1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on employment promotion law (SGB III)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of 12/14/2023 – B 11 AL 2/22 R
Unemployment insurance – Unemployment benefits – Suspension – Old-age benefits from Swiss pension funds
BSG: No suspension of unemployment benefit 1 due to a one-off capital payment approved by a Swiss pension fund (Tacheles e. V.)
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.
1. This capital payment is not a benefit from a foreign institution comparable to the old-age pension from the German statutory pension insurance.
2. The suspension provision applies exclusively to recurring benefits, not to one-off payments. The social benefits expressly listed in the law that lead to the suspension of unemployment benefits are, without exception, recurring.
Full text: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Citizen's Allowance (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG BB, Decision of 06.03.2024 – L 32 AS 39/24 B ER –
Job centers are not allowed to make unfounded assumptions
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. If the court assumes a particularly strong claim for an injunction, the requirements for the grounds for the injunction – at least in the case of a regulatory order for the future – are very low. The mere threat of ordinary termination of the tenancy due to outstanding rent arrears is sufficient, in view of the special fundamental right to housing security recognized by the Federal Constitutional Court, to constitute a significant threat.
2. Individuals may, especially in situations where their need for assistance increases, submit an application to the basic income support provider without this being interpreted negatively.
Recommended reading:
Job centers are not allowed to make unfounded assumptions – social security providers must investigate ex officio
More information: www.gegen-hartz.de
2.2 – LSG Saxony, decision of 22.05.2024 – L 7 AS 142/24 B ER –
Guiding Principles of the Tacheles Association 1.
Following a change in local jurisdiction, the previously responsible authority must continue to provide the benefits (approved by it) until these benefits are continued by the newly responsible authority, which in turn must reimburse any benefits provided after the change of jurisdiction upon request (§ 2 para. 3 sentence 1 et seq., § 1 para. 2 SGB X, here in conjunction with § 40 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB II). This is intended to prevent any interruption of the benefit relationship due to the change in local jurisdiction and to ensure that the agency that initially provided the benefits does not have to bear the costs of continuing the benefits.
2. This means that, in principle, the previously responsible benefit provider cannot revoke the granting of benefits based on this change! (cf. only LSG Berlin-Brandenburg v. 18.11.2021 – L 19 AS 1806/18).
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
After a change of local jurisdiction due to relocation, the previously locally responsible benefit provider is not entitled to revoke the benefits it has granted on the grounds of an assumed loss of accessibility before the continuation of benefits by the now responsible benefit provider, insofar as the employable benefit recipient is reachable for the benefit provider that has become locally responsible.
2.3 – LSG Saxony, Judgment of 17.08.2023 – L 3 AS 1036/19 –
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. An employable person entitled to benefits cannot "deregister" from receiving benefits during an ongoing benefit period in order to avoid having income from a specific period taken into account.
2. Section 3 paragraph 1 sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not applicable to cases in which gainful employment is carried out throughout the entire benefit period, but income is only generated in individual months.
3. The inability to establish the facts justifying the need for assistance is to the detriment of the plaintiff.
2.4 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 05-06.2024 – L 5 AS 249/23 –
Guiding principle of the association Tacheles e. V.
on social assistance: In individual cases, entitlement to the assumption of unreasonable accommodation costs for longer than 6 months (based on BSG, judgment of October 6, 2022, B 8 SO 7/21 R -).
Health reasons can make a move unreasonable, especially if no suitable living space is available, thus justifying remaining in the apartment.
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
A claim for approval of unreasonably high costs of accommodation and heating may exist in individual cases if a severe, long-lasting psychiatric illness prohibits a move outside the specific local living conditions and suitable accommodation cannot be rented there.
2.
a. In the case of retroactive approval of a pension due to total incapacity for work, there is no further entitlement to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for this period. Rather, the further entitlement to benefits is governed by the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
b. The provider of basic income support can be ordered to pay further costs for accommodation and heating that were rejected as unreasonable after being joined as a party in the ongoing legal proceedings.
