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 Hessen, Judgment of 21.05.2025 – L 6 AS 444/22 –
The Hessian State Social Court (LSG Hessen) has tightened the rules regarding absence from the local area for recipients of social assistance (SGB II)
Guidance note by Detlef Brock
: 1. The Senate sees no basis, even under Article 2 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, for the legislature being obligated to finance a life "on the road" for more than six months for persons falling under Section 10 Paragraph 1 Number 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
2. The job center does not have to finance a six-month family trip to the home country.
Detlef Brock states:
1. No entitlement to basic income support benefits for a person in need of assistance who is raising a small child during parental leave due to a six-month absence from their place of residence (contra LSG BB, L 34 AS 1030/11 -).
2. Individuals in need of assistance who are on parental leave are excluded from basic income support benefits if their absence from the local area is not approved by the job center (contrary to SG Karlsruhe, S 5 AS 4172/10).
Principle www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
§ 7 para. 4a SGB II in the version applicable until 31.2010 also applies as an administrative provision for the control of abuse to such employable benefit recipients who are not currently required to make themselves available to the labor market pursuant to § 10 para. 1 no. 3 SGB II.
Editor's note:
The decision of the Higher Social Court of Hesse (LSG Hessen) concerned the old version of Section 7 Paragraph 4a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – Hartz IV. Section 7b of the SGB II now applies to citizen's income.
1.2 – LSG Celle, Judgment of 12.09.2024 – L 6 AS 59/24 – Appeal of the plaintiff rejected; BSG, Decision of 24.4.2025 – Case No.: B 4 AS 208/24 BH
Recipients of citizen's income are not entitled to financial resources from the job center for Christmas celebrations
Detlef Brock states:
1. This is neither an initial furnishing of the apartment, nor is an additional need for this provided for in the SGB II.
2. It is not the responsibility of the authorities to finance family trips to relatives over Christmas, nor to provide funds for the purchase of gifts.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.3 – LSG NRW, Judgment of 11 April 2025 – L 21 AS 426/24 – www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Pandemic: Substantial assets amounting to €92,000 exclude entitlement to SGB II benefits
Detlef Brock
1. The job center, applying principles from housing benefit law accordingly, assumed that substantial assets exist from an amount exceeding €60,000 (cf. LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of 28.6.2023 – L 3 AS 3160/21; LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 25.2.2021 – L 7 AS 1801/20 B),
2. It has been argued in some cases – but also in others – that a higher amount of assets may be harmless in individual cases (see Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of January 21, 2021 – L 7 AS 5/21 B ER; similarly Knickrehm, in: BeckOGK-SGB II, § 67 (as of June 1, 2021) para. 21; Lange, in: Luik et al., SGB II, 2024 § 67 para. 10). The Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court cites business assets as an example of a possible exceptional case.
3. In accordance with the practice of benefit providers, which has been largely approved by the courts, and taking into account the legislative intent behind the revision of Section 12 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the fact that the conceivable exceptional case mentioned by the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court (LSG) does not apply here, and the Social Court's (SG) correct observation that the reason for introducing Section 67 of the SGB II was to mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Bundestag Printed Matter 19/18107, pp. 17 et seq.), but that the plaintiff's need for assistance was not related to this, the Senate considers the plaintiff's assets of over €92,000 at the beginning of March 2020 to be substantial.
2. Decisions of the social courts on the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) / Citizen's Allowance
2.1 – SG Karlsruhe, decision of 20.06.2025 – S 12 AS 1569/25 –
Regarding the obstruction of evidence by an authority that fails to submit the requested administrative documents to the court.
Job centers act unlawfully if, despite a court order, they fail to submit the documents of the citizen's allowance recipient in expedited proceedings
Detlef Brock states:
1. If a family applies for citizen's allowance in an expedited procedure due to the denial of ALG 2 and an acute emergency (rent payment impossible due to insolvency and announced electricity disconnection as well as 2 minor children in the household), the job center is obliged to submit the applicant's required documents to the court.
2. If the job center fails to submit the documents to the court despite being requested to do so, it is acting negligently. The court can then estimate the benefits, specifically the citizen's allowance, due to the lack of documentation, as the minimum subsistence level must be guaranteed.
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. According to the legal principles on culpable obstruction of evidence, the requirement of establishing prima facie evidence is satisfied if a party to the social court proceedings culpably makes it impossible for the opposing party, who bears the burden of proof, to present evidence.
2. In social court proceedings concerning subsistence benefits, socially disadvantaged applicants are not required to submit the documents necessary to substantiate their claim to benefits to the court again if they have already submitted these documents out of court to the competent authority.
3. In urgent social court proceedings concerning subsistence benefits, indigent applicants may rely on the fact that the respondent authority will immediately submit its electronically maintained administrative files to the court, because Section 104 Sentence 4 of the Social Courts Act provides for this duty of cooperation on the part of the authorities.
4. Applicants for urgent social court proceedings concerning subsistence benefits do not have to expect executive disobedience from an authority bound by law.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 07.05.2025 – L 2 AL 27/22 –
Suspension of the plaintiff's entitlement to unemployment benefits due to the receipt of a severance payment (Tacheles e. V.).
