1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security according to (SGB II)
1.1 – Saxon LSG, judgment of May 12, 2022 – L 3 AS 243/20
Guiding principles
1. A person involved in the administrative procedure has no right to have an administrative file kept in a certain way, for example chronologically, in an orderly manner, or to have it paged or paginated.
2. A disordered or incomplete administrative file can only be significant in two respects: On the one hand, such a file can indicate that the authority has not fulfilled its official obligation to investigate in accordance with Section 20 SGB X or at least has not put the facts relevant to the decision on file. On the other hand, a disorderly or incomplete administrative file can also violate the right of the person involved in the proceedings to be given a fair hearing. In both cases, however, a corresponding defect must be substantiatedly complained about by the person involved in the proceedings and not just asserted in the dark.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.2 – Saxon LSG, judgment of March 17, 2022 – L 3 AS 568/21
Guidelines
1. If a beneficiary reduces the accommodation costs to his landlord, these are the ongoing accommodation costs that actually have to be taken into account in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, unless the rent reduction is obviously ineffective.
2. If it is later determined in court proceedings due to the defects in the apartment that the tenant has no right to a reduction or at least no right to a reduction in the amount claimed, and additional demands are made, these one-off payments owed will then be considered a further one-off accommodation requirement Within the scope of cost appropriateness to the current needs of the month in which the additional demand became legally binding and therefore due.
3. The time at which the landlord's rent claim is due on the one hand and the time at which the right to additional payment from a job center arises on the other hand can differ.
4. If the legislature gives a tenant the opportunity to actively procedurally have a legal dispute in a tenancy relationship resolved in court (here as part of a declaratory judgment action), a job center is prohibited from reminding the tenant to behave procedurally passively in the tenancy dispute .
5. A statute of limitations does not occur “automatically” due to the passage of time; rather, it must be asserted.
6. There is no discernible obligation of a beneficiary under basic security law to raise the objection of statute of limitations in favor of a job center to the landlord.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.3 – LSG Hessen, decision of. June 13, 2022 – L 6 AS 196/22 B ER
Guiding principles
The withdrawal from Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Half. 2 SGB II, according to which a claim to ongoing basic living benefits for job seekers is excluded despite five years of habitual residence in Germany if the loss of the right has been determined in accordance with Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU, does not apply if the The corresponding decision is neither binding nor immediately enforceable.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.4 – LSG NRW, judgment of June 23, 2022 – L 6 AS 120/17
Accommodation costs in the Märkisches Kreis for recipients of SGB II/SGB
Press release from Attorney Lars Schulte-Bräucker on accommodation costs in the Märkischer Kreis for recipients of SGB II/SGB XII benefits
Excerpt:
The background is the accommodation costs for benefit recipients according to SGB II/SGB
The procedure dates back to 2015.
The Dortmund Social Court dismissed the lawsuit in the case S 19 AS 3392/15 on December 1, 2016 and assumed that the concept was coherent in the sense of case law.
Today, the State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia largely found the plaintiff right and found that the concept of the defendant Märkischer Kreis job center is not conclusive in the sense of the case law of the Federal Social Court.
This was mainly justified by the lack of representativeness and validity of the related data for the concept of the company analysis and concepts.
The defendant Märkischer Kreis job center was unable to prove an exact relationship between the individual landlord types in the requested data on which the concept was based, but this is necessary for conclusiveness.
For example, it was stated by the undersigned that the IGW, which claims to have more than 2,000 apartments, was completely ignored when drawing up the concept.
In the opinion of the State Social Court, these deficiencies in the creation of the concept led to the lack of consistency in the Märkischer Kreis guidelines on accommodation costs.
It follows that, due to the lack of conclusiveness, the values according to the Housing Benefit Act plus a security surcharge of 10% must be granted as accommodation costs for the benefit recipients and thus also the plaintiff.
This means that for the time being it will no longer be possible for benefit recipients to reduce the cost of accommodation because, from the point of view of the undersigned, there is currently no coherent concept from the Märkischer Kreis job center or the Märkischer Kreis, because the subsequent concepts in subsequent years will also be based on the same standards may have been developed.
An appeal against the decision was not permitted in the judgment today.
