1. Decisions of the state social courts on citizen's income (SGB II)
1.1 – LSG BW, judgment of 05/31-2023 – L 2 AS 2600/21 –
LSG BW: Generally, no 30% increase in standard benefits for benefit recipients in 2020/2021
The Senate cannot see that, despite the updating or recalculation, a life-threatening shortfall would have arisen in 2020 and 2021 due to sudden, extreme price increases, to which the legislature would have had to react by resetting the standard benefit rate (cf. Federal Constitutional Court decision of 23 July 2014 – 1 BvL 10/12, 1 BvL 12/12, 1 BvR 1691/13; see also Higher Social Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 14 February 2022 – L 7 AS 930/21 B – and Higher Social Court of Schleswig-Holstein, decision of 11 October 2022 – L 6 AS 87/22 B ER -).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.2 – LSG BW, judgment of 04/26/2024 – L 12 AS 1990/22 –
Basic income support for job seekers – consideration and adjustment of income – deductibility of semester fees when receiving educational assistance benefits – deductibility of contributions to the pension insurance of a self-employed person for past periods
Guiding principle www.landesrecht-bw.de
Semester fees are considered necessary expenses related to obtaining BAföG (Federal Training Assistance Act) according to Sections 11a and 11b of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). These expenses can increase the standard basic allowance to the actual amount of the expenditure.
Pension contributions of self-employed individuals can only be taken into account as reducing income for past periods in the months in which they are actually paid.
Practical tip:
SG Bremen, Judgment of 13.12.2022 – S 26 AS 320/20 –
The semester fee represents an expense to be taken into account in the month it is due
Guiding principle:
The semester fee constitutes an expense to be taken into account in the month of payment in accordance with Section 11b Paragraph 2 Sentence 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which can increase the lump-sum basic allowance to the specific amount of the expense.
Legal tip:
Hamburg Higher Social Court, decision of 18 June 2019 – L 4 AS 155/19 B ER –
Guiding principle:
School fees can be deducted from BAföG (Federal Training Assistance Act) as a necessary expense if there is no reasonable free alternative to the chosen training.
According to Section 11b Paragraph 2 Sentence 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), at least 100 euros must be deducted from benefits under the Federal Training Assistance Act (BAföG) for the deductions according to Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Nos. 3 to 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
The wording of the provision therefore allows for the deduction of higher amounts. The explanatory memorandum to the law states: "Higher amounts are deductible upon proof" (BT-Drs. 18/8041 p. 36 regarding sub-paragraph dd).
1.3 – LSG Saxony, decision of 27.08.2024 – L 4 AS 212/24 B ER
On the abusive invocation of the legal status under EU law as an employee
Citizen's allowance: Job center must grant citizen's allowance to Bulgarian family
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. An abuse of the right to EU law may exist in individual cases if an overall assessment of the objective circumstances shows that, despite formal compliance with the EU law conditions, the objective of the regulation (freedom of movement, integration into the labor market) is not achieved and, as a subjective element, the intention to obtain an advantage provided for under EU law is established by artificially or arbitrarily creating the corresponding conditions (i.e., employee status and the associated right of residence) (cf. Federal Social Court, Judgment of 27 January 2021, B 14 AS 25/20 R, juris RN 28).
2. The concept of abuse in connection with the guarantee of freedom of movement for workers is – as an exception in individual cases – to be interpreted narrowly in principle. The mere receipt of citizen's allowance or basic income support for job seekers, which is granted to supplement actual and genuine employment or for (further) integration into the labor market, does not constitute an abuse of the right to freedom of movement.
1.4 – Federal Social Court grants leave to appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal regarding the standard rate for citizen's income – Case No.: B 7 AS 56/24 B – Date unknown
Job Center: Was the level of citizen's income in 2022 constitutional and was an additional inflation adjustment necessary?
The Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (LSG NRW) ruled as follows in its judgment of December 13, 2023 – L 12 AS 1814/22
No additional inflation adjustment for 2022 for recipients of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
With the one-off payment and the significant increase in the standard rate from 1 January 2023, the legislator has taken the additional costs incurred due to the pandemic and inflation into account appropriately and quickly.
The significant increase in the standard benefit rate to €502 per month for single persons with the introduction of the citizen's allowance on January 1, 2023, also demonstrates the legislature's appropriately swift response to the discrepancy between price developments and adjustments to standard benefit rates, given the complex democratic legislative processes involved (see Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court decision of October 11, 2022, L 6 AS 87/22 B ER, para. 27, juris; Lower Saxony-Bremen Higher Social Court decision of August 24, 2022, L 8 SO 56/22 B ER; North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Social Court decision of January 31, 2022, L 2 AS 330/22 B ER; Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court judgment of October 18, 2023, L 18 AS 279/23).
Note:
The responsible lawyer has now announced that an appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal was filed with the 7th Senate of the Federal Social Court (B 7 AS 56/24 B) and that this appeal has now been granted by the Federal Social Court.
The outcome of the proceedings can be described as open, according to the responsible lawyer.
Practical tip:
Two lawsuits concerning the amount of the standard benefit rate in social assistance are pending before the 8th Senate of the Federal Social Court for Social Assistance.
1. B 8 SO 4/24 R
Lower court: Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, L 7 SO 1468/22, 17.11.2022: Were the standard rates determined according to § 29 SGB XII in the first half of 2022 constitutional?
2. B 8 SO 5/24 R
Lower court: Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, L 7 SO 296/23, 27.04.2023: Were the standard rates determined according to § 29 SGB XII in the second half of 2022 constitutional?