3. Decisions of the social courts on citizen's income (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Lüneburg, decision of 07.11.2023 – S 33 AS 90/23 ER –
Cost coverage for housing in a 7-person household
Guiding principle of the association Tacheles e. V.:
Twins each need their own room in order to develop academically and in terms of their health.
Guiding principle of the association Tacheles e. V.
1. When assuming the costs of accommodation and heating for a 7-person household, the job center must provide qualified evidence that a housing market exists.
2. The move was necessary because it is a household consisting of the mother and her six children, at least the twins of whom should have their own rooms in order to develop positively in school and health (certificate from the class teacher stating that the twins have concentration difficulties, health limitations of both twins, everyone advises separate rooms).
3.2 – SG Lüneburg, judgment of 03/15/2024 – S 19 AS 38/21 –
Guiding principle of the association Tacheles e. V.:
A community of support and responsibility can be assumed even in cases of cohabitation lasting less than one year.
Legal tip:
SG Potsdam, judgment of September 29, 2023 – S 44 AS 675/21 –
Citizen's allowance:
Even if partners have lived together for less than a year, a household community can be assumed if particularly compelling circumstances justify the assumption of a community of responsibility and support, such as a longer prior relationship and pregnancy (guideline of Tacheles e. V.).
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG NSB, judgment of 02/15/2024 – 02/15/2024 – L 8 SUN 68/22
Benefit period; loan; consideration of income or assets; inheritance; basic income support for jobseekers; basic income support for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity; prognosis decision; time of inheritance during benefit receipt; inflow of funds in the case of uninterrupted benefit receipt under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Chapter Four of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII); inflow theory; subsidy; on the distinction between income and assets in the case of an inheritance during uninterrupted benefit receipt under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Chapter Four of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII)
Regarding the consideration of an inheritance as an asset (Tacheles e. V.)
Official legal principle:
In the case of a seamless receipt of subsistence benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Chapter Four of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), the decisive factor for the distinction between income and assets in the event of an inheritance, i.e., with regard to whether the inheritance occurred before or after the first application for the current benefit claim (cf., for example, Federal Social Court [BSG] judgment of May 8, 2019 – B 14 AS 15/18 R – juris para. 15), is not the earlier application for benefits under the SGB II (previous benefit claim), but rather the (first) application for social assistance (new benefit claim).
Source: voris.wolterskluwer-online.de
5. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – Social Court Trier – Decision of 17 June 2024 – Case No.: S 3 AY 103/24 ER
Legal norms: Section 3 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), Section 3a AsylbLG, Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 Social Court Act (SGG) – Keywords: Standard benefit level 1, Standard benefit level 2, Benefit according to Section 3 AsylbLG, Benefit according to Section 3a AsylbLG, City of Trier, Trier Social Court
Guideline of the Tacheles Association e. V.
1. Provisional granting of higher benefits in accordance with §§ 3, 3a AsylbLG – Standard benefit level 1.
2. Meanwhile, a number of courts have expressed concerns about the constitutionality of granting benefits at level 2 in cases where individuals living in communal accommodations are receiving benefits under Sections 2 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) (reference to Social Court Landshut, decision of October 24, 2019 – S 11 AY64/19 ER; Social Court Freiburg, decision of December 3, 2019 – S 9 AY 4605/19 ER; Social Court Munich, notice of January 31, 2020 – S 42 AY 4/20 ER; Social Court Hanover, decision of December 20, 2019 – S 53 AY 107/19 ER; Social Court Leipzig, decision of January 8, 2020 – S 10 AY 40/19 ER; Saxony Higher Social Court, decision of March 23, 2020). – L 8 AY 4/20 B ER; Social Court Kassel, Judgment of 19 November 2020 – S 12 AY 22/20; Social Court Marburg, Order of 31 December 2020 – S 9 AY 1/20; Social Court Frankfurt, Decision of 14 January 2020 – S 30 AY 26/19 ER; Social Court Dresden, Decision of 4 February 2020 – S 20 AY 86/19 ER; Higher Social Court of Hesse, Decision of 13 April 2021 – L 4 AY 3/21 B ER).
