1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic income support for job seekers under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of July 13, 2022 – B 7/14 AS 57/21 R
Basic income support for job seekers – preliminary and final decision – favorable procedure – exclusion period
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.
1. 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 does not apply in the case of a requested review of a final decision pursuant to Section 41a Paragraph 3 SGB II.
Full text: www.rechtsprechung-im-internet.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
2.1 – Saxon State Social Court, decision of 14.09.2022 – L 3 AS 245/22 B
Guiding Principles
1. While clarifying the facts is the primary purpose of ordering a personal appearance, such an order may also be issued for other reasons, in particular to expedite proceedings, to bring about a settlement or conflict resolution, to facilitate an argumentative exchange, or to conduct a legal discussion with the parties involved to clarify the factual and legal situation.
2. The question of whether to impose a fine is a discretionary decision that must comply with the principle of proportionality. Within the scope of this discretionary decision, it must be considered why the order for personal appearance was issued, whether it was (still) necessary at the time of the hearing that the party failed to attend, and whether imposing a fine, in light of the purpose of the regulation and considering the progress of the proceedings, is the appropriate response to the failure to appear.
3. If the court was able to make a final decision on the matter without delay, the imposition of a fine is regularly an abuse of discretion if further considerations are lacking.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.2 – LSG Hamburg, judgment of September 29, 2022 – L 4 AS 341/20
Regarding the assumption of owed contributions to voluntary health and long-term care insurance, this is denied due to the exclusion of benefits according to § 7 para. 4a SGB II aF.
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
According to § 26 SGB II, benefit rejections issued for reasons other than sufficient income or assets cannot be circumvented by (alternatively) covering at least the contributions to voluntary health and long-term care insurance.
Source: www.landesrecht-hamburg.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Neuruppin, judgment of September 30, 2022 – S 26 AS 298/18
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
No conclusive concept according to § 22 SGB II in the district of Oberhavel (based on SG Neuruppin, judgment of 22 August 2019 – S 18 AS 2188/17 and of 9 September 2021 – S 17 AS 857/16).
Source: gerichtsverkauf.brandenburg.de
Note from the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
See also the article by attorney Kay Füßlein: No conclusive concept according to § 22 SGB II in the district of Oberhavel – Judgments of the Social Court Neuruppin of December 9, 2019 – S 6 AS 936/16 and S 6 AS 1806/16 WA
Continued with RA Kay Füßlein
3.2 – SG Berlin, Judgment of 01.11.2022 – S 171 AS 3373/21
Once again: no application of the AV Wohnen in Berlin – a contribution to the court ruling of the Berlin Social Court of November 1, 2022, S 171 AS 3373/21 by attorney Kay Füßlein
As has been discussed here frequently, the AV Wohnen (Act on Housing) which the state of Berlin and the job centers use to determine rent for ALG II recipients and SGB XII benefit recipients is not applicable, and higher rents must generally be covered.
In a court ruling dated November 1, 2022, the Berlin Social Court also determined for the year 2021 that the AV Wohnen (Housing Regulations) is not a coherent concept and therefore the rent is reasonable (and not unreasonable).
Judgment of the Social Court of Berlin dated November 1, 2022, S 171 AS 3373/21
Continued with RA Kay Füßlein
Editor's note:
LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, Judgment of 01.09.2022 – L 14 AS 494/19
Guiding principles:
The determination of reasonable accommodation costs under basic income support law in Berlin was not based on a coherent concept for the years 2016 and 2017.
In the absence of a conclusive concept, the appropriate reference rent is to be determined using the table values of Section 12 of the Housing Benefit Act (WoGG) plus a safety margin of 10% (following the rulings of the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg) of 21 January 2021 – L 19 AS 1129/17; of 16 March 2022 – L 1 AS 456/21 WA; of 7 April 2022 – L 10 AS 2286/18; of 31 May 2022 – L 32 AS 2845/16; of 31 May 2022 – L 32 AS 2866/16).
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Hessen, decision of 02.11.2022 – L 4 SO 124/22 B ER
Guiding principles
1. The requirement of “identification procedures” in Section 74 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is a factual element establishing entitlement, not merely a procedural rule.
2. A person who has not undergone identification procedures, who initially resides lawfully in the Federal Republic of Germany pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Ukraine Residence Act and subsequently pursuant to Section 81 Paragraph 3 of the Residence Act, but who initially does not meet the requirements of Section 8 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) due to a lack of application for a residence permit and subsequently due to a note in the certificate of deemed residence expressly prohibiting employment, is entitled to social assistance benefits after three months of residence based on Section 23 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – Cruise ship escort services as a service for participation in community life – Judgment analysis by Prof. Dr. Hermann Plagemann on BSG, Judgment of 19.05.2022 – B 8 SO 13/20 R
Continue reading: rsw.beck.de
5.2 – The authorities are obstructing progress
Nursing home too expensive: Great-grandson is to pay back grandmother's pocket money
Because the money for nursing home placement is insufficient, the daughter of a senior citizen from Wurzen submitted an application to the social welfare office. The authority rejected the application – and made an unusual demand.
Continue reading: www.mz.de
Editor's note:
What an absurd demand from the social welfare office, a disgrace to the welfare state.
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
