1. Decisions of the state social courts on citizen's income (SGB II)
1.1 – LSG NSB, Judgment of 25.09.2024 – L 13 AS 21/23 –
Citizen's income: Delmenhorst has a coherent concept in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court (2020)
Guiding principle by editor Detlef Brock
: 1. The “Conclusive concept for determining the appropriate costs of accommodation in Delmenhorst 2020” is a conclusive concept within the meaning of the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Practical tip:
also for the year 2015 – LSG NSB, judgment of December 8, 2021 – L 13 AS 264/19 –
1.2 – LSG NRW, Decision of 16.09.2024 – L 7 AS 719/24 B – www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
SGB II: No granting of legal aid for higher standard rate for citizen's allowance recipients in 2023/2024 – no standard allowance of €725 “plus electricity costs”
There is also no reason to suspend the legal proceedings and refer them to the Federal Constitutional Court, because the standard benefit rates in the periods from October 2023 to December 2023 and from January 2024 to September 2024 were not evidently insufficient according to the constitutional standard (similarly, Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, 17.04.2024 – L 2 AS 39/24 B -).
Practical tip: Standard benefit claims under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
, Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (LSG NRW), judgment of December 13, 2023 – L 12 AS 1814/22 – appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal filed (B 7 AS 56/24 B) and admitted by the Federal Social Court (BSG) – date unknown
LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, Judgment of 18 October 2023 – L 18 AS 279/23 – Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number: B 7 AS 20/24 R – Date unknown
Social Court Karlsruhe, Judgment of 28.08.2024 – S 12 AS 2069/22 – The proceedings S 12 AS 2069/22 are suspended until the Federal Constitutional Court has decided in the judicial review proceedings 1 BvL 2/23 (whether §§ 70, 73 of the SGB II are compatible with the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living and the general principle of equality).
The Social Court of Karlsruhe must make a new decision in this matter.
Regarding the blocking effect of the one-off payments under Sections 70 and 73 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) compared to the catch-all provision under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the SGB II and its constitutionally compliant interpretation in light of the inflation running in 2021 and 2022
1.3 – LSG BW, Judgment of 30.11.2023 – L 3 AS 840/23 –
Citizen's allowance: Garage supplement only from the ruling of the Federal Social Court (BSG) of 19.05.2021 – B 14 AS 39/20 R -.
Only from the point in time when there is a permanent case law of the BSG (here 19.05.2021) can recipients of citizen's allowance claim garage costs, because they are not obliged to sublet a car parking space due to the general principle of subsidiarity if the apartment and parking space are components of a single tenancy agreement and the total rent is reasonable.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) confirmed the opinion of the Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg (LSG BW) in its decision of July 17, 2024 – file number B 7 AS 110/23 B – and dismissed the applicant's appeal.
See also: www.gegen-hartz.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on citizen's income
2.1 – SG Karlsruhe, Judgment of 01.10.2024 – S 12 AS 2387/22 –
Regarding the appropriateness of moving costs for a moving company in relation to subsistence benefits under the citizen's allowance scheme
SGB II: Job center wrongly denies a single mother moving costs – court strongly criticizes and accuses the job center of social envy
The Social Court of Karlsruhe accused the Job Center of refusing the transfer, citing resentful social envy of public employees
Citizen's allowance: Job center must pay for a moving company for a single mother with two children in need of care
There is no general rule of thumb that a move using student moving helpers is always more cost-effective than hiring a moving company for the entire move (contra SG Hamburg, judgment of 22.08.2022 – S 62 AS 1988/19; LSG Hamburg, judgment of 22.12.2022 – L 4 AS 202/22 D -).
Necessary moving costs to be covered include, in particular, expenses for a transport vehicle, petrol, the rental of moving boxes, the costs for packaging material, any necessary insurance, disposal of bulky waste and the usual costs for providing for the helpers.
The entitlement to reimbursement of moving expenses pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book 2 (SGB 2) can also include expenses incurred in connection with the removal and installation of a fitted kitchen.
The job center must pay a single mother with two sick children in need of care the costs of her move from Karlsruhe to Ettlingen, amounting to €2,200, because
A move is necessary if it reduces housing costs
1. The move was necessary because the move reduced the public basic income support payments for the three recipients of basic income support by €126.11 per month for their accommodation and heating costs, from €1,014.01 in Karlsruhe to a reasonable €887.90 in Ettlingen.
Bullying as a reason for moving
2. It was necessary to move out of the multi-family apartment building in Karlsruhe-Nordstadt to protect the mental health of the single mother's daughter, who required care, because she suffered so much from disputes with neighbor children that police investigations for insult, assault, theft and stalking were initiated by a lawyer and therapeutic treatment for the psychological consequences was arranged.
Grandmother temporarily supervised the children during the move - supervision and care services provided by the grandmother
3. Moving to Ettlingen was particularly advantageous because the children's grandmother, who lived there, could temporarily support the mother by supervising and caring for them (for example, by taking over for a few hours during the move).
Guiding principles of the court
: 1. There is no general rule of experience that a move using student moving helpers is always more cost-effective than hiring a moving company for the entire move.
2. The administrative practice of the Karlsruhe Job Center of only paying a flat rate of €50 per day for (student) removal helpers is clearly unlawful, because the minimum wage is €12.50 and a regular working day lasts eight hours, so the daily allowance must be at least twice as high.
3. The dismantling and removal of the tenant's own fitted kitchen is the tenant's responsibility when moving out of a rented apartment, and the resulting costs are to be regarded as economic moving expenses within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if taking the fitted kitchen with the tenant prevents the need to purchase a new fitted kitchen at the expense of the public authorities in a more costly manner in the new apartment.
