1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
1.1 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 12 May 2022 – L 3 AS 243/20
Guiding principles
1. A party to administrative proceedings has no right to demand that an administrative act be kept in a specific manner, for example chronologically, or that it be paged or paginated.
2. A disorderly or incomplete administrative act can only be significant in two respects: Firstly, such an act may indicate that the authority has failed to comply with its duty to investigate ex officio pursuant to Section 20 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), or at least has not documented the facts relevant to the decision. Secondly, a disorderly or incomplete administrative act may also violate the right of a party to the proceedings to be heard. In both cases, however, the party to the proceedings must substantiate any such defect and not merely assert it without any basis.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.2 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 17 March 2022 – L 3 AS 568/21
Guiding principles
1. If a person entitled to benefits reduces their accommodation costs vis-à-vis their landlord, these are, according to § 22 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB II, the actual ongoing accommodation costs to be taken into account, provided that the rent reduction is not obviously ineffective.
2. If, in subsequent legal proceedings concerning defects in the apartment, it is determined that the tenant was not entitled to a rent reduction or at least not to the claimed amount, and additional payments are demanded, these one-off payments are then considered a further one-off accommodation expense within the framework of cost reasonableness and are included in the current needs of the month in which the additional claim became legally binding and thus due.
3. The due date of the landlord's rent claim on the one hand and the date on which the claim for reimbursement of a back payment to a job center arises on the other hand may differ.
4. If the legislator gives a tenant the opportunity to actively pursue a legal dispute in a tenancy agreement through legal proceedings (here, in the context of a declaratory judgment action), a job center is prohibited from requiring the tenant to remain passive in the tenancy dispute.
5. A statute of limitations does not "automatically" expire through the passage of time; rather, it must be invoked.
6. There is no discernible obligation under social security law for a benefit recipient to raise the defense of the statute of limitations against the landlord in favor of a job center.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.3 – LSG Hessen, decision of 13.06.2022 – L 6 AS 196/22 B ER
Guiding Principles:
The revocation under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Half-Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), according to which an entitlement to ongoing benefits for subsistence under basic income support for job seekers is excluded despite five years of habitual residence in Germany if the loss of the right under Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU has been established, does not apply if 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 Märkischer Kreis district for recipients of benefits under SGB II/SGB XII are too low, because the basic income support providers do not have a coherent concept in accordance with the case law of the Federal Social Court (editor of Tacheles e. V.)
Press release from attorney Lars Schulte-Bräucker regarding accommodation costs in the Märkischer Kreis district for recipients of benefits under SGB II/SGB XII
Excerpt:
The background is the accommodation costs considered appropriate from the perspective of the basic income support provider for benefit recipients under the German Social Code Book II/XII, according to the concept of the company Analyse und Konzepte.
The procedure dates back to 2015.
The Social Court of Dortmund had dismissed the lawsuit in case S 19 AS 3392/15 on December 1, 2016, assuming that the concept was coherent in accordance with the case law.
The North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court has today largely ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the concept of the defendant job center Märkischer Kreis is not conclusive in accordance with 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 Analyse und Konzepte.
The defendant Jobcenter Märkischer Kreis was unable to prove an exact ratio of the individual landlord types in the requested data material that formed the basis of the concept, which is necessary for its coherence.
For example, the undersigned noted that the IGW, which according to its own statements has more than 2000 apartments, was completely disregarded in the development of the concept.
According to the State Social Court, these deficiencies in the creation of the concept led to a lack of coherence in the guidelines of the Märkischer Kreis regarding accommodation costs.
It follows that, due to the lack of conclusiveness, the values according to the Housing Benefit Act plus a safety margin of 10% are to be granted as housing costs for benefit recipients, including the plaintiff.
This means that, until further notice, no reduction in housing costs will be possible for benefit recipients, because, in the undersigned's view, there is still no conclusive concept from the Märkischer Kreis job center or the Märkischer Kreis district, as subsequent concepts in the following years are likely to have been developed according to the same standards.
An appeal against the decision was not permitted in today's ruling.
