1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic income support under the (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of 03/08/2023 – B 7 AS 9/22 R
Basic income support for job seekers – Education and participation – School trip – Circus project week – School grounds
Can benefits be provided under Section 28 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for a project event taking place in the school building or on the school grounds?
Federal Social Court strengthens school participation of children receiving basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
1. Job centers must pay for participation in school circus projects.
A project event taking place in the school building or on the school grounds is a school trip within the meaning of Section 28 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB II.
Full text: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.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, Judgment of 29 June 2023 – L 7 AS 573/19
Guiding principles
: (Rental) expenses for accommodation may, in individual cases, be recognized as a need despite an existing real right of residence (distinction from: LSG for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia of 02.03.2017 – L 19 AS 1458/16 – juris).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.2 – LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, decision of 09.06.2023 – L 3 AS 148/22 B
Social court proceedings – legal aid – settlement of the legal dispute before the legal aid application is ready for a decision
Principle
1. If a legal dispute is settled before the opposing party submits its statement and thus before the application for legal aid is ready for a decision, legal aid must be granted if, prior to the event leading to the settlement, the declaration of personal and financial circumstances and a sufficiently substantiated application were submitted and there were sufficient prospects of success for the legal action. (Paragraph 10)
2. This follows from the purpose of legal aid, which is to largely equalize the situation of those with and without means in obtaining legal protection; therefore, in such cases, the applicant must not be burdened with the risk of bearing the costs of the legal proceedings. (Paragraph 10)
3. Claims for reimbursement of costs, which must be decided pursuant to Section 193 of the Social Courts Act (juris: SGG) irrespective of the granting of legal aid, cannot, for this very reason, reliably eliminate the risk of costs. (Paragraph 11)
Source: www.landesrecht.rlp.de
2.3 – LSG Baden-W., judgment of June 28, 2023 – L 3 AS 3160/21
Coronavirus pandemic: Even assets of €54,000 entitle one to apply for ALG II (unemployment benefit II)
Guiding principles
1. The scope of application of Section 67 Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not limited to specific groups of people such as small business owners, solo self-employed persons or persons whose application to the SGB II provider has a direct causal link to the effects of the pandemic.
2. Substantial assets according to § 67 para. 2 sentences 1 and 2 SGB II are an amount of more than €60,000 for single persons.
Full text: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Berlin, decision of 22.06.2023 – S 179 AS 2950/23 ER
SG Berlin: Medication costs provisionally recognized as additional needs by the job center after change of legal jurisdiction
Attorney Volker Gerloff explains:
As a result, we have indeed succeeded in temporarily obligating the job center to cover the costs of the medication and nutritional supplements as an additional need, as long as no statutory health insurance has been established and is ready to provide benefits.
Source: Attorney Volker Gerloff – Newsletter – 10-2023
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
4.1 – LSG Bayern, judgment of October 25, 2022 – L 9 AL 20/20
Guiding Principles
1. A renewed request for a postponement of the hearing may only be granted for good cause. The notification that the legal representative is "already otherwise committed" is not sufficient to demonstrate good cause.
2. A motion to recuse based solely on the rejection of a request for a postponement is an abuse of process and therefore manifestly inadmissible.
3. The challenged judges may decide on the inadmissible recusal motion themselves. A separate decision is not required.
Full text: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – LSG Bayern, decision of 14.06.2023 – L 8 SO 105/23 B ER
Guidelines:
Services for the care of the children of a person with a disability during various absences of several hours per week do not serve the purposes of parental assistance. In such a case, however, there may be an entitlement to services for the continuation of household management.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5.2 – LSG Bayern, Judgment of 12.06.2023 – L 7 SO 296/22 – Appeal allowed
Guiding principles:
A funeral expenses insurance policy that also includes inheritance law advice is always inappropriate within the meaning of Section 33 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), if the insurance premium is not separated according to the two benefits in the insurance contract.