Source: Attorney Lars Schulte – Bräucker
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic security according to (SGB II)
2.1 – Cologne Social Court, judgment of May 17, 2022 (S 15 AS 322/21):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel Even if a federal state generally has freedom of learning materials, students here also regularly have to purchase additional books for lessons without these media being covered by the freedom of learning materials.
The freedom of learning materials stipulated by state law cannot be considered comprehensive in this respect.
This means that school books that are not covered by the freedom of learning materials must be recognized by the job center as additional hardship needs in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6a SGB II.
The flat rate to be approved by the SGB II provider in accordance with Section 28 Paragraph 3 SGB II for the provision of personal school supplies does not also include the provision of necessary school books.
The savings potential contained in the standard requirement (§ 20 SGB II) is in no way sufficient to finance this special requirement if there is not complete freedom from learning materials.
2.2 – Cologne Social Court, judgment of May 17, 2022 (S 15 AS 4356/19):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel In the case of costs for the procurement of identification documents for a non-German child who lives permanently in the federal territory together with his mother who is entitled to benefits in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, the presentation of which is required by the job center as a prerequisite for the granting of benefits in accordance with Sections 19 ff. SGB II requires, this is a special need that must be recognized by the SGB II provider in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II.
An amount of EUR 244.80 (costs for issuing the ID card: EUR 136.00; travel costs to the responsible diplomatic mission: EUR 108.80) exceeds the expenses for the purchase of German documents included in the standard requirements (§ 20 SGB II). Identification documents by far. For people under the age of 14, the costs incurred for providing identification documents are in no way included in the standard requirements.
The granting of a loan in accordance with Section 24 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II is not possible if the job center asks the child's mother several times and over a period of months to present identification documents for her non-German child and makes the granting of benefits to this minor dependent on this has.
It can therefore be assumed that the additional need arising in this context cannot be rejected in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 SGB II.
However, according to Section 21 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 SGB II, only the expenses for issuing the ID card and the travel costs that have been proven to be necessary in this context are eligible for recognition. The expenses for producing a passport must not be considered necessary here. The interest of a needy child in being able to travel to non-European countries is generally not covered by the needs protected by subsistence law.
Also attorney Volker Gerloff on Twitter:
Passport procurement costs for a foreign child can be borne by the JobCenter under Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II if JobCenter makes presentation of the passport a requirement for services.
3. Decisions of the state social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 – Saxon LSG, judgment of March 31, 2022 – L 3 AL 12/20
Guidelines
1. There is no entitlement to unemployment benefit for further vocational training if the availability is not given for reasons other than the specific further training measure (here: inpatient medical rehabilitation measure).
2. According to the clear wording of the law, the payer for inpatient treatment according to Section 146 SGB III must be a health insurance company. Measures at the expense of the pension insurance provider or the professional association do not meet the requirements of Section 146 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Alt. 2 SGB III.
3. An analogous application of Section 146 SGB III is supported. In addition to the clear wording of the law (inpatient treatment at the expense of the health insurance company), an analogy is contradicted by the lack of an unplanned loophole in the regulations.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 - LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of April 13, 2022 - L 2 SO 3201/21
Guiding principles
The Covid-19 exception regulation in Section 141 Paragraph 2 SGB XII applies without exception to all (first-time) applicants within the specified time window. The clear wording of the law does not indicate a restriction to the groups of small business owners, solo self-employed people or mini-jobbers named in the explanatory memorandum of the law.
Source: lrbw.juris.de
5. Decisions on asylum law and AsylbLG
5.1 – Saxon LSG, judgment of May 18, 2022 – L 8 AY 4/21
Guiding principles
Care assistance services must be provided to a recipient of analogous benefits in accordance with Section 2 AsylbLG from the point in time as soon as the service provider becomes aware that the requirements for the service have been met. “Becoming known” in this sense means that the need for social assistance benefits as such has been demonstrated or is otherwise recognizable (following BSG, judgment of August 28, 2018 – B 8 SO 9/17 R). This can be assumed if the responsible social service provider is informed of facts in a hospital's treatment report that indicate the person concerned's significant need for care. It therefore seems irrelevant whether his parents, who did not speak German at the time, would have been able to apply for appropriate benefits with the help of third parties.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
