1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on social assistance under Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of 12/18/2024 – B 8 SUN 8/23 R –
Can contributions to a funeral expenses insurance policy be deductible from income as reasonable contributions to a private insurance policy even if the insurance benefit includes inheritance law advice?
Can increased needs for household electricity, restaurant visits and help with shopping justify a different determination of the standard rate – Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB XII?
BSG: Funeral expense insurance that includes inheritance law advice is also tax-deductible from income if it is reasonable
Guiding principle Detlef Brock
1. A funeral expenses insurance policy that also includes inheritance law advice does not serve the purpose of the law, but even in the case of insurance policies taken out while receiving benefits, this does not automatically render them inappropriate.
2. Rather, it is acceptable – insofar as it cannot be shown separately – as long as the total monthly premium is not disproportionately high compared to other insurance policies offered on the market. There is no indication of this in the present case.
3. No unavoidable, deviating need relevant under social assistance law is apparent in this case. Likewise, no atypical needs exist in other life situations within the meaning of Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), as the claimed needs are covered by the standard allowance or the additional needs supplement (see Federal Social Court [BSG] judgment of July 18, 2019 – B 8 SO 4/18 R –).
4. There is no entitlement to an additional €20 per month for increased household electricity consumption due to nighttime activities (lights, television, computer). The standard allowance covers the household energy/electricity needs (excluding the portions attributable to heating and hot water). This may only be assessed differently if energy-intensive appliances must be operated for proven medical reasons (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of April 16, 2007 – L 23 B 186/06 SO ER). However, differing individual lifestyles do not, in themselves, give rise to a different need relevant under social welfare law.
5. A different standard rate setting is also not possible for the claimed need for restaurant visits. The basic need for food intake is covered in Section 5, Divisions 1 and 2 of the RBEG (Food and Beverages, cf. BT-Drucks 19/22750 p. 22), and the visit to restaurants is covered in Division 11 (Accommodation and Catering Services).
6. Expenses for a shopping assistant.
This need cannot be considered either, as the plaintiff's wife can reasonably manage the necessary shopping at the nearby supermarket. Assistance with maintaining the household (§ 70 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB XII) is also excluded for this reason.
Furthermore, due to his limited mobility, an additional needs allowance pursuant to § 30 para. 1 no. 1 SGB XII has been included in the needs assessment. This allowance is specifically intended to cover needs related to limited mobility, therefore the claimed needs fall within the scope of § 30 para. 1 no. 1 SGB XII, and a different determination pursuant to § 27a para. 4 sentence 1 no. 2 SGB XII is not possible (see Federal Social Court [BSG] judgment of September 29, 2009 – B 8 SO 5/08 R –).
7. Regarding the needs for accommodation and heating, the 8th Senate of the Federal Social Court announced today that
the social welfare office must also cover the costs of the electricity used for a radiant heater as heating costs (cf. regarding the estimation of the electricity costs of a radiant heater, Federal Social Court decision of 10 May 2011 – B 4 AS 100/10 R – SozR 4-4200 § 21 No. 12, paragraph 37, and the lower court decision of the Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg of 23 October 2009 – L 12 AS 4179/08).
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 BW, Decision of 09.05.2025 – L 7 AS 1296/25 ER-B – www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Citizen's allowance: Conditions for the approval of higher than reasonable housing costs
No temporary assumption of unreasonable housing costs in the event of a move without prior assurance (Tacheles e. V.).
Detlef Brock explains:
1. Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) provides for the temporary assumption of even higher needs, provided that an immediate reduction in costs is not possible or reasonable for the benefit recipient, generally for a maximum of six months. However, this does not apply if the benefit recipient moves to a different apartment without fulfilling their obligation under Section 22 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the SGB II to obtain prior approval for the assumption of costs.
2. Anyone who does not ascertain the appropriateness of the costs before moving knowingly accepts the risk of having to bear some of them themselves and is therefore not entitled to temporary protection (LSG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, decision of April 29, 2021 – L 8 AS 421/16 –).
3. The applicants did not obtain such an assurance in the present case – even according to their own statements. Such an assurance was not unnecessary, as the applicant argues, simply because they were already receiving benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II); quite the opposite is true.
