1. Decisions of the state social courts on citizen's income (SGB II)
1.1 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 7 January 2025 – L 11 AS 372/24 B ER –
Job centers are not required to optimize the real estate assets of welfare recipients
The Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court has ruled that recipients of citizen's allowance are not considered to be in need of assistance if they have built a (too) large single-family house and can use its value to secure their livelihood.
If recipients of citizen's income try to optimize their real estate assets, for example because the distance to the city center is too far for them, they come away empty-handed.
The waiting period under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), serves to bridge an emergency situation.
Source: https://landessocialgericht.niedersachsen.de
Practical tip
LSG Saxony, decision of 13.11.2024 – L 7 AS 379/24 B ER –
Guideline of Tacheles e. V.:
No hardship case in the case of a mere minor exceedance of 7 m² of the now legally regulated living space limit.
A single resident of a 147 m² house is not entitled to a subsidy of citizen's allowance.
A welfare recipient is expected to sell his house for the sake of 7 square meters, or the only option is to receive a loan from the job center.
1.2 – LSG Bayern, judgment of 09/18/2024 – L 16 AS 568/21 –
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. A preliminary grant notice, which becomes moot pursuant to Section 39 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) upon issuance of the final assessment notice, cannot be reviewed pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), as there is no subject matter to review, so that a substantive review within the framework of Section 44 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) is not possible.
2. A final assessment notice does not become the subject of an objection procedure pursuant to Section 86, first half-sentence, of the Social Courts Act (SGG) regarding the review (Section 44 of the Social Code, Book X (SGB X)) of the amount of benefits to be provisionally granted under the Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Rather, the subject of the review procedure subsequently ceases to exist.
1.3 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 21.08.2024 – L 3 AS 39/18 –
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
On the question of whether the departure of a subtenant is comparable to a rent increase, with the consequence that a transition period for cost-cutting measures must be granted.
Editor's note: The ruling concerns the period of Hartz IV (unemployment benefits).
The court rejected a renewed request to reduce costs because the applicant was sufficiently aware that her rent was unreasonable.
Practical tip regarding the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII):
Bavarian State Social Court (LSG), judgment of April 26, 2023 – L 8 SO 214/22 – Necessity of a (further) request to reduce costs after a significant change in circumstances – here, the subtenant moving out after 3 years
My tip for recipients of citizen's income and social assistance:
If living conditions change, the job center should issue a new cost reduction request, because outdated cost reduction requests are invalid (BSG case law from 2021).
The cost reduction request ensures that those in need of assistance can prepare for – future – administrative decisions (cf. BSG, judgment of 02.09.2021 – B 8 SO 13/19 R with reference to BSG, judgment of 19.05.2021 – B 14 AS 57/19 R –).
If a situation involving a significant change in circumstances arises, a renewed request for cost reduction may be necessary (see ThürLSG, judgment of 08.01.2020 – L 4 AS 1246/16 – not published).
Whether changes in circumstances must be taken into account in an amended cost reduction request with new appropriateness values cannot be assessed independently of the requirements for a “first” cost reduction request, as expressly stated by the Federal Social Court (BSG) in its judgment of 21 July 2021 – B 14 AS 31/20 R –)
Continue here: www.gegen-hartz.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on citizen's income (SGB II)
2.1 – Social Court Detmold, judgment of 03.05.2022 – S 19 AS 642/17 – confirmed by Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of 11.04.2024 – L 19 AS 10171/22 – Rejection of the application for legal aid: Federal Social Court, decision of 1 October 2024, file number: B 7 AS 101/24 BH
Citizen's income: Only in exceptional cases does the job center have to cover loan repayments for a self-occupied condominium
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
In principle, no assumption of loan repayments for a self-occupied condominium as costs of accommodation according to § 22 SGB II.
This also applies if the monthly repayment installments are the same as or lower than the reasonable rental costs as defined in Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Practical tip
BSG, Judgment of 17.07.2024 – B 7 AS 7/23 R –
Repayment of mortgage payments for home ownership is not to be covered by the job center if readily available funds are available, such as rental income.
The person in need of assistance must use available funds (rental income) to remedy a current emergency situation for themselves, even if this makes them unable to fulfill other existing obligations.
