1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security according to (SGB II)
1.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of. 02/07/2022 – L 18 AS 12/22 B ER
Interim legal protection – basic security for job seekers – Union citizens – exclusion of benefits – habitual residence of five years
In the case of difficult legal questions regarding the exclusion of subsistence benefits that have not yet been clarified by the highest court and are highly controversial, the consequences must be weighed up in the interim legal protection procedure.
Orientation sentence editor of Tacheles e.
V. 1. Polish homeless person is entitled to ALG II as part of the assessment of the consequences.
2. According to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 5 SGB II, the five-year period begins with registration with the responsible registration authority. In the present proceedings, it can ultimately remain open whether parts of the higher court case law and literature are to be followed that the provision of Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 8 SGB Sentence 7 (same word as Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 5 SGB II) begins with registration with the responsible registration authority, is generally to be reduced teleologically in cases in which continuous residence in Germany can be proven in another way (according to LSG North Rhine-Westphalia). Westphalia, resolution of May 5, 2021 - L 9 SO 56/21 B ER; LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, resolutions of April 5, 2017 - L 15 SO 353/16 B ER and of June 6, 2017 - L 15 SO 112/ 17 B ER; op LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of August 16, 2018 – L 23 SO 146/18 B ER; Schleswig-Holsteinisches LSG, decision of December 9, 2019 - L 6 AS 152/19 B ER; LSG Hamburg, decision of June 20, 2019 – L 4 AS 34/19 B ER; Judgment of the adjudicating Senate of May 11, 2020 – L 18 AS 1812/19; LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of May 31, 2021 - L 5 AS 457/21 B ER - L 5 AS 459/21 B ER PKH).
3. This difficult legal question has not yet been clarified by the highest court, which raises constitutional problems, particularly in light of the fact that a homeless person is not obliged to register and therefore would not be able to fulfill the return exception in the event of a missing “registration” from the outset not happened. This applies all the more as the return exception, which is standardized in the same way in the law of SGB is to be interpreted as meaning that German and foreign nationals who are staying in Germany are entitled equally, is fundamentally unavailable and that constitutional law requires that a claim to benefits “must” be granted (as expressly stated by the Federal Constitutional Court , judgment of July 18, 2012 – 1 BvL 10/10, 1 BvL 2/11).
Source: gesetze.berlin.de
1.2 - LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of March 30, 2022- L 9 AS 217/22 B ER
Limitation period
Limitation even if provisional approval is reclaimed - comments from the first plaintiff, Attorney Kay Füßlein
To date, it is controversial whether the four-year limitation period also applies to claims for reimbursement according to Section 328 SGB III or Section 41a SGB II. The Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court decided in 2020 (L 14 AS 553/20 B ER) that a 30-year statute of limitations could apply here.
With its decision of March 30, 2022, the LSG Berlin-Brandenburg has now repositioned itself due to the BSG's ruling of March 4, 2021, in such a way that even in the case of reclaims according to Section 40 SGB II in conjunction with. § 328 SGB III and § 41a SGB II also basically have a four-year statute of limitations (which can, however, be extended to 30 years under certain conditions).
Source: Attorney Kay Füßlein
1.3 – LSG NRW, judgment of January 19, 2022 – L 12 AS 213/20 – Revision approved
Orientation sentence editor v.
Tacheles e. V. Regarding the question of whether Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II applies after its amendment in August 2016 even without a coherent concept, the answer here is in the affirmative.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.4 – LSG Bayern, judgment of April 29, 2021 – L 7 AS 404/20
Guidelines
If sick pay is paid directly to the creditors of a beneficiary, the sick pay must still be counted as income for the beneficiary.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.5 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment from October 13, 2021 – L 2 AS 448/21
Editorial principle of Tacheles e.
V. 1. Entry allowance does not serve to merely improve the economic conditions of the beneficiary if a decision has already been made and implemented to take up work (cf. State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of June 20, 2012 - L 5 AS 112 /12 B; State Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of May 25, 2011 - L 13 AS 178/10).
2. It is irrelevant that the employment relationship has now been terminated.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security (SGB II)
2.1 – SG Magdeburg, judgment of March 28, 2022 – S 34 AS 751/16
Matters according to SGB II (AS) - failure to take up a job opportunity - non-final sanction period according to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court
Guiding principle
The elimination of the effectiveness of an allocation decision according to Section 16d SGB II through the passage of time within the meaning of Section 39 Paragraph 2 SGB X does not conflict with a reduction decision according to Sections 31 ff. SGB II.
Rather, the judicial review of a sanction by means of an action for annulment requires the incidental examination of the legality of the underlying allocation decision (left open for the administrative integration act: BSG, judgment of April 13, 2011 - B 14 AS 101/10 R).
Even in the case of non-final sanction decisions, the examination of a case of hardship and the subsequent good behavior of those entitled to benefits in the sense of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court must be considered (contrary to LSG Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of June 17, 2020 - L 4 AS 709/15). The question can remain open if, in a specific individual case, good conduct efforts cannot be recognized from the overall context.
Source: www.landesrecht.sachsen-anhalt.de
Note:
also SG Hamburg, judgment of September 24, 2020 – S 58 AS 369/17
3. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – SG Rostock, judgment of April 5, 2022 – S 8 SUN 57/21
Remuneration for the simultaneous provision of home nursing services in accordance with Section 37 Paragraph 2 SGB V and care benefits in kind in accordance with Section 36 SGB XI
Guiding principle
If home nursing services are simultaneously provided in accordance with Section 37 Para. 2 SGB V and care benefits in kind in accordance with Section 36 SGB the body-related care measures (to which Section 17 Paragraph 1 b Sentence 2 SGB Paragraph 1 b SGB
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
4. Decisions on asylum law and AsylbLG
4.1 – LSG Bayern, decision by. 04/11/2022 – L 8 AY 34/22 B ER
Guiding principles
1. On the responsibility of Bavarian service providers for entitlement restrictions in accordance with Section 1a AsylbLG.
2. The prerequisite for a claim restriction in accordance with Section 1a Paragraph 7 AsylbLG is that the person entitled to benefits has been informed of their obligation to leave the country and has been made aware of possible consequences in terms of benefit law if they remain in Germany.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other law books
5.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of. 04/07/2022 – L 4 KR 40/22 B ER
Guiding principle
The norm of Section 83 Paragraph 4 SGB IX does not exclude a claim by a minor entitled to benefits to support the costs of purchasing a vehicle in accordance with Section 83 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB IX.
Source: gesetze.berlin.de
5.2 - Hartz 4 recipient rides his bike to the job center - and gets the travel costs reimbursed
A Hartz 4 recipient rode his bike to the job center to register: Now he successfully went to court to get the travel costs reimbursed.
Leipzig – Important Hartz 4 News: A recipient of Hartz IV probably thought, you could try it. And the end of the song: he is right. Because the Hartz IV recipient may have won a groundbreaking lawsuit at the Leipzig Social Court. The court ruled that the travel costs for the registration appointment at the job center had to be reimbursed, even if the Hartz IV recipient did not travel to the registration appointment by public transport, but by bicycle.
continue: www.fr.de
Note:
SG Leipzig, judgment of March 18, 2020 – S 17 AS 405/19 – legally binding
Travel costs also for cyclists
Orientation aid (editor)
In principle, cyclists are also entitled to reimbursement of travel costs for attending registration appointments at the Jobcenter Leipzig.
The job center only has discretion over the amount of reimbursement.
Source: www.dgbrechtsschutz.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
