1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of April 21, 2021 – L 18 AS 743/20 ZVW
Final version – Zero approval – Type of action – Estimate
Principle (Editor)
1. In cases where manipulation is possible, the SGB II provider may base its estimate on the upper end of a relevant estimation range (cf. Senate judgment of February 26, 2014 – L 18 AS 2232/11).
2. It can remain open whether the period mentioned in § 3 para. 6 Alg II-V constitutes a preclusive period and therefore no entitlement to (an increase in) benefits can arise after its expiry if it is later proven that the income had been estimated too high.
Source: gesetze.berlin.de
1.2 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of 02/17/2021 – L 37 SF 156/20 EK SF
Principle:
The legal aid remuneration procedure pursuant to Section 55 RVG and any subsequent objection procedure constitute court proceedings within the meaning of Section 198 Paragraph 6 No. 1 GVG.
For a remuneration procedure pursuant to Section 55 RVG, the court is entitled to a preparation and consideration period of usually three months.
For a subsequent appeal procedure, the court is generally entitled to a preparation and deliberation period of twelve months.
Delays can be compensated for by swift processing in the other procedural stage.
If a fee procedure under Section 55 of the German Lawyers' Fees Act (RVG) and a subsequent appeal procedure are unreasonably long, compensation through financial payment is generally not required. Rather, given the generally minor importance of such procedures and considering the comparatively minor emotional strain on lawyers familiar with litigation, who are officers of the court, caused by an unreasonable length of proceedings, redress in other ways is sufficient.
If the defendant has acknowledged the unreasonableness of the length of the proceedings in the pre-trial compensation proceedings and expressed his regret about this, the claim for compensation is otherwise fulfilled as a minor compensation claim.
Source: gesetze.berlin.de
Note:
How long does a lawyer have to wait for their legal aid fees? By Dr. Hans-Jochem Mayer
1.3 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of May 19, 2021 – L 29 AS 1920/19
unavoidable expenses – roof repair – unreasonably large house plot
Guidance (Editor Tacheles e. V.)
1. The repair costs for the loose roof ridges are, in principle, expenses covered by the legal entitlement.
2. According to the explanatory memorandum to the law, only particularly urgent expenses that are absolutely essential and do not lead to an improvement in the standard of living are considered unavoidable (cf. State Social Court).<LSG> Saxony-Anhalt, decision of October 26, 2010 – L 5 AS 345/09 B ER), i.e. the principle of economy and efficiency must be given special consideration; only what is necessary to secure the substance and maintain habitability is covered by the regulation, including, for example, roof renovations in the sense of simple maintenance work.
3. The repair is also reasonable under Section 22 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). This provision governs, on the one hand, the reimbursement of unavoidable expenses for maintenance and repairs in owner-occupied residential property, but, on the other hand, limits the expenses to be considered to the total housing costs deemed reasonable within a twelve-month period, which could also be considered for tenants. If the actual expenses for ongoing housing costs already exceed the upper limits applicable to tenants, no subsidies are granted under Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 (see Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, Judgment of September 30, 2010 – L 29 AS 328/10).
4. However, the house owned by the plaintiff himself is not protected property within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), because the property is unreasonably large. The provision of Section 22 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the SGB II does not apply to the case of unreasonably large property (see, for example, the decision of the Higher Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt of June 2, 2020 – L 4 AS 167/20 B ER; and the decision of the Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen of October 26, 2011 – L 7 AS 893/11 B ER).
5. To the extent that it is argued that the assumption of expenses for maintenance and repair pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not excluded for owner-occupied residential property that is not appropriate within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 4 of the SGB II, if the residential property is not to be considered as assets for other reasons and Section 22 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the SGB II is to be interpreted accordingly (see, for example, the decision of the Higher Social Court of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania of January 8, 2016 – L 8 AS 578/15 B ER).
Source: gesetze.berlin.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – Dessau-Roßlau Social Court, Judgment of 26 April 2021 – S 32 AS 437/17
Guiding principle
: On the existence of a coherent concept for determining appropriate rent ceilings in the city of Dessau-Roßlau.
If there is no noticeable imbalance in the data shares of small and large landlords in relation to their shares of the rental housing market, the representativeness of the data collection can be affirmed in a non-tight housing market.
When collecting data on existing rents, some of which are older than four years, a comparison with new contract and advertised rents can ensure that living space can actually be rented at the determined value.
Source: www.landesrecht.sachsen-anhalt.de
2.2 – Social Court Magdeburg of 04.06.2021 – S 27 AS 2124/15
Legal principle according to attorney Michael Loewy:
If a benefit recipient separates from their previous partner and moves into new accommodation with their children, they are entitled to initial furnishing assistance for the apartment, as cases of this kind are to be treated as equivalent to cases of initial furnishing (cf. Federal Social Court [BSG] judgment of July 1, 2009 – B 4 AS 77/08 R). In such a case, the initial furnishing assistance must be granted as a subsidy and not as a loan.
Source: www.anwaltskanzlei-loewy.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, Judgment of 23.03.2021 – L 15 SO 236/17 – Appeal allowed
The question of a one-off social assistance payment for the purchase of a washing machine is answered in the negative.
Source: Juris
4. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
4.1 – Note on: BSG 4th Senate, Judgment of 08.12.2020 – B 4 AS 30/20 R
Author: Dr. Stefan Meißner
Basic income support for job seekers: Non-consideration of disbursed installments of a bank student loan as income
Guiding principle regarding the note:
Paid-out installments of a student loan from a bank do not constitute income to be taken into account.
Continue on Juris
Editor's note:
Due to server maintenance, the website www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de currently unavailable.
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
