1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) - citizen's allowance
1.1 – LSG BB, judgment of 05/15/2025 – L 34 AS 895/22 –
Citizen's income: Anyone who may be considered a maintenance debtor of the benefit recipient is obligated to provide information to the basic income support provider under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
Detlef Brock,
1. Self-employed gardener and landscaper, must provide information about his income and assets to the job center, because he belongs to the group of those liable for maintenance according to § 1615l of the German Civil Code.
2. Subject to his ability to pay, he is generally obliged to provide maintenance to the child's mother, because maintenance is not obviously excluded simply because the child's mother is employed.
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. The job center's request for information from the person liable for maintenance is not necessarily resolved "in another way" within the meaning of Section 39 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book X, by the fact that the tax office provides the job center with information about the income of the person liable for maintenance.
2. The claim of the child's mother against the child's father for maintenance in accordance with Section 1615l Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 and Sentence 3 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is not obviously excluded in the sense of negative evidence simply because the child's mother is employed.
1.2 – LSG BB, judgment of April 10, 2025 – L 9 AS 497/23
SGB II: Corona emergency aid must be deducted in full from operating expenses
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
The Corona emergency aid granted to the business of a self-employed person by the Investitionsbank Berlin must be deducted from business expenses when calculating benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (following the ruling of the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court, judgment of September 15, 2021, L 18 AS 884/21, juris).
1.3 – LSG BB, judgment of May 21, 2025 – L 1 AS 1202/23 –
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
For a purely performance-based action to enforce a procedural cost reimbursement claim, there is no need for legal protection even in the case of set-off – here by the SGB II provider with reimbursement claims against the former client of the lawyer now suing for his costs – because the cost assessment procedure stipulated in § 197 para. 1 SGG is available as a simpler procedure for obtaining a judgment and otherwise the risk of conflicting judgments would be created.
1.4 – LSG Saxony, decision of 17.06.2025 – L 3 AS 143/25 B ER –
Preliminary legal protection – Failure to substantiate the grounds for the order
Citizen's allowance: In principle, there is no ground for an injunction in urgent proceedings if the applicant can currently rely on their own resources or reasonable assistance from third parties (Tacheles e. V.)
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
When examining whether it is reasonable to expect the applicant to await a decision on the merits or whether a preliminary injunction is necessary to avert significant disadvantages in the individual case, it must be considered whether the applicant can bridge the time until a decision on the merits with their own resources or with reasonable assistance from third parties. This also includes considering an applicant's assets that constitute protected assets within the meaning of Section 12 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Section 90 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), and which are therefore disregarded when determining whether the applicant has a claim to benefits that will ultimately remain with them under the SGB II or the SGB XII.
Practical tip
from the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision of 04.09.2024 – L 12 AS 2547/24 ER-B –
Citizen's income:
No preliminary legal protection with an account balance of €34,315.49
A recipient of citizen's income is not entitled to the issuance of an interim injunction due to a lack of entitlement to an injunction if he has a bank balance of €34,315.49 and also has free access to the account.
1.5 – LSG Hamburg, Judgment of 20.02.2025 – L 4 AS 223/23 D – Appeal pending before the BSG, file number B 4 AS 8/25 R
Basic income support for job seekers – consideration of income – training support – deduction of school fees as a necessary expense related to income generation – existence of a reasonable, free alternative to the chosen training – referral to dual vocational training – freedom of occupation
Detlef Brock adds:
1. In individual cases, tuition fees for a private university or school fees for a private vocational school can be considered a necessary expense within the meaning of Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 5 of the German Social Code, Book 2 (SGB 2), and therefore can be deducted from the educational assistance benefits to be counted as income.
2. This may be the case if free training is not reasonably possible for reasons rooted in the personal circumstances of the person concerned, for example due to health limitations or single parenthood (see LSG Hamburg of 18.6.2019 – L 4 AS 155/19 B ER -).
3. The applicant was also reasonably expected to accept a dual vocational training program, because, in light of the freedom to choose one's profession (Article 12, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law), the question of a reasonable, cost-free alternative can only be answered based on the desired professional qualification. The sole determining factor is therefore that the profession of beautician can be learned both through a three-year dual training program and purely through schooling (usually in two years).
The Hamburg Higher Social Court (LSG Hamburg) ruled that
tuition fees for a private university or school fees for a private vocational school can, in individual cases, be considered necessary expenses within the meaning of Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), and therefore be deductible from educational assistance benefits that are counted as income. However, this is conditional upon the existence of no reasonable, free alternative to the chosen course of study (see LSG Hamburg, judgment of June 18, 2019 – L 4 AS 155/19 B ER).
Legal tip from the social law expert at Tacheles e. V.:
A second case concerning the same legal question is still pending before the Federal Social Court (BSG).
B 7 AS 7/25 R – Lower court: LSG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, L 10 AS 230/20, 06.02.2025
The Higher Social Court of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania ruled as follows in this decision:
Detlef Brock states:
1. The payment of school fees is not a necessary expense associated with generating income if the fundamental possibility of completing a tuition-free education exists.