3. The Federal Constitutional Court also declared the reduction of the benefit rate for single asylum seekers in collective accommodations, as provided for in Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), unconstitutional and ruled that, until new regulations are enacted, the standard benefit for single persons in collective accommodations must be determined according to level 1 (reference to the decision of October 19, 2022 – 1 BvL 3/21). Sections 3, 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2b, and Paragraph 2 No. 2b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) must be interpreted restrictively in light of the Federal Constitutional Court's decision (reference to the Bavarian State Social Court's decision of May 31, 2023 – L 8 AY 7/23).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.2 – Social Court Dresden, decision of 22 March 2024 – S 20 AY 13/24 ER
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
By way of a teleological-systematic reduction of the provision of Section 1a Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), it must be required as an unwritten element of the offense that the person entitled to benefits has acted in breach of their obligations. This, in turn, implies that the person must be informed, within a specified timeframe, of the possibility of voluntary departure to avoid consequences under benefit law (Following: Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of May 31, 2023 – L 8 AY 7/23 –, para. 46, juris).
6. Miscellaneous information on citizen's income, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
6.1 – LSG NSB, Judgment of 18 January 2024 – L 8 BL 1/20 – pending before BSG – B 9 BL 1/24 R –
Can the state legislature exclude the entitlement to state blind person's allowance for nursing home residents who, at the time of their admission to the facility, have their residence or habitual abode in another federal state, by referring to the corresponding application of Section 109 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII)?
Guiding Principles
1. According to Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 1 in conjunction with the corresponding application of Section 109 SGB XII ordered in Section 1 Paragraph 5 BlindGeldG ND, the habitual residence within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 1 BlindGeld ND does not include, among other things, residence in an institution within the meaning of Section 98 Paragraph 2 SGB XII, so that blind people are not entitled to Lower Saxony state blind allowance if they had their habitual residence outside of Lower Saxony before entering a home (moving from another federal state).
2. Section 1 paragraph 1 number 1 in conjunction with the corresponding application of Section 109 SGB XII ordered in Section 1 paragraph 5 BlindGeldG ND cannot be interpreted restrictively by way of teleological reduction to mean that the habitual residence within the meaning of Section 1 paragraph 1 number 1 BlindGeldG ND is only a prerequisite for benefits for those blind people staying in a residential facility in Lower Saxony who are entitled to blind person's allowance from another federal state.
3. The exclusion of claims under the BlindGeldG ND for blind people in Lower Saxony inpatient facilities who did not have their habitual residence in Lower Saxony before admission to the facility, effected by state law through Section 1 Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the BlindGeldG ND in conjunction with Section 109 of the SGB XII, does not violate either Article 11 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law or Article 3 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law, and in particular not Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.
Important note:
Unpublished judgments (marked with "nv"), annotations, and case reviews by lawyers that we receive from courts, lawyers, or private clients may be quoted, but only with attribution to Verein Tacheles. Anything else constitutes copyright infringement.
Thank you!
We have permission to publish judgments published by the association Tacheles von Rechtsanwälten!
Conversely, this means that if judgments originate from a lawyer's website, a link to that website must be provided, or the Tacheles association must be cited as the source. Failure to cite the source constitutes copyright infringement, and lawyers have already complained about this. Please take this into account from now on.
Thank you!
The information, guidelines and legal tips in the ticker must also be marked with the source: "Information from Tacheles", anything else constitutes a copyright infringement.
This publication is subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.
Any use of copyrighted works on the internet without the consent of the author or rights holder constitutes copyright infringement. Quotes from the ticker always require attribution!
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
