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 Baden-Württemberg, Decision of 12.05.2025 – L 2 AS 1017/25 – www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
A declaratory action aimed at establishing the obligation to reduce costs can only be a last resort, here it is denied
Detlef Brock states:
1. A so-called hardship case (the plaintiff's view) does not exist in the case of a cost reduction request if the applicant has not demonstrated a fact-based unreasonableness or impossibility of cost reduction, and in particular, any declaratory action brought immediately following a cost reduction request is inadmissible (BSG case law).
2. If the applicant regularly submitted newspaper clippings of housing advertisements that did not meet the requirements of the job center, this did not allow for the conclusion that systematic search efforts had been made, nor did it allow for the conclusion that no available housing existed on the housing market relevant to the plaintiff that met the requirements of the job center, since the submitted newspaper clippings by no means comprehensively represented the available apartments.
Detlef Brock – Guidance Note
1. He states that special requirements must also be placed on the legitimate interest in obtaining a declaratory judgment. As is always the case with preventive legal protection, it is necessary that a burdensome administrative measure is imminent due to the allegedly existing obligation to reduce costs. This can only be assumed to be the case once the "dialogue" on the appropriateness of the housing costs, initiated by the cost-reduction request, can be considered concluded.
2. In particular, any declaratory action brought immediately following a request to reduce costs is inadmissible.
3. A legitimate interest in a declaratory judgment cannot be based on the general assertion that the level of the reasonableness limit determined by the job center is incorrect, as this is merely a preliminary question regarding the obligation to reduce costs. Rather, it is necessary to demonstrate, based on facts, that reducing costs is unreasonable or impossible within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). These conditions are not met.
4. Because the plaintiff has not demonstrated any fact-based unreasonableness or impossibility of reducing costs.
5. In particular, this does not follow from the fact that, since the cost-reduction request of March 2024, he has regularly submitted newspaper clippings of apartment advertisements that did not meet the requirements of the Job Center. This is because neither systematic search efforts can be inferred from these clippings, nor do they allow the conclusion that no available housing exists on the housing market relevant to the plaintiff that meets the Job Center's specifications, as the submitted newspaper clippings by no means comprehensively represent the available apartments.
6. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not been receiving benefits from the Jobcenter since October 2024, so a reduction in the housing costs taken into account by the Jobcenter is not imminent anyway.
Practical tip on citizen's income: For urgent legal protection against a cost reduction request
For preventive legal protection against a cost reduction request, there is regularly a lack of legal interest, especially in the context of an expedited procedure (LSG Bayern, decision of 28.01.2025 – L 7 AS 508/24 B ER -).
1.2 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 05.06.2025 – L 2 AS 1659/25 ER-B – www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
As with Hartz IV, the following also applies to citizen's income: The job center is not required to issue an abstract assurance (§ 22 para. 4 SGB II) for a new rental apartment
Detlef Brock states:
1. A commitment from the job center can only be demanded if the future accommodation costs are determined in terms of amount (see also LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of 24.01.2012 – L 14 AS 1818/09 -).
2. The municipal authority can only examine the appropriateness of the accommodation costs in an individual case – the applicant even expressly asserts special circumstances of the individual case – once a housing offer is available that specifies the location of the apartment and the costs to be incurred (cf. BSG, judgment of 06.04.2011- B 4 AS 5/10 R -).
3. Therefore, the very purpose of the assurance does not give rise to a claim by a beneficiary for an abstract determination of the appropriateness of accommodation costs (cf. LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 06.10.2014 – L 19 AS 1098/14 -).
1.3 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 13.02.2025 – L 5 AS 296/23 –
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. The Börde district's housing cost guidelines, based on the 2012 rent survey as amended by the September 2019 correction report and further modified by the weighting of gross rent (excluding utilities) for existing tenancies in May and June 2023, are based on a coherent concept for the disputed period from July to December 2014. The court's duty to investigate is limited to a comprehensible procedural review. A detailed examination of specific issues is unnecessary if the plaintiffs raise no substantiated objections to either the original concept or the revised version adopted during the appeal proceedings.
2. The continuation of the concept for periods from January 2014 onwards, in accordance with the price index for the development of rental costs in Saxony-Anhalt, is not objectionable.
1.4 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 13.02.2025 – L 5 AS 299/23 –
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. The housing cost guidelines of the Börde district, based on the rent survey with a reference date of October 1, 2016, as amended by the correction reports from August 2019 and September 2023, are based on a coherent concept for the disputed period from August to December 2018. The official duty to investigate is limited to a comprehensible procedural review. A detailed examination of specific issues is not required if the plaintiffs raise no substantiated objections to either the original concept or the revised concept as amended in the appeal proceedings.
