1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) / Citizen's Allowance
1.1 – BSG, judgment of November 28, 2024 – B 4 AS 18/23 R – www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Unemployment benefit II – Accommodation and heating – actual expenses – Home ownership – Costs for installation and operation of a heating system remaining the property of the utility company
Rental payments for a new heating system are considered housing costs for owner-occupied residential property
Costs for the installation and operation of a heating system that remains the property of the utility company are considered housing costs for owner-occupied residential property (Tacheles e. V.)
Guiding principle Detlef Brock
1. The fact that basic income support benefits should not serve the purpose of asset accumulation does not preclude consideration of the need in the present case.
2. However, the expenses would not be classified as costs for accommodation and heating if they were expenses that had already been taken into account in the calculation of the standard allowance.
Expenditure items already included in the standard allowance cannot simultaneously be considered as costs for accommodation and heating (most recently, Federal Social Court ruling of June 30, 2021 – B 4 AS 76/20 R). This was not the case here.
3. The need actually existed. There was no evidence to suggest that no need existed due to the lack of validity of the contractual obligation (see, most recently, the Federal Social Court's decision of June 30, 2021 – B 4 AS 76/20 R – regarding the consideration of a tenant's contributions to private liability insurance as accommodation needs).
4. The question of whether the plaintiff's accommodation and heating costs are generally reasonable is irrelevant. In the present case, the actual costs are deemed reasonable pursuant to Section 67, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) / Citizen's Allowance
2.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 26.03.2025 – L 3 AS 281/24 – www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
SGB 2/ Hartz IV: Contributions from the mother amounting to €300,000 are considered income and eliminate the need for assistance under SGB II
Guiding principle Detlef Brock
1. There is no entitlement to ALG II if the applicant's needs are covered by non-repayable contributions from his mother.
2. In particular, the court doubted the seriousness of the agreements between son and mother regarding the repayment of the loan.
3. Costs of accommodation and heating were not owed, because the son neither owed costs of accommodation and heating to his mother as landlord nor actually paid rent.
Guiding Principles of the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court (LSG BW)
: 1. The starting point for the question of whether a person in need of assistance has a valid obligation to pay rent is primarily the tenancy agreement, in which the rent owed was contractually agreed; the decisive factor is the actual performance of the contract, i.e., in particular, the determination of whether the intention to pay the agreed rent existed or exists (following BSG, judgment of 07.05.2009 – B 14 AS 31/07 R, juris para. 16, 20; BSG, judgment of 01.03.2009 – B 4 AS 37/08 R, juris para. 24, 27).
2. With regard to the classification of third-party contributions as income, a distinction must be made between a) monetary payments or benefits in kind that are given to a beneficiary for permanent retention, b) a loan that is subject to a repayment obligation to the lender within the meaning of the German Civil Code (BGB), and c) third-party contributions that are intended to substitute for a benefit unlawfully denied by the basic income support provider precisely because of the denial, until the lawful situation is restored (following the Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of 20 December 2011 – B 4 AS 46/11 R, juris para. 16).
3. In order to counteract the risk of misuse of public funds, it is necessary to impose strict requirements on the proof of the conclusion and seriousness of a loan agreement between relatives; this proof is provided when the granting of the loan can be clearly and unambiguously distinguished from a disguised gift or a covert, even voluntary, provision of maintenance based on its actual implementation (following BSG, judgment of 17.06.2010 – B 14 AS 46/09 R, juris para. 21).
Note:
The ruling deals with the crediting of income according to § 11 SGB II in the version valid until 30.06.2023 (aF) and rent costs according to § 22 SGB II in the version valid until 30.06.2022 (aF).
2.2 – LSG Hessen, decision of 06.03.2025 – L 6 AS 281/23 –
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. If the facts of the case and thus the need for assistance as a prerequisite for an entitlement to basic income support for job seekers are not yet clarified due to unclear income circumstances, the benefit provider may not definitively reject the entitlement to benefits.
2. Rather, the benefit provider must inform the affected person informally that a final decision is not yet possible due to the pending investigations and, if a longer period of time is required, decide on the provision of provisional benefits. It may refuse these if the requirements of Section 41a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are not met, in particular if an entitlement is not sufficiently probable.
3. In this respect, the rejection of a preliminary decision must be distinguished from a preliminary negative decision for which there is no need.
2.3 – LSG Bayern, judgment of 10/25/2024 – L 15 AS 187/24 –
Citizen's income: Entitlement to an education voucher for vocational training only if discretion is reduced to zero
Guiding principle Detlef Brock
1. The recipient of citizen's income is not entitled to the granting of the education voucher for an MS Office Expert course, since the job center's discretionary power of selection is not reduced to zero.
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. The procedural effect of the declaration of consent pursuant to Section 124 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG) takes effect upon the concurring declaration of the parties. Revocation is only possible up to this point, provided there is no significant change in the procedural situation.
2. In an action for annulment and performance seeking the granting of an integration benefit as a subsidy, an action for annulment and a decision on the obligation pursuant to Section 54 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1, Paragraph 2, Section 131 Paragraph 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG) is included as a lesser element.