Source: Attorney Lars Schulte – Bräucker
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
2.1 – Cologne Social Court, judgment of May 17, 2022 (S 15 AS 322/21):
Guiding principle of Dr. Manfred Hammel:
Even if a federal state generally provides free learning materials, students still regularly have to purchase additional books for their lessons, without these media being covered by the free learning materials provision.
The provision of free learning materials by state law should therefore not be considered comprehensive.
This means that school books not covered by the free provision of learning materials must be recognized by the job center as an additional hardship expense in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
The lump sum to be granted by the SGB II provider in accordance with § 28 para. 3 SGB II for the provision of personal school supplies does not also include the provision of necessary school books.
The savings potential included in the standard allowance (§ 20 SGB II) is in no way sufficient to finance this special need, especially if learning materials are not provided free of charge.
2.2 – Cologne Social Court, judgment of May 17, 2022 (S 15 AS 4356/19):
Guiding principle Dr. Manfred Hammel
: Costs for obtaining identity documents for a non-German child permanently residing in Germany together with their mother, who is entitled to benefits under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), and whose submission by the job center is a prerequisite for granting benefits under Sections 19 et seq. of the SGB II, constitute a special need that must be recognized by the SGB II provider in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the SGB II.
An amount of EUR 244.80 (costs for issuing the identity card: EUR 136; travel expenses to the responsible German mission abroad: EUR 108.80) far exceeds the expenses for obtaining German identity documents included in the standard allowance (§ 20 SGB II). For persons under 14 years of age, the costs incurred for obtaining identity documents are in no way covered by the standard allowance.
The granting of a loan in accordance with Section 24 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not an option if the job center has repeatedly and over a period of months requested the mother to submit identification documents for her non-German child and has made the granting of benefits to this minor dependent on this.
Therefore, it must be assumed that the additional needs arising in this context are unavoidable in accordance with Section 21 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
According to Section 21 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), only the expenses for issuing the identity card and the demonstrably necessary travel expenses incurred in this context are eligible for recognition. The expenses for producing a passport must be considered unnecessary in this context. The interest of a child in need to be able to travel to non-European countries is generally not covered by the needs protected under social security law.
Lawyer Volker Gerloff also commented on this on Twitter:
Passport procurement costs for a foreign child can be covered by the JobCenter under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if the JobCenter makes the presentation of the passport a condition of receiving benefits.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
3.1 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 31 March 2022 – L 3 AL 12/20
Guiding principles
1. An entitlement to unemployment benefits during vocational training is excluded if availability is not given for reasons other than the specific training measure (here: inpatient medical rehabilitation measure).
2. According to the clear wording of the law, the payer for inpatient treatment pursuant to Section 146 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) must be a health insurance fund. Measures at the expense of the pension insurance institution or the employers' liability insurance association do not meet the requirements of Section 146, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, Alternative 2 of the SGB III.
3. An analogous application of Section 146 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) is supported. Besides the clear wording of the law (inpatient treatment at the expense of the health insurance fund), the absence of an unintended regulatory gap precludes an analogy.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 13 April 2022 – L 2 SO 3201/21
Guiding Principles:
The Covid-19 exception in Section 141 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) applies without exception to all (first-time) applicants within the specified time frame. A restriction to the groups of small business owners, self-employed individuals, or those in marginal employment (minijobs), which are specifically mentioned in the explanatory memorandum to the law, cannot be inferred from the clear wording of the law.
Source: lrbw.juris.de
5. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 18 May 2022 – L 8 AY 4/21
Guiding Principles:
Long-term care benefits must be provided to a recipient of analogous benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) from the moment the benefit provider becomes aware that the prerequisites for the benefit are met. "Becoming aware" in this sense means that the need for social assistance is demonstrated or otherwise apparent (following the Federal Social Court's ruling of August 28, 2018 – B 8 SO 9/17 R). This is assumed to be the case if the responsible social service provider is informed in a hospital treatment report of facts indicating the individual's significant need for care. It is therefore irrelevant whether the individual's parents, who were not proficient in German at the time, would have been able to apply for such benefits with the assistance of third parties.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