2. The continuation of the concept for periods from January 2018 onwards, in accordance with the price index for the development of rental costs in Saxony-Anhalt, is not objectionable.
1.5 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of July 16, 2025 – L 13 AS 152/23 –
Complete revocation of benefit approvals under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), in cases of undeclared work – reversal of the burden of proof
1. Undeclared work leads to the repayment of citizen's allowance benefits in full, because according to the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG), a benefit recipient must be treated as if they had NEVER been in need of assistance under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), in cases of unclear income circumstances.
2. Reversal of the burden of proof is justified due to a lack of cooperation in clarifying the facts. (Guidance by Detlef Brock)
Detlef Brock commented:
1. If, due to undeclared work, the plaintiff's exact income cannot be reliably determined retrospectively, the 13th Senate of the Lower Saxony State Social Court (LSG NSB) held that a benefit recipient in such a situation must be treated as if they had not been in need of assistance. The plaintiffs had not sufficiently cooperated in clarifying the matter and had attempted to conceal their income. The job center was therefore entitled to invoke a reversal of the burden of proof.
Source: landessocialgericht.niedersachsen.de
Practical tip from Detlef Brock:
1. In the present situation of unclear income circumstances despite the exhaustion of all available sources of information and the lack of a basis for a realistic estimate, the Federal Social Court (BSG) has already ruled that the benefit recipient is to be treated as if his need for assistance had not existed at all (BSG, Judgment of 15.06.2016 – B 4 AS 41/15 R -).
2. A reversal of the burden of proof to the detriment of the benefit recipient is justified if there is a particular proximity to the evidence of a party involved.
This can be assumed if events rooted in his personal sphere or in his sphere of responsibility cannot be clarified and the timely clarification of the facts is made more difficult or prevented by omitted information or insufficient cooperation in clarifying the facts (cf. BSG, judgment of June 15, 2016 – B 4 AS 41/15 R; Senate judgments of the LSG NSB of December 21, 2022 – L 13 AS 477/21 – and of January 24, 2024 – L 13 AS 395/21 –).
2. Decisions of the social courts regarding the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) / Citizen's Allowance
2.1 – SG Karlsruhe, Judgment of 11.07.2025 – S 12 AS 1525/25 –
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
The suspension of social court proceedings until the conclusion of an extrajudicial preliminary procedure that is mandatory before filing the lawsuit is not required.
Comment on the court ruling by Detlef Brock:
1. No assumption of rent arrears by the job center – in case of unreasonable housing costs, if the granting of the loan is not justified to secure the housing.
2. If a 3-person household in rent level III pays a gross rent of 2,000.00 euros for its monthly rent costs, and the values used in the Housing Benefit Act for a 3-person household in rent level III amount to 726.66 euros, the gross rent is exceeded many times over.
3. There is no concrete prospect of how the applicants will be able to afford this high rent, especially since the plaintiff is legally obligated to pay child support for two minor children outside the household. It is therefore to be expected that further rent arrears will accrue and that long-term financial security cannot be achieved.
Expert tip
: There is no monetary limit to the loan claim in the case of rent arrears (Saxon State Social Court, case no. L 8 AS 235/15 B ER).
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Hamburg, Judgment of 26.03.2025 – L 2 AL 16/24 –
Constitutionality of calculating unemployment benefits according to the actual weekly earning capacity of the unemployed person
Juris Guideline
1. According to Section 151 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), the decisive factor for calculating unemployment benefits is how many hours of work the unemployed person can still perform per week based on their capacity to work. This provision reflects the principle of wage replacement, according to which the unemployed person should not receive more in unemployment benefits than they could earn in earned income with a given capacity to work. The determining factor is the number of hours of work the unemployed person is still capable of performing. This regulation does not violate the social welfare principle enshrined in Article 20 of the German Basic Law (GG).
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 15.04.2025 – L 8 SO 39/23 –
Principle www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
If an adult disabled child lives in the same household as the parents, the child benefit paid to the parent is only to be counted as income of the child if it is passed on to the child, i.e., actually accrues to the child (reference to BSG, judgment of February 8, 2007 – B 9b SO 5/05 R – juris Rn 16).
Detlef Brock states:
1. The attribution rule of Section 82 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 SGB XII does not apply to adult children according to its wording (LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of December 7, 2016 – L 2 SO 5358/15 –).
2. Contrary to the view of his legal guardian – his mother – it cannot be successfully argued that she withdrew the respective monthly amount from the plaintiff's account and used it for her own purposes.
The social court has already correctly pointed out that the ownership of a bank account remains unaffected even in cases of legal guardianship and does not accrue to the guardian's assets. Her mistaken assumption that she can dispose of the plaintiff's account at will would have to be reviewed by the competent local court – guardianship court – if necessary.
