1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic security for job seekers according to (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of July 13, 2022 – B 7/14 AS 57/21 R
Basic security for job seekers - preliminary and final decision - benefit procedure - exclusion period
Editorial principle of Tacheles e.
V. 1. No application of the shortened exclusion period of Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 2 SGB II in conjunction with Section 44 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB X in the event of a requested review of a final decision in accordance with Section 41a Paragraph 3 SGB II.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
1.2 – BSG, judgment of July 13, 2022 – B 7/14 KG 1/21 R
Child allowance – parents who are unable to work
Child allowance is generally only available for parents who are able to work
Editorial principle of Tacheles e.
V. If both parents are not able to work, those living in a household with a child are not entitled to a child allowance.
Source: www.bsg.bund.de
Note:
Child allowance is generally only available for parents who are able to work
further: rsw.beck.de
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG Bayern, judgment of April 27, 2022 – L 7 AS 560/20
Guiding principles
The Munich Job Center was entitled to limit the reasonable accommodation costs to be borne for a one-person household in the area of the state capital Munich in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 S 1 SGB II from October 2018 to September 2019 to 660 euros per month (gross rent). .
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.2 – LSG Bayern, judgment of April 7, 2022 – L 7 AS 559/20
Guiding principles
A claim to payment of the contribution subsidy according to Section 26 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 and Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB II directly to the beneficiary is contrary to Section 26 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 SGB II. The disclosure of social benefit receipt associated with the transfer of the contribution subsidy directly to the health insurance company is at least covered by a legitimate public interest if the goal of ensuring adequate health insurance coverage through the contribution subsidy as part of the minimum subsistence level to be guaranteed according to the welfare state principle can only be achieved: if beneficiaries who are insured against the risk of illness with a private insurance company make use of their right to switch to the basic tariff and at the same time prove to the insurance company that they need help in order to achieve a premium reduction in accordance with Section 152 Paragraph 4 HalbS 1 VAG.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.3 – LSG NSB, judgment of February 23, 2022 – L 13 AS 182/20
Guiding principles
The rental value overview for the Leer district in 2015 is not a coherent concept. S. the case d. BSG.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.4 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of. May 17, 2022 – L 19 AS 329/22 B ER
Guiding principles
1. The exclusion of benefits according to Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 SGB II due to stay in a facility for the execution of a court-ordered deprivation of liberty applies not only if the person concerned is housed in a correctional facility, but also if it is another facility in which the person concerned is in the context of a court-ordered deprivation of liberty (here: drug treatment facility). The length of your stay is irrelevant.
2. The constitutional right to equal legal protection requires that when a difficult legal question is clarified by the highest court, the decision is not only issued, but also published and can be noted.
Comment
L 19 AS 330/22 B ER PKH
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.5 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, judgment of June 16, 2022 – L 2 AS 256/21 – Revision approved
Matters under SGB II (AS) - Withdrawal of benefit approval for the past - Withdrawal deadline - Reasons for reinstatement
Guiding principle
If a recipient of benefits has fraudulently obtained excessive basic security benefits for jobseekers through fraudulent deception, the approval can be withdrawn even more than ten years after the approval decision. It does not follow from Section 45 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 SGB
Source: www.landesrecht.sachsen-anhalt.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic security for job seekers (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Berlin, judgment of June 15, 2022 – S 134 AS 8396/20
Guiding principles
Even if a Union citizen willingly gives up his or her activity in prostitution, there is no voluntary abandonment of gainful employment within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 3 FreizügG/EU, which would result in the loss of the right of residence in accordance with Section 2 Paragraph 1 FreizügG/EU and a benefits committee according to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II. Working in prostitution is always unreasonable within the meaning of Section 10 Paragraph 1 No. 5 SGB II and can be given up at any time due to this unreasonableness without it being a voluntary task within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 3 FreizügG/EU .
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note:
SGB II benefits for Bulgarians after giving up self-employed prostitution
further: rsw.beck.de
3.2 - SG Berlin, judgment of June 22, 2022 - S 205 AS 5122/20
No failure if there is a lack of cooperation – a contribution from attorney Kay Füßlein
The refusal due to lack of cooperation is a sharp sword and finds its legal basis in Section 66 SGB I.
According to this, if there is a lack of cooperation, the benefits can be denied (or withdrawn). Now there are acts of cooperation that are urgently necessary in order to calculate a claim (income, assets, etc.) and there are acts of cooperation where this is not absolutely necessary, but the benefits are nevertheless denied or withdrawn.