4. The job center cannot successfully argue that, in order to reduce benefits under Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), it would regularly be expedient and appropriate to deliberately move for a month and pay double rent, instead of avoiding double rent payments for the old and new apartments and moving within a few days at the end of the month.
5. The job center cannot successfully argue that, in order to reduce benefits for moving costs under Section 22 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), it would be expedient and appropriate to seek assistance from a legal representative in the transport of moving goods.
6. The appropriateness of relocation costs according to § 22 para. 6 SGB II is not determined by the individual case of resentful social envy of public employees.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
3.1 – LSG BW, Judgment of 19.09.2024 – L 7 SO 2479/23 –
Social assistance: The social assistance provider must also provide benefits retroactively
If an application for social assistance benefits is submitted, the social assistance provider's knowledge of the need for assistance, if the eligibility requirements are subsequently proven, is retroactive to the date of application, even if the application was incomplete.
Social assistance benefits begin automatically, regardless of whether an application is submitted, as soon as the social assistance provider becomes aware of them
The knowledge of the need for assistance under Section 18 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), as the triggering factor, is intended to guarantee low-threshold access to social assistance. Social assistance should therefore not be dependent, among other things, on the formal requirement of submitting an application as a prerequisite for receiving benefits.
However, this does not preclude the possibility of submitting an application pursuant to Section 16 of the German Social Code, Book 1 (cf., for example, the Federal Social Court's judgment of August 26, 2008 – B 8/9b SO 18/07 R –).
Submitting an informal application for social assistance benefits – An incomplete application is sufficient for the purposes of knowledge
If an informal application for social assistance benefits is submitted, which does not yet enable the authority to examine the eligibility requirements without further information from the applicant, benefits must be paid for the past (from the date of application) – provided that the requirements are subsequently proven.
The authority acquires the knowledge necessary for the commencement of social assistance, as defined in Section 18 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), upon receipt of the application. Otherwise, the deliberate decision to forgo an application with regard to the group of persons entitled to benefits under the SGB XII, as well as the very concept of the commencement of social assistance, would be rendered absurd, and, for example, those entitled to benefits requiring an application would be given preferential treatment against the legislator's intent.
It would be absurd if basic income support for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity under Sections 41 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) had to be granted immediately upon application in the case of an incomplete application, while social assistance would otherwise only begin later despite the same initial situation.
Guiding principles of the court:
If an application for social assistance benefits is submitted, the social assistance provider's knowledge of the need for assistance, if the eligibility requirements are subsequently proven, is retroactive to the date of the application, even if the application was incomplete.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note
: Social assistance is available from the date of knowledge; an incomplete application is sufficient.
Further information: landessozialgericht-baden-wuerttemberg.justiz-bw.de
3.2 – LSG Bayern, Judgment of 10.09.2024 – L 8 SO 226/22-
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. If an authorized representative in the objection procedure has not proven his power of attorney at the request of the benefit provider within the deadline set for him, the objection can be rejected as inadmissible.
2. The lack of authorization in the objection proceedings cannot be remedied by the subsequent submission of a power of attorney in the legal proceedings.
3. The request for proof of authorization must regularly be accompanied by a reasonable deadline and a warning that otherwise the objection will be rejected as inadmissible.
Legal tip regarding the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II):
Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Social Court (LSG Rheinland-Pfalz) ruling of April 30, 2013 – L 3 AS 98/13 –
The decisive factor is whether the authorized representative was aware of the consequences of the lack of proof of authorization and whether, in the specific situation, he had to understand the official indications to mean that no decision on the merits would be made, but rather that his objection would be rejected as inadmissible.
4. Miscellaneous information on citizen's income, social assistance, asylum law, child supplement, housing benefit law and other legal codes
4.1 – Newsletter from lawyer Volker Gerloff – 12/2024 –
More information: www.ra-gerloff.de
5. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – LSG Bayern, judgment of 03/29/2023 – L 8 AY 76/22 –
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. The reduced benefits of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) compared to other subsistence-securing benefit systems necessitate a restrictive interpretation of the provisions of Section 1a AsylbLG.
2. Before restricting benefits, the benefits authority must specifically inform the foreigner which steps are expected of him or her to enable his or her departure.
Practical tip:
According to the Senate's jurisprudence, the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living and the principle of proportionality, due to the reduced benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) compared to other subsistence-securing benefit systems, require a restrictive interpretation of all provisions of Section 1a AsylbLG (see decisions of October 28, 2022 – L 8 AY 66/22 B ER and of September 17, 2018 – L 8 AY 13/18 B ER – juris; Siefert, AsylbLG, 2nd edition, Section 1a, para. 7).
The application of Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is only permissible if the benefit recipient is able to fulfill the eligibility requirements and avoid a reduction in benefits through their own conduct. In this respect, at least personal (i.e., own) misconduct on the part of the benefit recipient is required (Federal Social Court [BSG] judgment of May 12, 2017 – B 7 AY 1/16 R – juris para. 17).
According to § 1a AsylbLG, only a specific behavior is to be "sanctioned", namely if the person concerned does not perform a concrete, reasonable and feasible act of cooperation.
Only such a restrictive interpretation does justice to the considerable impairment associated with the reduction of benefits under Section 1a AsylbLG (Social Court Munich of 31 January 2017 – S 51 AY 122/16 ER – juris para. 40; Oppermann in jurisPK-SGB XII, as of 27 February 2023, Section 1a AsylbLG para. 81).
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