2.2 – LSG NRW, Decision of 27 May 2025 – L 7 AS 551/25 B ER – www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Citizen's income: No expedited procedure if the rent is almost twice as high as the reasonable housing costs set by the job center
Detlef Brock states:
1. A recipient of citizen's allowance cannot claim urgent need regarding her rent in court if her rent exceeds reasonable rent by €550 or 84.6%. This indicates to the court, even without further investigation, that the rent is clearly unreasonable.
2. There is neither an urgent need nor a ground for an order, because 1. until the application was filed with the court, the job center paid the actual housing costs and 2. the apartment of the citizen's allowance recipient is not worth preserving within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
3. In expedited proceedings, only the maximum amounts according to § 12 of the Housing Benefit Act (WoGG) plus a 10% safety surcharge are to be taken into account.
4. The maximum amount to be considered for a single-person household in Düsseldorf would amount to €650.10 (€591 for rent level VI applicable in Düsseldorf according to § 1 para. 3 of the Annex to the Housing Benefit Ordinance (WoGV) plus €59.10 safety surcharge).
5. The gross rent excluding utilities that the applicant already has to pay, even without including her parking space, exceeds this amount by €550.05 or 84.6.
Note by Detlef Brock
1. The job center must provide proof that there is actual housing available for the person concerned, especially since the inadequacy of the housing costs is an objection by the authority (see also LSG BB L 32 AS 1888/17).
2. To determine the appropriateness values, the climate component surcharge must be taken into account, but very few courts do so.
3. Decisions of the social courts on the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) / Citizen's Allowance
3.1 – SG Halle, Judgment of 05.03.2024 – S 11 AS 697/23 – legally binding
Citizen's allowance – accommodation and heating – moving costs – disposal and bulky waste costs – significantly limited everyday skills – obligation to help oneself – no transfer to a caregiver
Citizen's income: Court rebukes job center for discrimination and cynical, outrageous behavior
Detlef Brock states:
1. The job center must cover disposal and bulky waste costs amounting to €3070 as moving expenses, because moving expenses include all costs incurred by clearing out an apartment and transporting it from one place to another, regardless of whether the destination is a new apartment (cf. BSG, judgment of 15 November 2012 – B 8 SO 25/11 R –) or, as in the present case, a disposal station or landfill due to unusability.
The job center is not allowed to refer people to self-help
2. The psychiatric illnesses diagnosed in the plaintiff result in significantly impaired everyday competence, which precludes any reasonable self-help in organizing and managing the clearing out of an apartment destroyed by firefighting water. Furthermore, a legal guardian has been appointed for the plaintiff regarding housing matters due to her illnesses.
3. Against this background and with knowledge of her existing illnesses, the plaintiff's attempt to simply refer to self-help and twice-yearly bulky waste collection campaigns is not only discriminatory, but almost outrageous and cynical.
4. In addition, contrary to the opinion of the job center, the obligation to help oneself does not automatically shift to the caregiver.
Comment from social law expert Detlef Brock:
The court's decision and reasoning are to be welcomed.
Finally, a court has the courage to stand up to an authority.
This inhumane behavior by the job center/government employee belongs in the public domain and must have felt like a slap in the face to the agency.
In my opinion, referring a seriously ill, benefit-receiving person under guardianship to self-help is blatant discrimination or social envy.
According to the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, government employees are civil servants
Cynical behavior towards people in need is, in my opinion, 100% discrimination. Such behavior must have consequences for the person affected.
Every taxpayer-funded "customer advisor" at every taxpayer-funded "job center" can reasonably be expected to offer their royal "customers" respectful "customer consultations" when needed and to solicit their cooperation in a benevolent manner. (correctly stated by the Social Court of Karlsruhe, judgment of May 9, 2023 – S 12 AS 2046/22).
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
4.1 – LSG Schleswig-Holstein, judgment of 05/09/2025 – L 3 AL 24/22 –
Detlef Brock
1. On the reversal of an overpaid benefit between the employment agency and the job center after the withdrawal of the benefit approval
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. If a social security institution has introduced electronic legal transactions after January 1, 2018, but does not provide information about the possibility of filing an electronic objection in an administrative act, the legal remedy information is defective and the one-year time limit applies.
2. If, after fulfillment of a reimbursement claim pursuant to Sections 103 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), the benefit provided by the liable benefit provider proves to be unlawful in relation to the beneficiary and has been revoked or withdrawn, then, to the extent of the fulfilled reimbursement claim, a claim for reimbursement against the other benefit provider pursuant to Section 112 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) is possible, but not a claim for reimbursement against the beneficiary pursuant to Section 50 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X).
