1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
1.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of. November 11, 2021 – L 14 AS 530/21 B PKH
Social court proceedings – legal aid – settlement of the main matter – readiness for approval – equal legal protection
Principle
1. If legal aid were not granted in the event of the main matter being settled despite the legal aid application being ready for approval and despite having a reasonable chance of success at the time the application was ready for approval, poor people would always be faced with the risk of incurring costs that were sufficient in and of themselves because of a settlement that they could not reliably foresee promising procedure (following the BVerfG of April 16, 2019 - 1 BvR 2111/17 = NVwZ-RR 2020, 137). (Rn.10)
2. In social court proceedings, the readiness for approval of an application for legal aid is therefore not regularly dependent on a statement from the other side (or the opportunity to do so). (Rn.11)
Source: gesetze.berlin.de
Note:
The legal aid application is ready for approval despite the lack of a statement from the other side, from Dr. Hans-Jochem Mayer, published on December 18, 2021
The LSG Berlin-Brandenburg correctly pointed out in the decision of November 11, 2021 - L 14 AS 530/21 B PKH - that an application for legal aid can also be ready for approval without a statement from the other side. The court pointed out that the provisions of the ZPO regarding the PKH only apply accordingly in social court proceedings. The opinion that the court cannot examine the prospects of success before a conclusive justification of the PKH application and a statement from the other side or at least the opportunity to do so may apply to civil procedural law, because civil courts typically do not have any other sources of information apart from the parties' written pleadings assessment of the prospects of success is available, but the social courts could find the facts relevant to assessing the prospects of success from the administrative file without having to rely on a statement from the defendant social benefit provider.
Source: community.beck.de
1.2 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of. 02/05/2021 – L 7 AS 3542/20 ER-B
By way of the interim order, the job center is obliged to grant higher accommodation costs, because a living space of up to 165 square meters or nine rooms can be appropriate for a nine-person household with 7 children.
Guidance (editor of Tacheles e. V.
1. According to Part 3 No. 1.2 on the living space limits when promoting rental housing, family-friendly accommodation also requires a sufficient number of children's rooms. At least two children's rooms must be provided for a household with three children. Children's rooms for one child must be at least 10 sqm, children's rooms for two children must be at least 15 sqm. With regard to the living space for funding in the event of ownership measures, Part 3 No. 1.1 also stipulates that with regard to the occupancy of the children's rooms, it must be taken into account that the age difference of Children can be prevented from being permanently accommodated together in a children's room and the same applies to long-term mixed-gender accommodation of children in a shared children's room.
2. Overall, the applicants should be granted living space with at least six or even seven rooms, taking into account the respective gender and age differences of the applicants.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.3 – LSG NRW, judgment of November 18, 2021 – L 7 AS 1200/21
To cover the costs of accommodation and heating for relatives - fictitious contract
Orientation sentence editor of Tacheles e.
V. The job center does not have to pay KdU to the plaintiff if there was no serious tenancy relationship with the mother, here is the fictitious contract.
Source: www.justiz.nrw.de
1.4 – LSG NRW, decision of. November 15, 2021 – L 7 AS 350/21 B
Basic security for job seekers - exclusion of benefits in the event of absence from location without consent - extension of the three-week period by a maximum of three days requires previously approved absence from location
Repeal of ALG II due to an unauthorized absence, here affirmative
Orientation sentence editor of Tacheles e.
V. 1. In the present case, it can also be left open whether exceptional cases are conceivable in which the absence of a person in need of assistance can be justified without first contacting the authorities and in which the exclusion of benefits in Section 7 Paragraph 4a SGB II therefore does not apply (cf. also on this LSG North Rhine-Westphalia resolution of April 6, 2011 - L 19 AS 2044/10 NZB). Such an exceptional case is not apparent or presented by the plaintiff.
2. The regulation of Section 3 Paragraph 3 EAO, which provides for an extension of the three-week period by a maximum of three days, does not come into consideration here because it is linked to a previously approved absence from location - which is not present here.
Source: www.justiz.nrw.de
1.5 – LSG Hessen, judgment of 12/01/2021 - L 6 AS 359/19 - Revision admitted - since, as far as can be seen, there is no supreme court case law that clarifies the relationship between SGB V and SGB II, if medically necessary services according to SGB V are assigned to the personal responsibility of the insured, but these are economically unable to bear the resulting costs.
SGB II: Job center must cover monthly fees for a contact lens subscription as an additional hardship requirement.
Editorial principle of Tacheles e.
V. 1. The plaintiff's need for the supply of contact lenses represents an ongoing, not just one-off need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II (aF).
