1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic security for job seekers according to (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of March 29, 2022 (B 4 AS 2/21.R):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel The term employee according to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 1 SGB II in conjunction with Section 2 Paragraph 2 No. 1 FreizügG/EU is shaped by European law.
What is not taken into account here is the performance of activities that are so small that they appear to be completely subordinate or insignificant.
Of crucial importance in this context are the working hours, the content of the activity, the existence of a special obligation to follow instructions, the economic value of the work to be performed, the remuneration received in return, the structure of the employment contract and the duration of employment.
Employee status cannot be affirmed if an EU citizen works in Germany as a dishwasher with a gross monthly salary of only EUR 100 for ten hours per month, spread over two days with five hours each.
Carrying out such employment does not indicate integration into the domestic labor market.
If necessary, social assistance benefits can be approved here in accordance with the hardship clause resulting from Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 6 SGB XII.
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG NRW, judgment of May 5, 2022 – L 19 AS 1736/21
On the right to cover the costs for the purchase and installation of a gas heating stove as a one-off requirement in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II.
The expenses for the purchase and installation of a new gas heating stove are not included in the standard requirements within the meaning of Section 20 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II.
Guiding principle Editor of Tacheles ev
The job center must pay the costs for the purchase and installation of a new gas heater if the landlord is not obliged under the rental agreement to provide a usable radiator, the purchase to make the apartment usable - in accordance with the previously existing condition – is necessary and the costs are reasonable.
Orientation sentence editor of Tacheles e.
V. 1. These are costs for heating.
2. One of the two gas heaters used by the plaintiff to heat the apartment could no longer be used properly and due to its age - approx. 48 years - it could no longer be repaired.
3. The landlord was not obliged under the rental agreement to provide a usable radiator.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note:
Jobcenter has to pay Hartz IV recipients (trainees) for the gas stove
continue: www.derwesten.de
2.2 – LSG NRW, decision of. April 22, 2022 – L 2 AS 385/22 B ER, L 2 AS 386/22 B
The JobCenter will only take over the electricity debt if it would still be possible to secure the current accommodation, which the applicant has not credibly demonstrated here.
Editorial principle of Tacheles e.
V. 1. Assumption of debt is not justified if it is no longer possible to secure long-term accommodation.
2. The applicant has not credibly demonstrated that the legal effects of the termination without notice can still be eliminated by satisfying the landlord.
3. Only those persons who are obliged under civil law under the rental agreement are entitled to a loan (cf. BSG, judgment of November 18, 2014, Ref. B 4 AS 3/14 R).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.3 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of. May 12, 2022 – L 2 AS 468/22 B ER
Appropriateness test in pandemic only suspended for six months
2.4 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of May 11, 2022 – L 18 AS 1632/21
Unemployment benefit II - Accommodation and heating - Accommodation needs of children when caring for the alternating model
Editorial principle of Tacheles e.
V. In the case of the half-changing model for childcare, the children have an equivalent need for accommodation with the respective parent and must be taken into account as an additional household member in terms of basic security law.
Orientation aid editor of Tacheles e.
V. The KduH is not only to be granted to underage children for the times they actually stay in their father's apartment (but according to LSG Berlin-Brandenburg of October 14, 2020 - L 32 AS 1255/18); Rather, they are to be taken into account as an additional household member in terms of basic security law, with the result that they have to be recognized as having a head share of needs amounting to half of the actual costs.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note:
Very good decision
2.5 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of. June 7, 2022 – L 19 AS 342/22 NZB
Guiding principles
A school graduation ceremony cannot be understood as a school trip according to Section 28 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB 2. Regardless of whether the celebration takes place on the school grounds or not, there is no entitlement to benefits for education and participation in accordance with Section 28 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB 2.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic security according to (SGB II)
3.1 – Detmold Social Court, court decision of June 15, 2022 (S 35 AS 520/21):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel If, after granting a rental deposit loan in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 8 Sentence 4 SGB II, a job center does not fulfill the repayment claim from this loan irrevocably assigned to it by the borrower to the landlord within the statutory limitation period (Sections 195 and 199 Paragraph 1 BGB) claims after the tenant terminated the apartment in question, then this former benefit recipient is not obliged to repay the deposit funds granted to her.
This former tenant did not have the right to raise a claim in this regard against this housing provider within the statutory limitation period because this tenant irrevocably assigned her claim for repayment to the job center. This person was no longer the owner of this claim and therefore no longer authorized to take action.
In such circumstances, it must be viewed as an abuse of law if the SGB II provider demands repayment of these loan funds from this former benefit recipient.
Through the irrevocable assignment of this repayment claim, the job center was permitted to raise a corresponding claim against the former landlord.
Even if the SGB II provider were to transfer this claim back to this benefit recipient for her own assertion, the assertion of this claim by this former landlord would be precluded by the defense of statute of limitations due to the passage of time after the end of the rental agreement.
3.2 – SG Kassel, judgment by. May 12, 2022 – S 4 AS 60/21 and S 4 AS 250/21
Basic security SGB II - Necessity to move due to sale of the house - Section 67 Paragraph 3 SGB II also includes new rentals
Editorial principle of Tacheles e.