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – SG Reutlingen, decision of 20.07.2022 – S 4 SO 1049/23 ER –
Social assistance – basic income support for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity – use of assets – appropriate house property – interpretation of the concept of appropriateness deviating from Section 12 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 5 of the German Social Code, Book II – constitutionality
No fixed limit on the amount of social assistance that is considered adequate – Does this constitute a constitutionally problematic unequal treatment compared to recipients of citizen's income?
Principle www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. The Chamber uses 90 m² as a guideline value for an appropriate living space for a single person.
2. The amendment of the parallel provision to Section 90 Paragraph 2 No. 8 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), namely Section 12 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 5 of the SGB II, which was made in connection with the introduction of the citizen's allowance in the basic income support law for job seekers (Second Book of the German Social Code – SGB II), does not justify a correction of the previous interpretation of the concept of appropriateness according to Section 90 Paragraph 2 No. 8 of the SGB XII.
3. The legislator deliberately refrained from including a fixed limit of appropriateness in Section 90 Paragraph 2 Number 8 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), and intended to maintain the existing interpretation of the concept of appropriateness therein. The Chamber sees no constitutionally problematic unequal treatment in this
5.2 – LSG Hessen, Judgment of 26.03.2025 – L 4 SO 87/23 – Appeal pending before the BSG – B 8 SO 7/25 R
Citizen's income: Only the actual receipt of an old-age pension eliminates the entitlement to SGB II (Social Code Book II)
Detlef Brock explains:
1. If the old-age pension, in this case a Russian old-age pension, is not paid out, there is an entitlement to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), because if the Russian old-age pension was not received within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the SGB II during the period in question, there is an entitlement to citizen's allowance.
2. The element of the offense – to receive – is not already fulfilled if the person concerned has merely asserted a legal claim to an old-age pension or has submitted an application for the granting of a pension.
According to prevailing opinion, the decisive factor is the actual receipt of an old-age pension.
3. For the receipt of a benefit within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), payment must be made in the month for which benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) are claimed.
The initial commencement of pension payments is not sufficient.
5.3 – SG Lüneburg, Judgment of 28.05.2025 – S 38 SO 10/25 –
The silence of the authorities violates the constitutional principle of the legality of administration, Article 20 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law
Detlef Brock adds:
1. The authority must issue decisions even if it does not consider itself competent.
2. A dispute over jurisdiction between benefit providers does not allow authorities to remain inactive.
3. The view that decisions cannot be issued because one lacks jurisdiction violates both the constitutional principle of the legality of administration, Article 20 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law, and the guarantee of legal recourse, Article 19 Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law.
4. Rather, the assumed lack of jurisdiction must be declared by means of a decision in order to enable the affected party to exercise legal review. In this respect, the plaintiff determines the commencement of an administrative procedure, which must generally be concluded by an administrative act.
5. Furthermore, in the present case, the authority may not refuse to accept applications that generally fall within its jurisdiction simply because it considers the declaration or application inadmissible or unfounded on the merits. The legislator has regulated all conceivable scenarios regarding how the addressed authority must handle the application.
6. For example, it has stipulated that an authority that considers itself to lack jurisdiction must issue a corresponding decision terminating the administrative procedure (Sections 8, 31 of the German Social Code, Book X).
7. In addition, if the authority assumes lack of jurisdiction, it must forward the application to the benefit provider it deems competent (Section 16, Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book I, or, in the case of integration assistance, Section 14, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book IX). The legislator has standardized the administrative procedure, its commencement and conclusion, and, in social law, has also ensured the granting of social rights through the obligation to forward the application.
Source: voris.wolterskluwer-online.de
6. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
6.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court – Decision of June 2, 2025 – Case No.: L 8 AY 18/25 B
Legal norms: Section 1a Paragraph 3 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), Section 73a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 114 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) – Keywords: Legal aid, constitutional law, benefit reduction, prospects of success
The granting of legal aid is highly controversial in jurisprudence and literature, as is the question of whether the (uniform) legal consequences of restrictions on entitlements pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (see here the reference to legal consequences from Section 1a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act) are compatible with the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living (Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law).
