1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic income support under the (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of June 21, 2023 – B 7 AS 14/22 R
Basic income support for job seekers – consideration of assets – owner-occupied residential property – expenses for roof repairs
Ruling: Job center to cover roof repairs for owner-occupied home.
Job centers cannot categorically refuse to cover the costs of necessary roof repairs for owner-occupied homes. If the continued existence of the accommodation cannot otherwise be guaranteed for a recipient of basic income support and the expenses are reasonable and necessary, the size of the living space is irrelevant.
Continue reading at www.evangelisch.de
Worth reading:
Job center must pay for repairs to private homes
1.2 – BSG, judgment of June 21, 2023 – B 7 AS 11/22 R
Basic income support for job seekers – exclusion from benefits – dual studies – BAföG (Federal Training Assistance Act)
Federal Social Court: No Hartz IV for Dual Study Programs
The approximately 100,000 students in dual study programs in Germany are not entitled to supplementary Hartz IV or citizen's income benefits. This is because dual study programs can be funded with BAföG (Federal Training Assistance Act) funds, meaning that, according to the legislator's intent, unemployment benefit II or the current citizen's income cannot be claimed.
Source: www.evangelisch.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG NRW, Decision of 07.06.2023 – L 7 AS 586/23 B ER, L 7 AS 571/23 B
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
1. Section 28 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Residence Act applies accordingly to minor Union citizens and their parents.
2. Furthermore, applying Section 28 of the Residence Act in such a way that a child with EU citizenship and a right of residence can demand to be treated like a German child is required, at least for reasons of fundamental rights. This is because, when answering the question of whether a parent with custody of a minor EU citizen entitled to freedom of movement because they are accompanying the other parent can be granted a right of residence under Section 28 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 3 of the Residence Act, the values enshrined in Article 6 of the Basic Law and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights must be taken into account (see Federal Constitutional Court, Decisions of October 4, 2019 – 1 BvR 1719/18 –).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Legal tip:
See, in this regard, the Senate's decision of February 25, 2019 – L 7 AS 136/19 B ER – as well as: North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Social Court, judgment of November 23, 2022 – L 12 AS 452/20; Saxony Higher Social Court, judgment of December 6, 2022 – L 4 AS 939/20; North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Social Court, decision of August 1, 2017 – L 19 AS 1131/17 B ER; decision of October 30, 2018 – L 19 AS 1472/18 B ER; Saarland Higher Social Court, decision of September 7, 2012 – L 4 AS 23/20 WA; and, in effect, Baden-Württemberg Higher Social Court, judgment of January 25, 2023 – L 3 AS 3922/20. Dienelt in: Bergmann/Dienelt, Ausländerrecht [Immigration Law], 14th ed. 2022, § 11 FreizügG/EU para. 103; see also Brinkmann in: Huber/Mantel, Aufenthaltsgesetz [Residence Act], 3rd ed. 2021, § 11 FreizügG/EU, para. 37; Oberhäuser in: Hofmann, Ausländerrecht [Immigration Law], 3rd ed. 2023, § 11 FreizügG/EU para. 76; a different view is held, e.g., by: LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 07.04.2022 – L 18 AS 312/22 B ER; LSG NRW, decision of 27.07.2017 – L 21 AS 782/17 B ER; Hessian State Social Court, decision of 29.07.2021 – L 6 AS 209/ 2 B ER –).
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Karlsruhe, judgment of October 6, 2021 – S 9 AS 350/21
Guiding principles:
The statement of a benefit recipient that he only applied for unemployment benefit II so that he would be legally insured for health insurance increases the requirements for proving need.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
3.2 – SG Altenburg, judgment of March 20, 2023 – S 42 AS 876/19
Guiding Principles
1. Whether an exclusion from benefits exists pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) due to hospitalization, or whether this exclusion does not apply due to the exception pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 No. 1 of the SGB II because the hospitalization is expected to last less than six months, is generally assessed according to the circumstances at the time of admission to the hospital (cf. Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of November 12, 2015 – B 14 AS 6/15 R, Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of December 2, 2014 – B 14 AS 66/13 R).
2. Section 7 paragraph 4 sentence 3 no. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not provide for a review of the prognosis made within the framework of an approval decision regarding the duration of inpatient accommodation in a hospital during an ongoing approval period.
3. A new prognosis decision pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), taking into account the current circumstances, is not precluded if the provider of benefits under the SGB II has to decide on the continuation of benefits under the SGB II for a new (further) benefit period during ongoing inpatient care in a hospital. A general exclusion of a new prognosis decision across benefit periods cannot be inferred from the wording of Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 No. 1 of the SGB II, nor can it be justified by the purpose of the provision.
