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 3/22 R
Basic income support for job seekers – reimbursement claim of the basic income support provider – objection of the limitation of liability for minors – income – assets – account balances – protection against garnishment
Regarding the question of whether an account balance based on the transfer of non-seizable benefits affects the limitation of liability for minors under Section 1629a of the German Civil Code (BGB)?
Federal Social Court (BSG): On the scope of liability limitation for minors: No exemption from attachment on account balances in cases of minor liability
Guidance note by the editor of Tacheles e. V.
1. The defense of limited liability for minors also applies to reimbursement claims by the job center (now citizen's income).
2. For the purposes of Section 1629a of the German Civil Code (BGB), assets are the active assets of the person who has reached the age of majority at the time of reaching that age. Net assets, as the difference between assets and liabilities, are irrelevant.
Full text: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Worth reading 1:
Federal Social Court on the limitation of liability for minors
Editorial team eGovPraxis Jobcenter:
Does the limitation of liability for minors only apply if the person in question is over-indebted? Is a distinction made between income and assets in this context?
Conclusion:
Assets existing upon reaching the age of majority also include account balances based on the payment of insolvency benefits.
When liability is limited to the assets available at that time, only a balancing of debt and assets is generally decisive.
It is irrelevant whether the income in question is non-seizable.
More information: www.wolterskluwer.com
Worth reading 2:
Citizen's income: Easing of liability exemptions for minors – an article by attorney Helge Hildebrandt, Kiel
More information: sozialberatung-kiel.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 01.02.2023 – L 2 AS 646/19
Guiding Principles
1. If an objection is not submitted in the correct form but only by simple email, and a decision has been made on the merits by means of a formal objection ruling, the purpose of preliminary proceedings has already been achieved. A stay of the legal proceedings is then no longer necessary, even if the objection period has not yet expired.
2. The claim for equalization of accrued gains constitutes income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). A previous notarial settlement agreement does not change this, unless it has already resulted in a transfer of assets.
3. Union dues cannot be deducted from a claim for equalization of accrued gains as a necessary expense related to earning income.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.2 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 22.06.2023 – L 4 AS 471/22
Requirements for the legality of an integration agreement or an administrative act replacing it
Guiding principles
1. The same standards apply to the provisions replacing an integration agreement in an integration administrative act pursuant to Section 15 Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as apply to a consensual integration agreement (Federal Social Court, Judgment of June 23, 2016, B 14 AS 42/15 R, juris RN 32).
2. Pursuant to Section 15 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which has been in force since August 1, 2016, it is legally permissible for the benefit provider to flexibly regulate the period of validity in accordance with the respective integration situation, integration strategy, or life circumstances. Therefore, an administrative act replacing an integration agreement may also stipulate its validity "until further notice," thus establishing an indefinite period of validity (Federal Social Court, Judgment of March 21, 2019, B 14 AS 28/18 R, juris para. 22).
3. If a period of validity is set "until further notice," this must be based on sufficient discretionary considerations, which must be set out in the decision replacing the integration agreement. If the contested decision contains no discretionary considerations from the benefit provider and it is also not apparent that the provider even recognized that it had to exercise discretion in determining the period of validity and the conditions for its renewal, the replacing administrative act is unlawful.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.3 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of June 26, 2023 – L 7 AS 3328/21
Guiding principles:
If the Federal Employment Agency determines that a waiting period has commenced, the involuntary nature of unemployment as a prerequisite for entitlement to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) can no longer be confirmed.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note:
Federal Social Court (BSG) ruling of 09.03.2022 – B 7/14 AS 79/20 R – An explicit confirmation of the involuntary nature of unemployment by the employment agency is not required when receiving unemployment benefits under the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), if the commencement of a waiting period is not determined.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – LSG NRW, Judgment of 25 January 2023 – L 12 SO 231/22 – Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court (BSG) – B 8 SO 5/23 R
There is no right to information under Section 117 Paragraph 1 Sentences 1 and 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), if the decision of the authority is unlawful (principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.).
Guidance note by the editor of Tacheles e. V.
1. The decision is materially unlawful because the defendant exceeded the limits of the permissible request for information pursuant to Section 117 Paragraph 1 Sentences 1 and 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in conjunction with Section 94 Paragraph 1a of the SGB XII, by asking, among other things, questions about the plaintiff's financial circumstances and the income of any household members and dependent children, and by requesting corresponding documents.
2. The erroneous (because it is not a necessary request) information request by the social welfare agency renders the entire administrative act providing the information unlawful.
3. According to the principle, now established in case law, of the fundamental prohibition of a reduction of administrative acts providing information in order to preserve their validity, the courts are therefore not authorized to only partially revoke such decisions in the sense of a supposed "lesser" (BSG judgment of 24.02.2011, B 14 AS 87/09 R).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
4.1 – Stuttgart Social Court – Decision of October 6, 2023 – Case No.: S 11 AY 2870/23 ER
Legal norms: Section 3 AsylbLG, Section 3a AsylbLG, Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 SGG – Keywords: Standard benefit level 1, benefits according to Sections 3, 3a AsylbLG, Stuttgart Social Court
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
Granting of basic benefits according to §§ 3, 3a AsylbLG in the standard needs level 1 for the applicant.
Continued with attorney Sven Adam
4.2 – Marburg Social Court – Decision of 26 September 2023 – Case No.: S 9 AY 9/22
Legal norms: Section 88 SGG, Section 193 SGG Keywords: Cost allocation following an action for failure to act, delayed forwarding by the issuing authority, Marburg Social Court
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
It is the responsibility of the authority to ensure that a decision is issued within the statutory time limit (cf. Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 08.02.2023, file no. 1 BvR 311/22).
Continued with attorney Sven Adam
5. Miscellaneous information on citizen's income, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
5.1 – Assistance with care – here: needs assessment – a contribution by Prof. Dr. Hermann Plagemann to: LSG Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 20.04.2023 – L 8 SO 27/21
Payments from parents for necessary costs of inpatient care are to be considered maintenance and cover the need for assistance with care in accordance with Sections 61 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), regardless of whether the parents could have subsequently been held liable in accordance with Sections 93 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) – according to the Higher Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt.
Continue reading: rsw.beck.de
Note:
Judgment mentioned in the Tacheles case law ticker, week 37/2023
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