Detlef Brock addresses
the issue of granting legal aid, specifically the question of whether the (uniform) legal consequences of entitlement restrictions pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) (cf. the reference to legal consequences in Section 1a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 AsylbLG) are compatible with the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living (Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law). This is highly controversial in case law and legal literature and has not yet been definitively settled by the highest court (cf., for example, the decision of the Higher Social Court of Saxony of December 16, 2021 – L 8 AY 8/21 B ER – juris; the decision of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia of November 8, 2024 – L 20 AY 16/24 B ER – juris; Oppermann in jurisPK-SGB XII, 4th edition 2024, Section 1a AsylbLG, marginal note). 241 ff. with further references; Hohm in GK-AsylbLG, 105th installment, January 2025, § 1a para. 560 ff.).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
6.2 Social Court Fulda – Decision of June 4, 2025 – File No.: S 7 AY 8/25 ER
Legal basis: Section 1a Paragraph 4 AsylbLG – Keywords: No benefit reduction beyond 6 months, benefit reduction, Fulda district, Fulda Social Court
Section 1a, paragraph 4, sentence 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) does not refer to specific misconduct on the part of the benefit recipient. The provision aims to sanction undesirable secondary migration within Europe for individuals subject to the European benefits regime
Detlef Brock comments:
1. According to Section 14 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), the restrictions on benefits under this law are to be limited to six months. According to Section 14 Paragraph 2 of the AsylbLG, the restriction on benefits is to be continued if the breach of duty continues, provided that the legal requirements for the restriction of benefits continue to be met. However, no such breach of duty exists here.
2. The legal basis for the reduction of benefits under Section 1a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) does not lie in any specific misconduct on the part of the benefit recipients, but rather in the fact that these individuals are subject to the European asylum regime or a third-country-related protection regime and are residing in Germany. The sanction is directed at an asylum or immigration law situation intended to counteract undesirable secondary migration within Europe (State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Decision of August 2, 2018 – L 8 AY 2/18 B ER –, juris, para. 19; Oppermann in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 4th ed., Section 1a AsylbLG (as of January 14, 2025)), and thus not at any breach of duty on the part of the benefit recipient.
3. In situations such as the present one, a restriction of entitlement beyond the six-month period of Section 14 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is therefore not an option.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
6.3 – LSG NSB, decision of 12.06.2025 – L 8 AY 24/25 B ER –
Attorney Sven Adam adds:
The Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, in its decision of June 12, 2025, under file number L 8 AY 24/25 B ER, maintains that Section 1a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) contains an unwritten element of the offense, according to which the person concerned must be able to return to the country granting protection for factual and legal reasons.
This option does not exist for vulnerable groups in the event of a required departure to Greece, as they are exposed there to the serious risk of experiencing inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR) or Article 3 of the ECHR due to the expected living conditions.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
6.4 – LSG NSB, Decision of 13.06.2025 – L 8 AY 12/25 B ER –
Attorney Sven Adam comments on Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG):
1. The Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court states that a concrete possibility of departure to the responsible member state is only established after the organization of the transfer process in cooperation between the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), the immigration authority or the Federal Police and the responsible member state, and that there is no legal entitlement to voluntary departure.
2. The regular institution of voluntary departure is therefore unknown to the transfer procedure, and transfers always take place within the framework of an officially supervised procedure, even if the person concerned initiates voluntary departure. Consequently, a positive determination by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) that departure is legally and factually possible is a mandatory prerequisite under Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), which is not the case here.
3. The applicant is not even legally able or permitted to leave voluntarily, because a transfer was never prepared. The requirements of Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) are therefore not met.
4. The balancing of interests leads to the provisional obligation of the authority to pay basic benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). Even if the conditions of Section 1(4) AsylbLG were met, the balancing of interests could also lead to the provisional obligation of the authority to pay basic benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a AsylbLG, since a referral of Section 1(4), sentence 1, no. 2 AsylbLG to the European Court of Justice in the main proceedings is a serious possibility.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
7. Miscellaneous information on citizen's income, social assistance, housing allowance, child supplement and other important legal codes
7.1 – New rent limits for Kiel from 01.01.2025
more at RA Helge Hildebrandt
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!
The information, guidelines, and legal tips in the ticker must also be attributed to Tacheles; anything else constitutes copyright infringement. Please specify the respective ticker.
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!
This is new:
Quotes from Tacheles e. V. should please be cited as follows, thank you very much.
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