V. 1. Section 67 Paragraph 3 SGB II also includes new rentals.
2. A move is necessary when the property management informs the person in need of help that the house is to be sold.
Orientation aid editor of Tacheles e.
V. There is no restriction in the wording of the regulation to the effect that the 6-month adequacy fiction only applies to existing apartments. It should be noted that in this case it is not in question that unreasonable costs actually have to be borne by the job center for an indefinite period of time, but rather that those entitled to benefits are granted a further 6-month transition period, which is in addition to the regular six-month period according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II is added (Section 67 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 SGB II).
The HLSG apparently also assumes that this standard will be applied in the event of a move (decision of February 21, 2022 - L 6 AS 585/21 B ER; also LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, decision of September 29, 2020 - L 11 AS 508/20 B ER -; aA: Schleswig-Holsteinisches LSG, decision of March 23, 2022 - L 6 AS 28/22 B ER).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
4. Decisions of the state social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 – Saxon LSG, judgment of June 9, 2022 – L 3 AL 151/19
Guiding principles
1. The concept of unemployment and the unemployed in Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the Incapacity for Work Directive, but also in Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the Incapacity for Work Directive and Section 2 Paragraph 5 Sentence 4 of the Incapacity for Work Directive ( “For unemployed people, the survey refers to […]”) is not to be understood in the sense of the definition of unemployment in Section 137 Paragraph 1 No. 1 SGB III, Section 138 Paragraph 1 SGB III, but in the sense of unemployment according to Section 138 Paragraph. 1 No. 1 SGB III.
2. A claim to continued payment of benefits in the event of incapacity to work requires a realizable claim to payment for the period before the onset of incapacity to work. There is no viable entitlement to payment of unemployment benefit if the entitlement to unemployment benefit is suspended before the onset of incapacity for work due to vacation compensation (connection to BSG, judgment of February 20, 2002 - B 1 AL 59/01 R - ZfS 2002, 238 = juris Paragraph 17).
3. If, in an individual case, there is no entitlement to benefits under either the employment promotion law or the health insurance regulations, a solution to any gap in security must be sought in the health insurance system in accordance with the system.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Decisions of the social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – SG Rostock, judgment of June 28, 2022 – S 8 SUN 60/21
Matters according to SGB XII including matters according to Part 2 SGB IX
Guideline
1. According to Section 75 Paragraph 5 Sentence 3 SGB XII in the version valid until December 31, 2019 or Section 76 a Paragraph 3 SGB Investment costs in accordance with Section 82, Paragraph 4 of the SGB the separately calculated investment costs in accordance with Section 82 Paragraph 4 SGB XI.
2. According to Section 7 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the Housing and Care Contract Act (WBVG), the entrepreneur must calculate the remuneration and the remuneration components for consumers according to uniform principles. A differentiation between residents dependent on social assistance and self-payers is generally not permitted.
3. Based on the meaning and purpose of the standard and the systematic position, it is obvious to interpret Section 7 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 WBVG in such a way that a differentiation of the remuneration and remuneration components between different consumers (e.g. self-paying consumers and those receiving social assistance) is only possible in exceptional cases is permissible if this differentiation is expressly regulated and permitted in a remuneration agreement according to Chapter Ten of SGB XII on investment cost amounts or separately calculable investment costs.
Source: www.landesrecht-mv.de
6. Decisions on asylum law and AsylbLG
6.1 – Schleswig Social Court, judgment of June 16, 2022 (S 15 AY 113/19):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel About the submission of a treatment and cost plan from the treating dental practice for the care with an upper and lower jaw prosthesis required due to the accident (cost: EUR 1,793.18) to the public authority responsible for approving dentures in accordance with Section 4 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 AsylbLG In accordance with Section 6b AsylbLG in conjunction with Section 18 Paragraph 1 SGB XII, this authority becomes aware of this need, which cannot be postponed for medical reasons, to enable problem-free intake of food.
It also follows from the acknowledgment principle that there was no further requirement for the public provider's consent before the provision of dentures.
If this dental treatment, which cannot be postponed, took place after the treatment and cost plan was submitted, but before a corresponding statement was made by the public provider, then this office cannot counter a request for reimbursement of costs made by the person entitled to benefits; there would be no subsequent reimbursement of the expenses incurred in this context into consideration.
Note:
Dentures in accordance with the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act (AsylbLG) - plus attorney Dirk Audörsch
further: westkuestenanwalt.com
6.2 - Magdeburg Social Court - Decision of June 29, 2022 - Ref.: S 16 AY 19/22 ER
Standards: Section 1a Paragraph 3 AsylbLG, Section 86b Paragraph 1 No. 2 SGG - Keywords: Benefit reduction according to Section 1a Paragraph 3 AsylbLG, constitutional concerns regarding Section 1a AsylbLG, failure to repeal an initial administrative act, Magdeburg Social Court
continue with RA Sven Adam
7. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other law books
7.1 - Hartz IV: On the existence of a community of needs among partners - A contribution from Attorney Helge Hildebrandt
further: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
