1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on matters concerning the child supplement and basic income support for job seekers under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of March 9, 2022 – B 7/14 AS 31/21 R
Educators are entitled to a further training bonus of 1000 EUR according to § 16 para. 1 SGB II in conjunction with § 131a para. 3 no. 1 SGB III.
Double bonus for further training success – Passing the first part of a two-part final examination is equivalent to an intermediate examination and entitles the holder to an additional bonus.
Guidance note by the editor of Tacheles e. V.
1. The further training bonus pursuant to Section 131a Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) is part of the benefits granted to the plaintiff pursuant to Section 16 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in its former version. According to Section 131a Paragraph 3 Number 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) in its relevant version, employees who participate in vocational further training funded pursuant to Section 81 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), which leads to a qualification in a training occupation for which a training period of at least two years is stipulated by federal or state law, receive a bonus of 1000 euros after passing an intermediate examination regulated in these provisions, provided the measure begins before December 31, 2020.
2. These requirements are met, provided that the passed examination after completion of the theoretical part of the training can be considered equivalent to an intermediate examination. The plaintiff cannot directly derive a claim for payment from Section 131a Paragraph 3 Number 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), because this provision applies to further training measures leading to a vocational qualification covered by the Vocational Training Act (BBiG) and comparable regulations. The plaintiff's vocational school training at a vocational college does not fall under this category.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
1.2 – BSG, judgment of 03/09/2022 – B 7/14 KG 1/20 R
Child supplement – Family benefit – Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act – Türkiye
Turkish nationals have a right to child allowance under association law
Guiding principle by the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
Turkish nationals who are entitled to benefits under Section 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) can claim child allowances via the prohibition of discrimination under association law in Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Association Council Decision No. 3/80.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
1.3 – BSG, judgment of March 9, 2022 – B 7/14 AS 79/20 R
Basic income support for job seekers – Exclusion from benefits – EU citizens – Continued effect – Employment status
Guidance note by attorney Volker Gerloff:
Section 2 III 1 No. 2 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU states that EU citizens who have been employed for "more than one year" retain their employee status permanently.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) has ruled that this also applies if employment lasted exactly one year.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
1.4 – BSG, Judgment of 9 March 2022 – B 7/14 AS 91/20 R
Basic income support for job seekers – Exclusion from benefits – EU citizens – Parental leave – Employment status
Guidance by Attorney Volker Gerloff:
EU citizens remain employees during parental leave and therefore may not be excluded from benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) during parental leave.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 07.01.2022 – L 19 AS 1506/20
Court decision – value of the appeal in proceedings in favor of the plaintiff – defective instructions on legal remedies – admissibility of the request for an oral hearing
Principle:
If the social court incorrectly informs the court in its judgment about the appeal as an admissible legal remedy, a request for an oral hearing is generally possible without time limit.
The value of the appeal, even in proceedings in favor of the appellant pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), is to be determined according to the objective pursued by the appeal, namely the material core of the proceedings.
Source: gesetze.berlin.de
2.2 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of 01/28/2022 – L 37 SF 266/19 EK AS
Excessively long court proceedings – claim for compensation – unreasonable length of proceedings – suspension of the original proceedings – redress by other means – judicial determination of the excessive length of the proceedings – conduct of the parties to the proceedings
Principle
1. Procedural delays resulting from the fact that the proceedings have (continued to) be suspended, even though there was objectively no (longer any) ground for suspension, fall at least also within the responsibility of the court and are therefore attributable to the state.
2. The conduct of the parties, which may consist of neither filing an application for the reopening of the proceedings nor of notifying the court on its own initiative about the cessation of the grounds for suspension, does not relieve the court of its duty under the rule of law to ensure an expeditious procedure (cf. Federal Constitutional Court, Chamber decision of 5 August 2013 – 1 BvR 2965/10 – juris para. 25; European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 11 January 2007 – 20027/02 – juris para. 78).
3. The judicial inaction attributable to the State begins, at least if the court of first instance has not established control mechanisms such as regular resubmissions that enable it to notice the cessation of the grounds for suspension within a reasonable time, with the month following the cessation of the grounds for suspension.
4. The fact that the parties contributed significantly to the prolongation of the proceedings because they – although they were aware of the cessation of the grounds for suspension – did not inform the court of this, may be taken into account when considering whether the compensation for the resulting non-material disadvantage can be provided in another way within the meaning of Section 198 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 and Paragraph 4 of the Courts Constitution Act.
5. Legally, there are no objections to considering redress in another way pursuant to Section 198 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 and Paragraph 4 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG) as sufficient for certain phases of the delay in the original proceedings, while for other phases of the same original proceedings a claim for monetary compensation is granted (see Federal Fiscal Court (BFH), judgment of June 4, 2014 – XK 12/13 – juris para. 37).
Source: gesetze.berlin.de
2.3 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of 01/28/2022 – L 37 SF 284/19 EK AS
Excessively long court proceedings – claim for compensation – unreasonable length of proceedings – suspension of the original proceedings – redress by other means – judicial determination of the excessive length of the proceedings – conduct of the parties to the proceedings
Principle
1. Procedural delays resulting from the fact that the proceedings were (still) suspended, even though there was objectively no (longer any) ground for suspension, fall at least also within the responsibility of the court and are therefore attributable to the state.
2. The conduct of the parties, which may consist of neither filing an application for the reopening of the proceedings nor of notifying the court on its own initiative about the cessation of the grounds for suspension, does not relieve the court of its duty under the rule of law to ensure an expeditious procedure (cf. Federal Constitutional Court, Chamber decision of 5 August 2013 – 1 BvR 2965/10 – juris para. 25; European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 11 January 2007 – 20027/02 – juris para. 78).