2. The plaintiff's provision of contact lenses was medically indicated (i.e. there must have been an indication that can be verifiably determined based on medical documents (see Bavarian LSG, decision of March 9, 2017 - L 7 AS 167/17 B ER -; LSG Hamburg, judgment of March 19, 2015 - L 4 AS 390/10 -; LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, judgment of January 10, 2019 - L 15 AS 262/16)
3. Due to the medical indication, there is an unavoidable need, as there was no entitlement to (proportional) cost reimbursement from the statutory health insurance company due to the procurement of the contact lenses before the change in the law.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Guideline
1. There is no entitlement to the granting of additional requirements in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II old version if the costs have been covered by the supply of contact lenses before the start of the relevant approval period. This also applies if the care was not provided through a one-off payment, but rather through continuous installment payments during the approval period.
2. If the provision of contact lenses is medically necessary and this service is not included in the service catalog according to Section 33 Paragraph 2 SGB V or Section 2 Paragraph 1 a SGB V, the costs are to be paid in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II old version take over. Those entitled to benefits cannot be referred to a claim to constitutionally compliant care according to SGB V. Such a referral requires appropriate information, information or advice from the job center.
3. If the provision of contact lenses is medically necessary and this service is included in the catalog of services in accordance with Section 33 Paragraph 2 SGB V, the costs in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II old version must be borne if the costs go beyond a fixed amount supply. Those entitled to benefits cannot be informed that they have a claim beyond the fixed amounts according to SGB V. Such a referral requires appropriate information, information or advice from the job center.
Source: www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – SG Kassel, judgment of June 24, 20219 - S 8 AS 585/17 confirmed by LSG Hessen, judgment of 12/01/2021 – L 6 AS 359/19 – Revision approved
Hartz IV: Job center must provide visual aid if the applicant has the monthly. load limit is exceeded.
Covering the costs of a contact lens subscription as an additional hardship requirement
Editorial principle of Tacheles e.
V. 1. The job center must cover the monthly costs incurred for this i. H.v. 66.00 or 68.00 € as an additional hardship requirement according to Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II, because in the present case the load limit was exceeded.
2. The need is unavoidable within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 SGB II (aF), as there is no priority obligation for statutory health insurance to provide benefits.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
3. Decisions of the state social courts and social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Schleswig-Holstein, judgment of May 17, 2021 – L 3 AL 3/19 – Revision approved
Suspension of the entitlement to unemployment benefit - Vacation compensation - Cross-border commuters - Non-payment of Danish vacation allowance after termination of employment in Denmark - Remaining in the vacation account - Retention of the vacation entitlement when expected to start working again in Denmark
Unemployment insurance: entitlement to unemployment benefits; Suspension of the entitlement to unemployment benefit if there is an existing entitlement to holiday compensation under Danish law
Orientation sentence editor of Tacheles e.
V. 1. Entitlement to ALG 1, because there is no suspension of the entitlement to unemployment benefit due to the entitlement to payment of holiday allowance saved in Denmark.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of July 14, 2021 – L 2 SO 2114/19
Regarding the existence of a marriage-like community in social assistance, negative here
Orientation aid editor of Tacheles e.
V. 1. There is no marriage-like relationship here, because both have agreed to spend most of their free time apart from each other, so both sleep in separate rooms, both have their own television and usually do not spend time together in the living room .
2. Purchasing certain items of daily life together (food, cleaning and sanitary items) alone is not enough, because such coverage of basic needs is also quite common in purely shared apartments.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Decisions on asylum law and AsylbLG
5.1 - Kassel Social Court - Decision of January 4th, 2022 - Ref.: S 11 AY 21/21 ER
Norms: § 1a Para. 3 AsylbLG, § 3 AsylbLG, § 3a AsylbLG - Keywords: Benefit reduction according to § 1a Para. 3 AsylbLG, constitutional concerns regarding § 1a AsylbLG, Nigeria, Kassel Social Court
Orientation aid editor of Tacheles e.
V. 1. With regard to the provisional obligation of the benefit authority to grant unreduced benefits, the adjudicating chamber relies on the statements of the adjudicating chamber in the decisions of May 5, 2021 (S 11 AY 7/21 ER), dated August 25, 2021 .2021 (S 11 AY 15/21 ER) and from August 27th. 2021 (S 11 AY 17/21 ER) as well as the statements of the Hessian State Social Court on the need for a constitutional interpretation of Section 1a AsylbLG, especially in cases like the present one, in which the impossibility of implementing measures to end the stay is seen in the lack of cooperation on the part of the benefit recipient. The decisions of the Hessian State Social Court of February 26, 2020 in proceedings L 4 AY 14/19 B ER and of July 26, 2021 in proceedings L 4 AY 19/21 B ER should be mentioned here.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
6. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and others
6.1 – “Tabular overview: The options for permanent residence under the Residence Act (settlement permit and EU permanent residence permit)”
continue here: ggua.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