In the present case, the JobCenter suspected that there was a (mental) illness that would lead to a lack of employability and refused to provide benefits. This may already be very questionable, not giving sick people any benefits and leaving them out in the cold, so to speak, without, for example, involving the social welfare office (because if you are unable to work, you are entitled to benefits according to SGB XII).
The social court then also annulled the refusal decision because in the specific case this required the exercise of discretion, because the refusal can take place, but does not have to.
It states, among other things:
The contested refusal notice is unlawful simply because, contrary to the legal basis, it does not have any time limit.
(…)
The clarification of the ability to work in accordance with Section 44a SGB II is not about preventing the allocation of public funds from taxpayers' money, but only about clarifying the authority's responsibility, since the plaintiff will receive social assistance benefits of a comparable amount in the event of incapacity to work would.
(…)
According to the wording of the legal basis (Section 66 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB /), the exercise of discretion must relate in particular to whether the service is failed in whole or only in part (“…can the service provider…fail in whole or in part…”). . A refusal notice must therefore contain comments on this (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg February 10, 2021 - L 5 AS 1582/20 B PKH). If the standard requirement is completely withdrawn, the principle of ensuring a humane minimum subsistence level must be taken into account (Trenk-Hinterberger, ibid., § 66 para. 12). As part of the discretionary decision, the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court on the partial unconstitutionality of sanctions according to Section 31ft SGB II (BVerfG 5.11.2019- 1 BvL 7/16- BVerfGE152,68) must be taken into account (see Bavarian LSG 6.5.2021- L16AS652120-juris Rn. 28). Furthermore, it must also be taken into account that accommodation costs (§ 22 SGB //) are withheld for a long period of time and thus there is a risk of homelessness (cf. Mrozynski, in ibid. SGB /, 6th ed. 2019, § 66 Rn. 17
The court therefore overturned the refusal notice.
Source: Attorney Kay Füßlein
3.3 - SG Berlin, decision of July 6, 2022 - S 129 AS 3280/22 ER
SG Berlin, judgment of July 1st, 2022 - S 129 AS 1020/22
If there is no conclusive concept, the court can rely on the appropriateness values according to Section 12 WoGG plus a safety margin of 10%.
And again: Rent in Berlin, a contribution from attorney Kay Füßlein
Always a long-running issue: the appropriate rent according to Section 22 SGB II in the state of Berlin and what the job centers want to pay.
This has often been an issue here and the jurisprudence of the Berlin Social Court now tends almost unanimously to apply the table values from the housing benefit (which are significantly higher; see here).
In a judgment and a resolution (both legally binding), the Berlin Social Court has once again applied the housing benefit table and not the AV Wohnen for the years 2021 and 2022.
Source: Attorney Kay Füßlein
Editor's note:
Likewise, just as an example, LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of. December 16, 2021 - L 10 AS 1386/21 B ER and currently LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of. April 7, 2022 - L 10 AS 2286/18 and LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of March 16, 2022 – L 1 AS 456/21 WA
and so ditto Attorney Matthias Göbe, Berlin
Higher job center rents in Berlin 2022
4. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 – SG Karlsruhe, judgment of May 10, 2022 – S 2 AL 2473/20
Guiding principles
1.) For the question of whether an employment relationship is subject to compulsory insurance in accordance with Section 24 SGB III, only the contribution law definition of employment is relevant (continuation of SG Karlsruhe, judgment of May 23, 2017 - S 2 AL 1779/16 -, juris).
2.) The mutual will to continue the employment relationship is not always the sole prerequisite for the continued existence of a compulsory insurance relationship (in this respect, deviation from BSG, judgment of July 4, 2012 - B 11 AL 16/11 R -, SozR 4-4300 § 123 No. 6). If there is a dispute about the legality of the employer's termination (without the corresponding intention to continue) in a labor court process, the result of which is that a settlement or judgment results in an end to the employment relationship after the cessation of work in the event of the employer's default in acceptance, this point in time alone is also responsible the end of the compulsory insurance relationship is decisive, because in this case too, the employment relationship has been sufficiently completed (in this respect, following the BSG, judgment of September 24, 2008 - B 12 KR 22/07 R -, SozR 4-2400 § 7 No. 9).
3.) Restrictions on the acquisition of qualifying periods arise solely from Section 142 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB III and from the beginning, end and, if necessary, shortening of the framework period according to Section 143 SGB III.
