account when assessing the motivation.
2. If the primary motive for entering Germany is to create a livelihood through employment and to live independently of state benefits, a restriction under Section 1a No. 1 AsylbLG aF or Section 1a Paragraph 2 AsylbLG is not justified.
3. When exercising discretion on the granting of benefits in kind or cash for accommodation pursuant to Section 3 Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in its former version or Section 3 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), the specific circumstances of the individual case must be taken into account, in particular the foreigner's previous and expected length of stay in Germany (see Lower Saxony-Bremen Higher Social Court, judgment of 2 July 2020 – L 8 AY 37/20 B ER – juris para. 11 et seq.).
4. The deportation of a foreigner regularly constitutes a significant interruption of his or her stay in Germany within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
4.3 – Bremen Social Court, decision of April 23, 2021 (S 39 AY 33/21 ER):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel:
The lack of cooperation of a foreign national convicted of a crime in obtaining the necessary identity document within the meaning of Section 48 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the Residence Act constitutes typical abuse of rights pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act, because this prevents the execution of the deportation order issued by the person who is only entitled to benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 5 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act, if they are responsible for the lack of a passport or the failure to reapply.
Restrictions on benefits imposed pursuant to Section 1a, paragraphs 1 and 3, sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) must always be expressly limited to six months by the authorities in accordance with Section 14, paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG. No permanent administrative act may be issued in this regard.
The restriction of benefits pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with Section 1a Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the AsylbLG is constitutionally questionable, as it is disproportionate (Article 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law), because on this basis the persons sanctioned in this way are deprived of approximately 50% of their monthly standard allowance for a period of six months.
The only justifiable measure here is a sanction for a period of three months and a reduction – based on the benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act – in the amount of EUR 109.20 per month.
4.4 – SG Osnabrück, judgment of 09.04.2021 – S 44 AY 77/19
Asylum seeker benefits – Restriction of entitlement – Rejection of the asylum application by a decision of the BAMF pursuant to Section 29 Paragraph 1 No. 1 AsylVfG – Constitutionality
1. The reduction of benefits pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 7 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) following an inadmissibility decision by the Federal Office pursuant to Section 29 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the Asylum Act (rejection of an asylum application as inadmissible due to the responsibility of another state for conducting the asylum procedure) is not unconstitutional in principle (confirmation of: Osnabrück Social Court, decision of January 27, 2020, S 44 AY 76/19 ER).
2. The Federal Constitutional Court's statements regarding the lack of proof of the suitability of higher sanctions for the purpose of reintegration into employment under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) in its decision of November 5, 2019 (1 BvL 7/16) are not applicable to Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), as a limitation of the benefit reduction to 30% is not possible either through interpretation or legal development (confirmation of: Osnabrück Social Court, decision of January 27, 2020, S 44 AY 76/19 ER; contrary view: Saxony Higher Social Court, decision of March 3, 2021, L 8 AY 8/20 B ER).
3. Due to the extent of the benefit reductions, amounting to approximately 50% of the standard benefits, a referral under Article 100 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law is not required (confirmation of: Osnabrück Social Court, judgment of June 11, 2019, S 44 AY 14/17). The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of November 5, 2019 (1 BvL 7/16) does not lead to a different conclusion.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
5. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – Unemployment Benefit II in Berlin – Basic income support for job seekers (as of April 1, 2021)
Our guide “Unemployment Benefit II in Berlin” (PDF, 3.9 MB): www.beratung-kann-helfen.de
5.2 – Social law information from Bernd Eckhardt
Enclosed is the current issue of SOCIAL LAW-JUSTAMENT.
The so-called "modified inflow theory" plays a central role in administrative practice and case law regarding income crediting under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Book XII (SGB XII). The "modified inflow theory" was first presented in detail in the journal "Sozialrecht-Justament" in 2013. The last revision was published in March 2018. This current issue contains the revised version reflecting the legal status as of May 2021. The presentation has been completely revised and includes newly written chapters. A sidebar to the right of the main text highlights key points. These bullet points have been significantly expanded and are now integrated with the main text, ensuring they are always readily accessible. The 50-page presentation of the inflow theory, comprising 31 individual chapters, is included in this issue, along with a detailed, linked table of contents starting on page 9.
The current decision of the Federal Social Court from March 2021 on the statute of limitations for reimbursement claims has already been sent out and is presented again (in the new format) from page 7 onwards.
5.3 – Practical advice and background information: Deportations of beneficiaries of protection to Greece are illegal!
More information: www.nds-fluerat.org
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