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. A severance payment made due to the termination of the employment relationship leads to the suspension of the entitlement to unemployment benefits if the ordinary notice period for the employer was not observed.
2. A special or specific connection between the premature termination and the entitlement to severance pay is not required. Accordingly, not only the portion of the severance pay promised by the employee through an incentive agreement for premature termination, in addition to severance pay already agreed upon by the employer for ordinary termination, is relevant.
3. The waiting period for severance pay is calculated independently of the actual unemployment.
Practical tip a. View
as here Schmitz in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB III, 3rd ed. [as of 15 January 2023], § 158 para. 24; Scholz in: Heinz/Schmidt-De Caluwe/Scholz, SGB III, 7th ed. 2021, § 158 para. 24; Valgolio in: Hauck/Noftz [as of 2nd supplement 2025], § 158 SGB III para. 43).
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court, Judgment of 11 September 2024 – L 9 SO 11/21 – Appeal allowed
Services in the form of outpatient assisted living options for those in need of care
Social assistance: Outpatient supported living within the meaning of Section 98 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is not applicable if the recipient of assistance is accommodated in the household of his daughter
Detlef Brock comments:
1. The accommodation of the recipient of assistance in his daughter's household is not to be considered a form of outpatient assisted living. While the Federal Social Court (BSG) clarified in its ruling of June 30, 2016 (case number B 8 SO 6/15 R) that nursing care can also meet the requirements for outpatient assisted living, this does not apply in this case.
2. The Chamber expressly agrees with this. Nevertheless, it is essential that the quality of service provision is ensured (see Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of December 20, 2016 – L 8 SO 119/15 –).
3. This cannot be established in the present case where the recipient of assistance was cared for by his daughter. The recipient was merely integrated into his daughter's household and provided for. This cannot be considered professional care.
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Care services provided exclusively by an outpatient care service, which serve to promote independence in one's own family-oriented living environment, are to be classified as services in the form of outpatient assisted living options within the meaning of Section 98 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), based on the highest court standards.
If care is provided by family members and care allowance is granted, this does not constitute a service in the form of outpatient assisted living. This also applies if partial inpatient services are provided concurrently within the framework of day care.
4.2 – Social Court Hannover, Judgment of June 12, 2025 – S 4 SO 103/22 – (not legally binding)
Detlef Brock adds
: 1. No personal budget for gym and martial arts school
No daily structure through weightlifting and martial arts – Social Court rejects claim for personal budget for gym and martial arts school, because the plaintiff, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, was still able to participate in sports activities independently at times.
Thus, the prerequisites for a viable daily structure, a combination of various everyday skills such as a regular sleep rhythm, personal hygiene, household management and social interaction, were not met.
Source: https://socialgericht-hannover.niedersachsen.de/presse/presseinformationen/nicht-tagesstructure-durch-hantel-und-kampfsport-socialgericht-weist-klage-auf-personalliches-budget-fur-fitnessstudio-und-kampfsportschule-ab-243090.html
Practical tip
SG Munich, judgment of 30.04.2025 – S 46 SO 72/24 – Recipients of citizen's allowance must pay the costs of a fitness studio from their standard allowance.
5. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – LSG NSB, decision of 06.06.2025 – L 8 AY 26/25 B ER –
Detlef Brock
1. Order for the suspensive effect of an appeal against a restriction of entitlement pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 3 AsylbLG
Official principle
1. On the requirements for a hearing regarding a restriction of entitlement pursuant to Section 1a AsylbLG.
2. The revocation of a benefit award under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) pursuant to Section 9 Paragraph 4 No. 1 AsylbLG in conjunction with Section 45 Paragraph 1 SGB X to enforce a restriction of entitlement pursuant to Section 1a AsylbLG requires an exercise of discretion by the authority (so-called discretion to revoke).
3. In the balancing of interests regarding the order of the suspensive effect of an appeal pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), it must be taken into account that difficult legal questions may arise in the main proceedings for reasons of constitutional and European law, in particular whether the (uniform) legal consequences in the case of restrictions on entitlements pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (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).
Source: voris.wolterskluwer-online.de
5.2 – LSG NSB, Decision of 02.06.2026 – L 8 AY 13/25 B ER –
Detlef Brock
1. Benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in case of violation of a residence requirement in an atypical case ((affirmed here for health reasons).
Official principle
1. Section 11 paragraph 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) contains an obligation for the authority of the actual place of residence to provide benefits in cases of contravention of a spatial restriction under immigration law or in the event of a violation of a residence requirement.
2. The obligation to provide benefits under Section 11 Paragraph 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) encompasses all benefits necessary to cover de facto needs, which, however, are generally limited to covering necessary travel expenses and urgently required food costs so that the foreigner can reach the place of residence determined by the asylum or immigration restrictions. In atypical cases, further benefits up to the level of regular benefits (Sections 3 and 2 AsylbLG) must be provided (affirmed here for health reasons).
Source: voris.wolterskluwer-online.de
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