3. The judicial inaction attributable to the State begins, at least if the court of first instance has not established control mechanisms such as regular resubmissions that enable it to notice the cessation of the grounds for suspension within a reasonable time, with the month following the cessation of the grounds for suspension.
4. The fact that the parties contributed significantly to the prolongation of the proceedings because they – although they were aware of the cessation of the grounds for suspension – did not inform the court of this, may be taken into account when considering whether the compensation for the resulting non-material disadvantage can be provided in another way within the meaning of Section 198 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 and Paragraph 4 of the Courts Constitution Act.
Source: gesetze.berlin.de
2.4 – LSG Saxony, decision of 21.02.2022 – L 7 AS 245/18
Guiding principles:
A final decision on benefits to secure subsistence, which is based on an unlawful estimate of income under the law applicable until 31 July 2016, is not to be overturned if the need for assistance has not been proven.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.5 – LSG NSB, Decision of 16.02.2022 – L 11 AS 479/21 B ER
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
A person in need of assistance has no entitlement to school fees for attending a private school from the job center.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
2.6 – LSG NSB, judgment of 02/03/2022 – L 11 AS 578/20
1. In principle, no enforceable claims arise for the landlord from the direct payment of rent to the landlord (§ 22 para. 7 SGB II).
2. The landlord has no right against the job center to demand a specific purpose for the transfer in the case of a direct payment pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
3. A landlord's lawsuit against the job center for direct payment of the rent of a basic income support recipient is subject to court costs (§ 197a SGG).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
Note:
Landlords cannot sue the job center for rent.
The LSG Celle-Bremen has ruled that a landlord has no enforceable claims against the job center despite the possibility of direct payment of the rent.
Source: Press release of the LSG Celle-Bremen No. 5/2022 dated March 7, 2022
2.7 – LSG Hessen, decision of 26.01.2022 – L 6 SF 7/21 DS – appeal pending before the BSG B 1 SF 1/22 R
principles
: Article 34, sentence 3 of the Basic Law not only opens the legal recourse to the ordinary courts for claims for damages arising from breach of official duty, but (continues) a conclusive allocation of legal recourse.
This also includes claims for damages under Article 82(1) GDPR, provided that the alleged violations are rooted in a public-law social benefit relationship.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.8 – Hessian State Social Court, decision of 21.02.2022 – L 6 AS 585/21 B ER
Legal provisions: Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, Section 67 Paragraph 3 SGB II – Keywords: Covid-19 pandemic, Kassel Job Center, housing costs, Hessian State Social Court, City of Kassel, simplified procedure for access to social security
A family with a disabled child and a seriously ill father is entitled to have the actual costs of accommodation covered during the pandemic.
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
1. Recipients of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), do not have to worry about their housing during the pandemic, because Section 67 Paragraph 3 of the SGB II applies.
2. This regulation is even considered applicable in cases of very high accommodation costs or "luxury rents".
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
2.9 – LSG Erfurt, judgment of November 25, 2021 – L 7 AS 623/17
Accommodation costs in the city of Jena are not reasonable
Guiding principle:
The data collected to develop a coherent concept for a basic income support provider must provide a realistic picture of the housing market. If the housing market is not clearly dominated or almost exclusively by large housing companies and cooperatives, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient data from smaller landlords are also included in the survey to achieve a representative representation of the housing market.
Source: landesrecht.thueringen.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Bayern, Judgment of 21.02.2022 – L 10 AL 39/21
Guiding principles:
Contributions to private health and long-term care insurance can only be covered if the beneficiary under the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), is also contractually obligated to pay the contributions to the insurance company as the policyholder.
When revoking a benefit award, insofar as it is not a mandatory decision, discretion must be exercised properly in addition to examining the protection of legitimate expectations.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
3.2 – LSG Bayern, judgment of February 21, 2022 – L 10 AL 81/20
Guiding Principles
1. Even after the amendment of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) by the Federal Participation Act (BTHG), the delimitation of responsibilities for services for participation in working life on the one hand and services for social participation on the other hand continues to be based on the focus of the respective measure in question; the amendment to the law did not intend for a uniform provision of services by a single rehabilitation provider regardless of the allocation of the respective services to the service groups.
2. The therapeutic placement of a young person in vocational training can, in principle, be viewed as both a service for participation in working life and a service for social participation. The distinction must be made according to the objective of the specific placement in each individual case.
3. If the accommodation is not a service for participation in working life, the question of a fundamental priority and subordination between the Federal Employment Agency and the youth welfare provider is irrelevant.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Hessen, Judgment of 19 January 2022 – L 4 SO 143/19 – Appeal allowed
Guiding principles
1. Section 22 paragraph 10 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is to be applied analogously to the determination of the reasonable limit for costs of accommodation and heating according to the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), insofar as the regulations for this are otherwise identical in content in the SGB II and SGB XII (affirmed here for costs of accommodation and heating for rented housing on the general housing market).
2. Whether an overall reasonable limit is established pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 10 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is not subject to official discretion.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – Newsletter from Attorney Volker Gerloff 04/2022 and 05/2022
Social benefits for Ukrainian refugees - income and assets
Continued: Ra Gerloff – Newsletter 04-2022 and Ra Gerloff – Newsletter 05-2022
5.2 – Even if a degree of disability is determined to be permanent, the severely disabled person's identity card must generally be issued for a limited period
The Stuttgart Higher Social Court (LSG Stuttgart) has ruled that even in the case of an indefinite determination of the degree of disability (GdB) according to § 152 para. 5 sentence 3 SGB IX, there is generally only an entitlement to the issuance of a temporary severely disabled person's identity card.
Further information: www.juris.de
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
