COURT ORDER
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Law firm Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Jobcenter Weimar,
represented by the managing director,
Eduard-Rosenthal-Straße 43, 99423 Weimar
– Defendant –
The 26th Chamber of the Social Court of Gotha, through its presiding judge, Judge xxx, without oral proceedings, rendered the following judgment on November 7, 2024:
The defendant is ordered, by amending the decision of December 13, 2022, as modified by the appeal decision of January 9, 2023, to grant the plaintiff benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) at standard benefit level I instead of standard benefit level III for the period from October 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023. Furthermore, the plaintiff is to be granted the actual costs of accommodation and heating, possibly less any benefits received under the Housing Benefit Act.
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for the necessary extrajudicial costs of the legal dispute.
FACTS
The plaintiff was born on [date omitted]. He has two younger siblings. His mother died on [date omitted] 2007. Since December 2014, his father had been living with his family, including a new wife and two other children, in an apartment. During 2019, the plaintiff moved out of his parents' apartment. He was then homeless for approximately one year. The defendant submitted extensive email correspondence between himself and the plaintiff from August 1, 2020, to mid-October 2020 (see pages 44-54 of the case file). This email correspondence shows that the plaintiff wanted his own apartment financed, but the defendant refused, arguing that he could continue living with his father. However, neither the administrative file nor the email correspondence contains a written rejection with information about the right to appeal. On August 15, 2021, the plaintiff rented an apartment, presumably as a sublet. The monthly costs amounted to €265.00 basic rent, €66.00 utilities, and €66.00 heating. On October 14, 2022, he applied for benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). After benefits were initially granted provisionally, the defendant issued a final decision on December 13, 2022, granting the plaintiff benefits in the amount of €140.00 per month for the period from October 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022. No benefits were granted to the plaintiff for the period from December 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023. The defendant reasoned that he was not obligated to grant the plaintiff any housing and heating costs (KdU) because he had moved out of his parents' home without permission and had no compelling social reasons for doing so. The defendant had not granted him permission to move out. For the same reason, he only receives standard benefit level III, cf. Section 20 Paragraph 3 in conjunction with Paragraph 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). The plaintiff filed an objection to this decision by letter dated December 13, 2022, which the defendant rejected as unfounded by decision dated January 9, 2023.
By letter dated January 16, 2023, the plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed a lawsuit with the Social Court of Gotha.
The plaintiff's legal representative argued that there were indeed serious social reasons that justified moving out of the parental home.
The plaintiff requests that
the defendant be ordered, by amending the decision of 13 December 2022 as modified by the appeal decision of 9 January 2023, to grant him benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in the standard benefit level I instead of III for the period from 1 October 2022 to 31 March 2023, and to further grant the actual costs of accommodation and heating, possibly after deducting benefits granted under the Housing Benefit Act.
The defendant requests
that the action be dismissed.
He is of the opinion that it cannot be established that there are serious social reasons that preclude a referral to the parental home.
An oral hearing was held on August 1, 2024. As a result of the hearing, the plaintiff's father, Johannes Prieß, was asked in writing what specific circumstances had led to his son moving out of the family home. The father responded to the court's questions in detail in a written submission dated September 3, 2024 (see page 72 of the case file). Reference is made to this submission below.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The lawsuit is admissible and well-founded.
The plaintiff is entitled to benefits under the German Social Code (SGB) at standard benefit level I for the period in dispute, from October 1, 2022, to March 23, 2023. Furthermore, the defendant must take into account the plaintiff's actual housing costs in the recalculations he is to perform. Any deductions he may be permitted to make within the statutory framework, such as the payment of housing allowance, remain unaffected.
The court's decision is based on the following:
Section 22, paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) stipulates that if individuals under the age of 25 move, their housing and heating needs for the period following the move until they reach the age of 25 will only be covered if the local authority has provided a guarantee before the housing contract is signed. The local authority is obligated to provide this guarantee if the individual cannot be expected to live with their parents or a parent due to compelling social reasons, or if another similarly compelling reason exists. The provision further stipulates that, under these conditions, the requirement for such a guarantee may be waived if obtaining it was unreasonable for the individual due to an important reason. The same applies to the classification of individuals under 25 into standard benefit level III; see Section 20, paragraph 2, number 2 in conjunction with paragraph 3 of the SGB II.
The court, in order to ascertain the reasons for the plaintiff's departure from his parents' home, obtained evidence through a written inquiry to his biological father. His statement of September 3, 2024, reveals three points.
First, the conditions in the apartment were extremely cramped; second, the plaintiff's relationship with his father and, above all, with his stepsiblings, was severely strained; and third, the son was evicted from the apartment by his father – undoubtedly with good reason. For further details, reference is made to the father's statement. How the defendant, incidentally without any justification, continues to maintain that the plaintiff can be required to return to his parents' home will likely remain a mystery. It should also be considered that, strictly speaking, this is not even his parents' home, at least not exclusively, as the apartment was also occupied by a stepmother and stepsiblings. Since there appears to be no adoption, the stepmother is not, in the legal sense, a parent of the plaintiff. It was no longer reasonable to expect the plaintiff to obtain consent, because the email correspondence clearly shows that the defendant had made it unequivocally clear to the plaintiff that such consent would never be given.
Based on the arguments presented, the claim should be granted.
The decision regarding costs is based on Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG) and follows the outcome of the main proceedings.