The situation in which the person in need of assistance receives income from rented residential property, for the financing of which loans have been taken out and interest payments or repayment installments are incurred, which may have to be taken into account as income, is not comparable to the exceptional case mentioned by the Federal Social Court.
Because the protection of the basic need for housing is already lacking in the case of living space rented to third parties.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
3.1 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 05.12.2024 – L 3 AL 85/22 –
Guiding principle Detlef Brock:
A lawsuit seeking the issuance of an education voucher lacks the necessary legal interest due to the resolution of the main legal dispute if the measure has been completed and the applicant did not participate in it (as with regard to a measure that has already begun, and if there is no indication that the applicant can still join the measure: Saxon State Social Court, decision of March 13, 2013 – L 3 AS 538/12 B PKH –).
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. A decision regarding the funding of vocational training always relates to a specific measure to be carried out by a specific provider (continuation of the Senate's case law: cf. Saxon State Social Court, decision of May 18, 2016 – L 3 AS 167/16 B ER – juris para. 22). This applies at least when funding for vocational training is applied for with respect to a specific measure and a specific provider of the measure.
2. There is no quasi-abstract entitlement to funding that only considers the eligibility requirements under Section 81 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Nos. 1 and 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (confirmation of the Senate's case law: cf. Saxon State Social Court, decision of May 18, 2016 – L 3 AS 167/16 B ER – juris para. 22).
3. A claim for the issuance of an education voucher lacks the need for legal protection due to the settlement of the main legal dispute if the measure has been completed and the applicant did not participate in the measure.
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG NSB, Decision of 17.12.2024 – L 15 SO 49/24 B ER –
Exception in case of loss of entitlement; entitlement to benefits with at least five years of habitual residence in Germany; exclusion of benefits for foreigners without a right of residence or those residing for the purpose of seeking employment; no requirement of finality; social assistance
Principle www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
The exception to the general rule pursuant to Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 7 Half-Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) does not require that the determination of the loss of freedom of movement has become legally binding.
Editor's guiding principle
: According to the wording of Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 7 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), the mere determination of the loss of the right of free movement already leads to the inapplicability of the exception to the exclusion from benefits for foreigners who have resided in the federal territory for at least five years without significant interruption (this also applies to citizen's income – Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)).
Editor's note:
This also applies to citizen's income – Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 SGB II –
Even if an objection has been lodged against the decision of the immigration authorities and thus enforcement of the obligation to leave the country is not possible, the mere determination of loss of status alone establishes an obligation to leave the country.
The exception to the general rule pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Half-Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not require that the determination of the loss of freedom of movement has become legally binding.
5. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – SG Altenburg – Decision of 13.01.2025 – S 21 AY 1326/24 ER –
Legal provisions: 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, Benefits according to Section 3 AsylbLG, Benefits according to Section 3a AsylbLG
Granting of basic benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1 for Iranian citizens
"The Chamber shares the considerable doubts, frequently expressed in case law and commentary, regarding the constitutionality of the special needs level for adult benefit recipients regulated by the legislator in Section 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) who are accommodated in reception centers, communal facilities, or comparable accommodations (to name just a few examples: Higher Social Court of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania; Decision of May 11, 2020 – L 9 AY 22/19 B ER and January 21, 2021 – L 9 AY 27/20 B ER; Social Court of Gelsenkirchen, Judgment of April 8, 2021 – S 32 AY 30/20, para. 16f; Social Court of Kassel, Decision of July 13, 2020 – S 12 AY 20/20 ER, para. 19f; Higher Social Court of Hesse, Decision of..." 20.12.2022 – L 4 AY 28/22 B ER; SG Stuttgart, Decision of 15.05.2024 – S 9 AY 1438/24 ER; Leupold in: Grube/Wahrendorf/Flint, 8th ed. 2024, AsylbLG, § 3a para. 12, Frerichs in: jurisPK-SGB XII, 4th ed., § 3a AsylbLG (as of 23.12.2024), para. 53).
Regardless of whether one assumes a necessary constitutionally compliant interpretation in the sense that joint economic activity must be proven, or a direct derivation from the Federal Constitutional Court's decision, the prevailing case law and literature also assume an existing entitlement in the amount of the standard benefit level 1.
The Hessian State Social Court (LSG) states the following, for example (see above, para. 39):
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