2. Decisions of the social courts on the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) / Citizen's Allowance
2.1 – SG Stuttgart, decision of 23.04.2024 – S 22 AS 1060/24 ER – legally binding
SGB II:
Recipients of citizen's allowance must prioritize school-based programs if they wish to have the job center cover the costs of tutoring.
Principle
1 of the Stuttgart Social Court: Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) forms the legal basis for educational support services. According to this provision, appropriate supplementary educational support is provided to students, insofar as it is suitable and additionally necessary to achieve the essential learning objectives defined by school regulations. The decisive factor in assessing whether such support is necessary is the essential learning objectives defined by school regulations.
2. According to the explanatory memorandum to the law, the primary learning objective in each grade level is regularly promotion to the next grade level or achieving a sufficient level of performance. Due to the principle of subsidiarity regarding basic income support pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), school-based programs must be utilized as a priority.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG BB, judgment of March 26, 2025 – L 18 AL 67/24 – www.socialgerichtsbaren.de
Suspension of unemployment benefit entitlement – Italian holiday pay entitlement – Suspension period under the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) due to holiday pay
Unemployment benefit 1: Holiday pay received after the end of an employment relationship on a cruise ship under Italian law leads to the suspension of the entitlement to unemployment benefit (Tacheles e. V.).
Detlef Brock states:
1. A contractual basis for the vacation entitlement granted as compensation for the high work performance on each weekday cannot be partially reinterpreted as time off in lieu.
2. Subsequently, full compensation for unused vacation time leads to the suspension of the entitlement to unemployment benefits, even if the higher vacation entitlement is not only linked to the length of employment, but also covers the need for rest and recuperation in the context of special hardships directly related to the performance of work (see, for a comparable case, Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, judgment of March 26, 2019 – L 7 AL 171/17 –).
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG NRW, Decision of 11.06.2025 – L 9 SO 22/25 B – www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
No – exclusion of the right to appeal against the rejection of legal aid
Detlef Brock
1. The applicant has a legitimate interest in the appeal, because, as far as case law holds, a time limit on the granting of legal aid is generally unnecessary in the standard social court case where fixed-fee fees (as here) are incurred, and therefore usually has no economic impact on the amount of the remuneration (see LSG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern decision of 22.10.2020 – L 14 AS 300/20 B PKH), this is not the case.
A time limit may, in fact, lead to a reduction in the legal aid remuneration claim of the authorized representative against the public treasury, which in turn disadvantages the parties involved.
5. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – Social Court Berlin – Judgment of 16 June 2025 – Case No.: S 14 AY 138/22
Legal norms: Section 3 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), Section 1a AsylbLG, Section 2 AsylbLG, Section 44 Social Code Book X (SGB X) – Keywords: Cooperation, analogous benefits, abuse of rights, failure to obtain travel documents, Offenbach district, Berlin Social Court
Reduction of benefits pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is unlawful
Detlef Brock argues
that the authority is obligated to withdraw the decision and provide benefits in accordance with Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), because the decision was unlawful, as the plaintiff was not subject to an enforceable obligation to leave the country during the entire period in dispute.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.2 – Stuttgart Social Court – Decision of June 13, 2025 – Case No.: S 9 AY 1442/25 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 Stuttgart, Stuttgart Social Court
Granting of basic benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1 in expedited proceedings in the event of a shortfall of 10% in the currently approved standard benefit (Tacheles Association)
Detlef Brock adds:
1. Provisional granting of basic benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1.
2. Against this background, the court considers the monthly difference of €44 at issue here, which amounts to approximately 10% of the currently granted standard allowance, to be sufficient to establish an urgent need (cf. regarding the standard allowance 2023 also State Social Court of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, decision of 21 January 2021 – L 9 AY 27/20 B ER -).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.3 – Stuttgart Social Court – Decision of June 20, 2025 – Case No.: S 9 AY 2145/25 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 Stuttgart, Stuttgart Social Court
Detlef Brock adds:
1. Obligation in expedited proceedings to provide basic benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.4 – Social Court Speyer – Decision of 20 June 2025 – File No.: S 15 AY 63/25 ER
Legal basis: Section 1 Paragraph 4 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) – Keywords: Exclusion from benefits according to Section 1 Paragraph 4 AsylbLG, European law, State of Rhineland-Palatinate, Supervisory and Service Directorate, Social Court Speyer
Exclusion from benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act is unconstitutional!
Detlef Brock on this:
1. Obligation in expedited proceedings to provisionally unrestricted benefits pursuant to Section 3 AsylbLG
2. The exclusion of claims under Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in the version applicable since October 31, 2024, violates the fundamental right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living in accordance with human dignity under Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.5 – Social Court Chemnitz, Decision of 24 May 2025 – S 20 AY 17/25 ER –
Attorney Sven Adam stated:
The Chemnitz Social Court, due to the likely incompatibility with European law of the exclusion of benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), has ordered the Vogtland district to provisionally grant full basic benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
Source: https://anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
Note from Detlef Brock – Social Law Expert at Tacheles e. V.
Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act: Exclusion from benefits in Dublin III cases – LSG NSB, Decision of 13.06.2025 – L 8 AY 12/25 B ER –
Caution:
An incorrect file number for this decision is circulating online, for example: LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 13.06.2025 – L 8 SO 12/25 B ER
The original source is 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!
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