Recommended reading:
Determining an appropriate inflation adjustment for 2021 and 2022 for recipients of basic income support
Expert report commissioned by the German Trade Union Confederation, Federal Executive Board, by Dr. Irene Becker (Empirical Distribution Research)
Source: www. Schuldnerberatung-sh.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on citizen's income
2.1 – SG Karlsruhe, Judgment of 17.09.2024 – S 12 AS 1843/22 –
Citizen's income: Job center employees have no right of access to living quarters in women's shelters
Job center employees are not allowed to enter or search the living quarters of a women's shelter – the court says this is unconstitutional
Guiding principles
1. Section 17 paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not constitute a legal authorization for providers of basic income support under the SGB II to search living quarters in women's shelters.
2. The job center of a refuge municipality may also demand reimbursement of the costs for the accommodation and care of women and children in the women's shelter from the job center of the municipality of origin in accordance with Section 36a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if the job center of the refuge municipality had not agreed with the local women's shelter in accordance with Section 17 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) that employees of the job center may enter the living quarters of the women's shelter.
SGB II: Job center employees are not allowed to enter or search the living quarters of a women's shelter – the court says this is unconstitutional
Section 17 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not constitute a legal authorization for providers of basic income support under the SGB II to search living quarters in women's shelters, according to the recently published judgment of the 12th Chamber of the Social Court of Karlsruhe (judgment of 17.09.2024 – S 12 AS 1843/22 -).
The living quarters of a women's shelter are protected by Article 13 of the German Basic Law. Job center employees may not enter the living quarters of a women's shelter without a court-ordered search warrant.
The 12th Chamber has expressly ruled that the substantive requirements for agreements pursuant to Section 17 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), set out by the 7th Senate of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (LSG NRW) are unconstitutional
The supposedly mandatory content requirements for agreements between job centers and women's shelters, devised by the 7th Senate of the LSG NRW (judgment of 16.02.2017 – L 7 AS 1299/15-), are without exception either unconstitutional or superfluous.
The ruling of the North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court (LSG NRW) of February 16, 2017, in case L 7 AS 1299/15, fails to withstand even the simplest constitutional considerations. Clearly, the obligation postulated by the state social court for the job center to secure, by way of an agreement pursuant to Section 17 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), a right of access for job center employees for the purpose of quality assurance does not exist.
Women who seek refuge from domestic violence in an unfamiliar environment are particularly in need of protection with regard to their fundamental right to the inviolability of the home under Article 13 of the Basic Law.
Naturally, a job center employee would not be allowed to enter the living quarters of a women's shelter without a judicial search warrant.
A higher social court may not require job centers to include such blatantly unconstitutional access rights in public-law agreements
A state social court certainly cannot require job centers to include such blatantly unconstitutional access rights in public-law agreements.
Such agreements, to the detriment of the inviolability of the living spaces of women and children in women's shelters, would be clearly unconstitutional.
The ruling: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – LSG BW, Decision of 10.09.2024 – L 2 SO 2324/24 ER-B –
Urgent application for personal budget despite lack of target agreement
Integration assistance: Even without a prior agreement on objectives, there is an entitlement to the provision of a participation service in the form of a personal budget.
The obligation to grant provisional integration assistance in the form of a personal budget by way of an interim injunction from the month in which the expedited proceedings were initiated is not precluded by the fact that the target agreement newly sent to the applicant has not yet been signed/concluded by the latter (see also the 7th Senate of the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision of May 14, 2024 – L 7 SO 868/24 ER-B; Marburg Social Court, decision of September 8, 2023 – S 9 SSO 27/23 ER; Bremen Higher Administrative Court, decision of May 22, 2020 – 2 B 66/20; cf. on the state of opinion regarding this procedure in expedited proceedings: Schneider in Hauck/Noftz, SGB IX, 2nd supplementary delivery 2024, § 29 para. 39a).
Legal tip a. Opinion:
SG Mannheim, judgments of 22.05.2024 – S 9 SO 306/23 – and – S 9 SO 1473/23 – pending before the 2nd Senate of the LSG Baden-Württemberg, file no. L 2 SO 1654/24
Without a prior agreement on objectives, there is no entitlement to the provision of a participation benefit in the form of a personal budget (critical of the decision of the Social Court of Mannheim, e.g., Eicher, jurisPR-SozR 15/2024, note 5 under D; Eicher, Sozialrecht aktuell 2024, 54, 55 with further references; generally critical of the agreement on objectives as a material requirement: Eicher, jurisPR-SozR 7/2023, note 4 under C; Eicher, jurisPR-SozR 4/2023, note 5 under D).
4. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on excessively long proceedings
4.1 – BSG, Judgment of 11.06.2024 – B 10 ÜG 4/23 R –
Excessively long proceedings for inaction actions – compensation claims – determination of unreasonable procedural duration – standard preparation and consideration period – 6 months for inaction actions
BSG: In cases of inaction lawsuits, a standard waiting period of 6 months applies, and compensation is reduced to 50 euros per month
Source: www.rechtrecht-im-internet.de
5. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – Social Court Speyer – Decision of October 2, 2024 – Case No.: S 15 AY 33/24 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
Reducing the benefits for benefit recipients housed in communal accommodations compared to single adult benefit recipients is unconstitutional
Based on the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 19 October 2022 (1 BvL 3/21), the Chamber assumes that the reduction of benefits for beneficiaries housed in communal accommodation compared to single adult beneficiaries is unconstitutional and that instead (possibly until a change in the law) the benefit rates must be applied in accordance with Sections 3, 3a Paragraph 1 No. 1, 3a Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
At this point, she adopts the statements of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court in its decision of June 29, 2023 (L 8 AY 18/23 B ER – Rn. 10):
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
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