3. The decision regarding the necessity of further training is a predictive decision made by the defendant. Participation in the training program is necessary if a job commensurate with the employee's professional position cannot be obtained within a foreseeable and reasonable timeframe (given the circumstances of the individual case) without the training program.
4. In principle, the decisive factor for a predictive decision is the point in time at which the administrative procedure is concluded (here: issuance of the decision on the objection), which is justified by the forward-looking nature of the predictive decision.
5. Regarding the reviewability of the prognosis decision to be made by the courts: In principle, judicial review can only be limited to determining whether an accurate prognosis was made at the time of the (last) administrative decision and with the information available or accessible at that time.
3. Decisions of the social courts on citizen's income (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Freiburg, decision of 12.03.2025 – S 10 AS 493/25 ER –
Citizen's allowance: Court orders job center in preliminary legal proceedings to grant citizen's allowance to Polish nationals
If the loss assessment is resolved through taking up employment, there is an entitlement to citizen's allowance benefits (Tacheles e. V.)
Guiding principle Detlef Brock
1. No exclusion from citizen's income in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Justice of 22 June 2021 – (Case No.: C-719/19), if the loss determination has been resolved by taking up employment.
2. The factual effect of a loss determination is limited in this respect (cf. also regarding the German Social Code, Book XII: Higher Social Court of Hesse, decision of 2019 – L 4 SO 160/19 B ER).
3. The court does not share the authority's view that the decisive factor is whether the determination of loss is already legally binding or not, namely for reasons of general administrative law.
4. Even legally binding administrative acts can lose their effect after a change in circumstances pursuant to Section 43 Paragraph 2 of the State Administrative Procedure Act (“in another way”) (cf. Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court, Case No. L 6 AS 10003/21 B ER) or are at least subject to revocation by the immigration authority.
Attorney Martin Weise explains:
The issue is as follows:
The client is a Polish citizen.
A few years ago, the municipality obtained a legally binding declaratory judgment against the client, which became final. However, the client never left the country.
The man was living homeless in Offenburg. He was then stabilized with the help of a homeless shelter and was able to find employment. After losing this job (through no fault of his own, a fact later confirmed by the Federal Employment Agency), he applied for citizen's income support. The job center rejected his application, citing the legally binding loss assessment. I argued that this loss had been superseded by his return to work.
The social court agreed and ordered the job center to provide benefits in preliminary legal protection.
The client had indeed found a new job, and the job center subsequently announced a remedy.
Practical tip BSG file no. B 4 AS 32/24 R
: Does the loss of the right of free movement under the Freedom of Movement Act/EU 2004, as determined by the immigration authorities, of a foreigner who has lived in Germany for more than five years, alone lead to the termination of their habitual residence within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), or to the application of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Half-sentence 2 of the SGB II, or must the determination of loss be legally binding or at least enforceable?
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
4.1 – LSG BB, Judgment of 15 January 2025 – L 18 AL 69/23 – www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Unemployment benefit 1: Availability as a prerequisite for entitlement to unemployment benefit
Guiding principle Detlef Brock
1. No entitlement to unemployment benefits if the unemployed person is not objectively available for work.
Because the applicant was not allowed to engage in any reasonable employment subject to social security contributions, comprising at least 15 hours per week, under the usual conditions of the labor market relevant to her or him during parental leave (see Section 138 Paragraph 5 No. 1 SGB III).
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts and Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – SG Berlin, decision of 27.02.2025 – S 37 SO 67/24 –
Guiding principles (Attorney Dennis Mitra, Berlin):
1. A letter that takes an official measure to regulate an individual case in the field of public law and has a direct legal effect externally is to be classified as an administrative act within the meaning of Section 31 Sentence 1 SGB X, against which an objection is admissible, regardless of whether it is designated as an administrative act or contains information on legal remedies.
2. The objection procedure is successful if the objector has been able to prevail wholly or partially with their request against the authority and has been able to improve their substantive legal position by having the initial decision reviewed. A comparison must be made between the request made in the objection procedure and the outcome.
5.2 – Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decisions of 31 March 2025 – L 2 SO 241/24 – and – L 2 SO 251/25 – www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Social assistance: Injury pension reduces basic income support benefits for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity according to Chapter 4 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII)
Cancellation and recovery of basic income support benefits for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity under Chapter 4 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), due to the husband's receipt of an injury pension (lawful in this case)
Guiding principle Detlef Brock
1. For the purposes of basic income support for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity under Chapter 4 of the Social Code Book XII (SGB XII), an injury pension must be taken into account as income (§ 82 SGB XII).
2. The disability pension is not considered as income, because according to § 43 para. 3 sentence 1 SGB XII, the disability pension under SGB VII is only (partially) not to be considered as income if it is paid on the basis of a health impairment suffered in the exercise of military service in the National People's Army of the former German Democratic Republic.
Practical tip on citizen's income
1. Pensions from statutory accident insurance are paid on the basis of an accident (insured event within the meaning of the German Social Code, Book VII) to mitigate the consequences of a longer-term full or partial reduction in earning capacity and the associated loss of earnings.