4.) If an insured person already personally registers as unemployed before a new qualifying period has been fulfilled, a new framework period will only begin to run when the waiting period, which is solely determined by contribution law, has been fulfilled as a prerequisite for a new entitlement to unemployment benefit; However, the prior approval of an unused remaining claim has no influence on the creation of a new framework period (deviation from BSG, judgment of December 11, 2014 - B 11 AL 2/14 R -, SozR 4-4300 § 124 No. 6).
5.) Acquiring additional qualifying periods through salary payments achieved in labor court proceedings is possible in parallel with receiving an unused remaining entitlement to unemployment benefit.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Decisions of the state social courts on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – LSG NRW, judgment of April 7, 2022 – L 9 SO 139/21
Accommodation costs in a shared apartment within the meaning of Section 42a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB XII, if the person seeking help has agreed a specific rent with the landlord.
The legal opinion of the social welfare agency, according to which the reasonable costs for a single-person household should only be recognized if the rent to be paid by the person entitled to benefits is in an appropriate relationship to the rent to be paid by the landlord to the main tenant or if the rent is not known to be appropriate The amount to be expected for a multi-person household is not correct.
Editorial principle of Tacheles e.
V. If a social assistance recipient lives in a shared apartment, their accommodation costs are not to be borne pro rata, but rather the appropriate costs for a single-person household if they have agreed a specific rent with the landlord and this is appropriate (42a para. 4 sentence 2 SGB XII ).
Orientation sentence editor of Tacheles e.
V. 1. According to Section 42a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 SGB is in an appropriate proportion. As part of the examination of the relationship, the rent share of the person entitled to benefits should be compared with the entire apartment rent (reference to SG Aachen judgments of December 10, 2019 - S 20 SO 111/19 and of June 19, 2020 - S 19 SO 109/19).
2. Section 42a, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2 of the SGB Rent based on usage share.
Source: LSG NRW
6. Decisions on asylum law and AsylbLG
6.1 - Fulda Social Court - Decision of July 11, 2022 - Ref.: S 7 AY 10/22 ER
Standards: Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 No. 1 AsylbLG, Sections 3 Paragraphs 1 and 2, 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2b AsylbLG - Keywords: AsylbLG, standard needs level 2b, standard needs level 1, collective accommodation, shared accommodation, Hessian State Social Court , Reception Directive, European law
continue with RA Sven Adam
6.2 – Attorney Volker Gerloff on AsylbLG
Actually, it goes without saying: The conversion of services according to § 3 to § 2 must be carried out officially on the exact day!
SG Hannover, v. 5/23/22 – S 53 AY 48/18
continue with RA Volker Gerloff
7. Miscellaneous information about Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other law books
7.1 - Cornerstones for the new citizens' money from January 2023 on the Tacheles page
further: tacheles-socialhilfe.de
also, significantly shortened on the page of attorney Helge Hildebrandt
further: Sozialberatung-kiel.de
7.2 – OVG Saxony, decision of March 9, 2022 (5 D 37/21):
Principle Dr.
Manfred Hammel The legal question that is controversial and not simple is whether a case of hardship that leads to exemption from the obligation to pay a broadcasting fee in accordance with Section 4 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 of the State Broadcasting Fee Treaty (RBStV) must also be affirmed in the case if an applicant is deemed to be in need within the meaning of the Social benefits must be assessed in accordance with Section 4 Paragraph 1 RBStV, he also meets the requirements for granting one of these benefits, but voluntarily waives approval of this social benefit, which would take into account the possibility of exemption based on the decision.
It must be seen as still unclear whether in cases of such a voluntary waiver the constitutional limits of the legislative power to type have not been exceeded, because an applicant always has it in his own hands to obtain exemption from the broadcasting fee obligation in accordance with Section 4 Paragraph 1 RBStV by applying for one of the social benefits listed there, the eligibility requirements for which he meets.
7.3 - Scholz doesn't want to leave citizens alone - gas levy and housing benefit reform
further: www.faz.net
Editor's note:
Honestly, Mr. Chancellor, isn't this all coming too late?
Housing benefit reform should take effect from January 1st, 2023, so citizens may not get the money until May 2023 at the earliest or only in the summer, because it will be a bureaucratic monster.
However, the levy should be made by October 1st. or September 1st, 2022, where from please
Where should we get the money from, please tell us????
The newly created citizens' benefit does not apply to pensioners at all, because it requires the ability to work, so we pensioners are allowed to walk to the social welfare office, which is a shame.
Author of the case law ticker: Editor of Tacheles Detlef Brock
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