4. The prognosis decision to be made pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) must also take into account whether a change from the benefit system of the SGB II to that of the SGB XII due to an indefinite inpatient stay following the hospital stay within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the SGB II is already foreseeable in concrete terms.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG NRW, Decision of 23.02.2023 – L 12 SO 19/23 B ER
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
1. No reimbursement of costs for the apartment he rents in the student residence of Studentenwerk V. during the period of his imprisonment, because the Studentenwerk as the applicant's landlord has confirmed that an extension of the tenancy beyond January 31, 2023, contrary to the contractually stipulated fixed tenancy period of four years, is not possible.
2. Since securing accommodation until release from detention is not possible, there is also no grounds for ordering the assumption of any rent arrears that may have accrued during detention.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4.2 – Social Court Munich, decision of 15 May 2023 – S 48 SO 131/23 ER
People with disabilities have the right to move from a residential care facility into a rented apartment and to demand that the social welfare office cover the reasonable costs of care and support (guideline editor Tacheles e. V.)
Guiding Principles
1. The application of a disabled person who has previously lived in an inpatient facility and now wishes to move into a private rented apartment for social participation benefits (including home care benefits) cannot be rejected on the grounds that the costs incurred are significantly higher than those of the previous inpatient care.
2. According to the provisions of Section 104 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), which are based on Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), the wish of a disabled person to live outside of special forms of housing is generally considered appropriate within the meaning of Section 104 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the SGB IX. In such cases, the disabled person cannot be referred to inpatient services, as these are not a comparable service within the meaning of Section 104 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the SGB IX.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – SG Karlsruhe: Job center's refusal notices due to lack of cooperation are unlawful!
An article by attorney Dr. Robin von Eltz
1. Withdrawal or Rejection Notices:
People who have applied for or are already receiving Hartz IV/citizen's allowance are regularly asked by job centers to submit numerous documents.
If this cooperation is not as the job center expects, a rejection or withdrawal notice is often issued, with the benefits being revoked due to lack of cooperation.
This is also problematic because the requested documents have often already been submitted (multiple times), but the job center has lost them.
2. The decision of the Social Court of Karlsruhe
The Social Court of Karlsruhe has now ruled in its judgment of 09.05.2023 – S 12 AS 2046/22 that these decisions, which regularly result in the withdrawal of 100% of benefits, can only be lawful in exceptional cases.
More information: www.anwalt.de
Note:
published in the Tacheles legal news ticker, week 23/2023
5.2 – Federal Constitutional Court: Minimum wages for prisoners are unconstitutional, an article by Laura Kress
In Germany, the minimum wage is €12 – except for prisoners. They receive a maximum of €2.30 per hour. The Federal Constitutional Court has now ruled that this is too little
More information: www.zdf.de
5.3 – SG Hannover, judgment of May 17, 2023 – S 38 AS 1052/22
The Job Center must cover higher heating costs if these are due to exceptionally high heating oil prices
The Social Court (SG) Hannover has ruled that the JobCenter must cover the actual heating oil costs within the framework of basic income support for job seekers if the higher expenses for heating oil are not due to uneconomical and inappropriate heating behavior, but to heating oil prices that have risen exceptionally sharply in the meantime.
Further information: sozialgericht-hannover.niedersachsen.de
Full text here (at the very bottom): sozialgericht-hannover.niedersachsen.de
Note:
A brief commentary on this was published in the Tacheles case law ticker, week 25/2023.
5.4 – Citizens cannot directly sue against federal laws. This was decided by the Karlsruhe Social Court in the case of a pensioner who wanted to challenge the 2022 Tax Relief Act.
Further information: sozialgericht-karlsruhe.justiz-bw.de
5.5 – Evidently insufficient standard benefit under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for the years 2021 and 2022? LSG NRW, L 12 AS 668/23 and L 12 AS 741/23
Attorney Lars Schulte-Bräucker can be found at www.anwalt.de
5.6 – LSG Baden-Württemberg: Food supplies and freezer as a basic security benefit?
Editorial Team eGovPraxis Social Welfare:
The Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Relief advises stockpiling food and drinks for ten days to be prepared for emergencies. The Baden-Württemberg State Social Court (LSG) recently had to decide whether the costs of this stockpiling should be covered by the legislature.
Conclusion:
The refusal to cover the costs of emergency supplies and a freezer is based on the following reasons:
The one-time payment for initial furnishing of an apartment, including household appliances (§ 31 SGB XII), covers only items that are essential for a basic standard of living and modest household management. For a single-person household, a standard refrigerator with an integrated freezer compartment is sufficient.
The deviating standard needs assessment (§ 27a SGB XII) requires an unavoidably higher need than that provided for in the standard flat-rate allowance. An emergency supply, as proposed by the Federal Office, can be gradually financed from the ongoing standard benefit.
Assistance in other life situations (§ 73 SGB XII) is only granted if the requested benefit is not already covered by another type of benefit under SGB XII, such as the standard benefit in this case.
Source: Judgment of the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court of 02.03.2023 – L 7 SO 3464/22
Source: www.wolterskluwer.com
Note:
Judgment published in the Tacheles case law ticker, week 13/2023
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