2. Although pensions under Sections 56 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book VII (SGB VII) are benefits provided on the basis of public law regulations, they serve the same purpose as the citizen's income, namely securing the livelihood.
3. The disability pension granted is therefore considered income, taking into account the deductions pursuant to Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Any existing degree of disability is not relevant for this consideration.
4. A different rule applies in cases where the injury pension suspends a simultaneously existing entitlement to a basic pension under the BVG pursuant to Section 65 Paragraph 1 BVG.
5. Because in its judgment of 17 October 2013 – B 14 AS 58/12 R – the Federal Social Court (BSG) ruled that in these cases the part of the injury pension that corresponds to the basic pension under the Federal War Victims' Relief Act (BVG) is not to be considered as income under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Please note: The increased amount in case of unemployment is exempt from being counted as income according to § 58 sentence 2 SGB VII.
Source: BA – Knowledge Database § 11a SGB II
6. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
6.1 – Stuttgart Social Court – Decision of April 2, 2025 – Case No.: S 9 AY 726/25 ER
Legal provisions: Section 3 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), Section 3a AsylbLG, Section 3 Paragraph 4 AsylbLG, Section 28a Paragraph 5 Social Code Book XII (SGB XII), 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, Reduction round, Update, Basic benefits, City of Stuttgart, Stuttgart Social Court
The authority is of the opinion that there is no legal basis for standard benefit level 1
Guiding principle Detlef Brock
1. Granting of basic benefits in accordance with §§ 3 and 3a AsylbLG in the standard needs level 1.
2. The Court is convinced that the claim already arises from the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 19 October 2022 (Case No. 1 BvL 3/21).
3. There is also a ground for an order with regard to the granting of the standard benefit rates after 2024/protection of existing rights.
4. The entitlement to this arises directly from the statutory provision, since the grandfathering provision of Section 28a Paragraph 5 SGB XII, which according to the wording of Section a is directly applicable to the calculation of the monetary amounts in Section 3a AsylbLG (for details see SG Marburg, decision of 14.2.2025 – S 16 AY 11/24 ER –, juris Rn. 21 – 46 aA without further explanation SG Heilbronn, decision of 17.2.2025 – S 15 AY 181/25 -).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
Practical tip also
Stuttgart Social Court – decision of 02.04.2025 – file no.: S 9 AY 860/25 ER and Stuttgart Social Court – decision of 02.04.2025 – file no.: S 9 AY 144/25 ER
6.2 Social Court Karlsruhe – Decision of 02.04.2025 – File No.: S 12 AY 631/25 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 Pforzheim, Social Court Karlsruhe
Granting of benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for the period from March 12, 2025 to April 30, 2025, in accordance with standard benefit level 1
Guiding principle by Detlef Brock
1. According to the Social Court of Karlsruhe, the applicant is entitled to benefits at standard benefit level 1, even though she is accommodated in a reception center and thus, in principle, fulfills the substantive requirements of Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). This is because, in light of the applicant's submissions and the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of October 19, 2022 (see Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of October 19, 2022 – 1 BvL 3/21, juris), the court is convinced that the provisions in Section 3a AsylbLG raise significant constitutional concerns.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
6.3 – Social Court Trier – Decision of 25 March 2025 – Case No.: S 3 AY 25/25 ER
Legal norms: Section 1 Paragraph 4 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) – Keywords: Exclusion from benefits according to Section 1 Paragraph 4 AsylbLG, European law, no determination of factually and legally possible departure, Konz municipality, Trier Social Court
Order granting suspensive effect to the objection
Guiding principle Detlef Brock
1. There are considerable doubts as to the conformity of Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) cited here with European law; in any case, it is unclear whether the regulation is compatible with Article 17 of Directive 2013/33 EU (see also Frerichs in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, Section 1 AsylbLG Rn. 199ff).
2. The serious doubts regarding the conformity of Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) with European law necessitate, in order to grant effective preliminary legal protection in the present case, that the applicant's interest in deferral outweighs the interest in enforcement. This follows in particular from the function of the requested benefits as securing subsistence (see Federal Constitutional Court, decision of July 18, 2012 – 1 BvL 10/10, 1 BvL 2/11 –, juris).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
7. Miscellaneous information on citizen's income, social assistance, housing allowance and other legal codes
7.1 – Job centers imposed more sanctions on recipients of citizen's income in 2024
The number of benefit reductions rose significantly in 2024 compared to the previous year
63.3 percent more benefit reductions compared to 2023.
Missed appointments are the most frequent cause of reductions.
Majority of benefit recipients not affected by reductions.
Source: BA press release dated April 10, 2025
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 and a link. Anything else constitutes copyright infringement. Thank you!
The information, guidelines and legal tips in the ticker must also be marked with the source: Information from Tacheles (see example below), 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!
Please cite Tacheles e. V. as follows, thank you.
Example of a source citation for the case law ticker: Source: Tacheles Case Law Ticker Week 14/2025 – Author: Detlef Brock
Example of a source citation for the newsletter: Source: Thomé Newsletter 12/2025 from April 6, 2025 – Author: Harald Thomé
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