Full text: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Legal tip:
BSG – B 8 SO 19/22 R
Regarding the appropriateness of a funeral expenses insurance policy as a prerequisite for deducting the contributions payable for this policy from the income of the beneficiary in accordance with Section 82 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 Number 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
BSG – B 8 SO 22/22 R
On the appropriateness of a funeral expenses insurance as a prerequisite for the deduction of contributions payable for this from the income of the beneficiary pursuant to Section 82 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 Number 3 SGB XII.
6. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
6.1 – Bavarian State Social Court: Repeated request to reduce costs after a significant change in circumstances – Bavarian State Social Court, April 26, 2023 – L 8 SO 214/22
Editorial team eGovPraxis Social Assistance:
Is the social assistance provider entitled to reduce past actual accommodation costs for an excessively expensive apartment to the level of reasonable accommodation costs without (further) cost reduction requests?
The Bavarian State Social Court (LSG Bayern) had to decide on the case in which the tenant was able to reduce his accommodation costs to a reasonable level by subletting and counting the rental income as income.
Conclusion:
If circumstances change after a longer period (here: several years) in which the accommodation costs of the beneficiary have been taken into account in their actual amount, a (further) request to reduce costs is necessary in order to take the accommodation costs into account again only to the extent deemed appropriate.
Source: www.wolterskluwer.com
Note:
Published in the Tacheles legal news ticker, week 24/2023
6.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court on reimbursed travel expenses as income – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, Judgment of 30 March 2023 – L 7 AS 2528/22
Editorial team at eGovPraxis: Job centers
consider income from employment when calculating benefits. The question now arises whether this also applies to travel expenses reimbursed by the employer. The Baden-Württemberg State Social Court (LSG) has now ruled on this matter.
Note:
Published in the Tacheles case law ticker, week 19/2023
6.3 – Newsletter from Attorney Volker Gerloff – 10- 2023
More information: www.ra-gerloff.de
6.4 – Temporary suspension of payments by the Job Center, a contribution by attorney Matthias Göbe
If job centers become aware of facts that would lead to a subsequent reduction in benefits, for example because taking up employment was not reported or because a partner has moved into the apartment, the job centers can immediately and temporarily suspend the benefits already granted, which results in the persons concerned being left destitute immediately.
If no financial reserves are available, this can easily lead to a life-threatening situation because the rent can no longer be paid or there is no money left to buy food.
Because of the drastic consequences of a "provisional suspension of payments," the hurdles for ordering such a measure are quite high. Firstly, the job center must have actual knowledge of circumstances that necessitate the retroactive cancellation of benefits. However, agencies often don't take this point seriously and order a provisional suspension of payments based on mere suspicion that something is wrong. This alone renders the suspension of payments unlawful.
More information: www.anwalt.de
Legal tip:
see LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 23.05.2023 – L 32 AS 248/23 B ER PKH
Preliminary legal protection against the temporary suspension of benefits by the citizens' benefit office – here the citizens' benefit office acted unlawfully
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
1. The prerequisite for the provisional suspension of benefits pursuant to Section 331 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) is that the authority becomes aware of facts that lead to the suspension or lapse of the entitlement and that the decision from which the entitlement arises must therefore be revoked with retroactive effect.
2. The authority must have actual knowledge of the facts constituting the suspension or cessation of benefits. Mere suspicions are insufficient. Otherwise, the temporary suspension of benefits is unjustified.
Full text: Tacheles legal news ticker week 28/2023
6.5 – Newsletter from Attorney Volker Gerloff – 11- 2023 –
New newsletter
+ Third verdict against illegal “Berlin system”
+ BSG: Social assistance for EU citizens
+ Individual complaints to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
+ Large refugee accommodations violate human rights
Continued with attorney Volker Gerloff
7. – Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
7.1 – SG Berlin, judgment of July 21, 2023 – S 212 AY 39/20
Attorney Volker Gerloff:
Illegal exploitation of refugees in collective accommodations without legal basis (RGL).
More information from attorney Volker Gerloff
Note:
See also newsletter from attorney Volker Gerloff – 08-2023
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