As a “readily available resource” in this sense, the child benefit, as a current income (cf. BSG, judgment of July 30, 2008 – B 14 AS 26/07 R –), covered the plaintiff's needs in the respective calendar month in the amount paid out.
5. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court – Decision of 02.07.2025 – Case No.: L 8 AY 22/25 B ER
Legal norms: Section 1 Paragraph 4 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), Section 193 Social Court Act (SGG) – Keywords: Cost decision, exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 AsylbLG, European law, discretionary power to revoke, Gifhorn district, Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court
Exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
Detlef Brock
1. The authority must reimburse the applicants' extrajudicial costs for both instances because the dismissal notice from 02/2025 is not lawful.
2. The court has doubts as to whether the prerequisites for an exclusion from benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) were met. The interpretation of the element of the offense in Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 AsylbLG, which was only included in the law following a recommendation and report by the Committee on Internal Affairs and Community (4th Committee; BT-Drs. 20/13413), namely that the person affected by the exclusion from benefits must be "legally and factually able to leave the country according to the determination of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees," remains largely unclear in case law and legal literature (see, for example, Hamburg Social Court, decision of April 11, 2025 – S 28 AY 188/25 ER –).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.2 – Gießen Social Court – Decision of July 17, 2025 – Case No.: S 30 AY 63/25 ER
Legal norms: Section 1 Paragraph 4 AsylbLG, Section 44 SGB X – Keywords: Exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 AsylbLG, review procedure, European law, State of Hesse, Gießen Regional Council, Gießen Social Court
The exclusion from benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) allegedly violates European and constitutional law
In this regard, Detlef Brock
argues that Section 1, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) violates European legal regulations on minimum standards of care during asylum proceedings, as set out in Articles 17 to 20 of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (Directive 2013/33/EU), because Article 20, Paragraph 5, Sentence 1 of Directive 2013/33/EU expressly requires that decisions on the restriction or withdrawal of benefits granted under the reception procedure (Article 2(g) of Directive 2013/33/EU) must be made in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
Important note from the court:
Although the objection was filed late and the dismissal notice has become legally binding, there is generally no right to an injunction for a request that has already been rejected by a legally binding administrative act. Due to the legal force of the decision, it is established (§ 77 SGG) that the respondent is not obligated to grant the applicant the requested benefits.
The only exception is if a review procedure under Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) is pending with regard to the legally binding decision and the conditions for a revocation of the decision under Section 44 SGB X are undoubtedly met, i.e., the decision is obviously unlawful (Burkiczak in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGG, 2nd ed., Section 86b SGG (as of May 22, 2025), para. 397).
This is the case here. The objection must be considered a request for review. Furthermore, the dismissal notice is clearly unlawful, as it is likely to violate both constitutional and European law.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.3 – Social Court Speyer – Decision of 14 July 2025 – File No.: S 16 AY 87/25 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 pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
Detlef Brock states:
1. 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 Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG).
5.4 – Stuttgart Social Court – Decision of 15 July 2025 – Case No.: S 9 AY 2572/25 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 expedited proceedings pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1
Detlef Brock
1. 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).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.5 – SG Karlsruhe, decisions of 21.07.2025 – S 12 AY 1183/25 ER – and – S 12 AY 1152/25 ER –
Attorney Sven Adam states:
The Social Court of Karlsruhe has confirmed in several rulings the view that the health and long-term care insurance contributions of the mandatory follow-up insurance pursuant to Section 6 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) must be covered.
SG Karlsruhe, S 12 AY 1183/25 ER
SG Karlsruhe, S 12 AY 1152/25 ER
6. Decisions of the State Social Courts on the Child Benefit Supplement
6.1 – Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 10 April 2025 – L 3 BK 6/21 –
Detlef Brock comments on the following:
1. Child benefit supplement: Partial recovery of the child benefit supplement is lawful, because the mother's monthly payments of €300.00 served the purpose of reaching the minimum income threshold of €900.00 required by Section 6a Paragraph 1 No. 2 of the former Federal Child Benefit Act (BKGG a. F.). Neither a repayment obligation as such nor the amount, timing, or modalities for any potential repayment of the loan were mentioned.
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. On the “seriousness” of a loan agreement between family members.
2. Private loans do not constitute income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
3. Section 24 paragraph 2 no. 5 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) only applies if it concerns income of the person concerned.
7. Miscellaneous information on citizen's income, social assistance, housing allowance and other legal codes
7.1 – Job center must pay for eyeglass repairs – Article by attorney Helge Hildebrandt, Kiel
The costs for repairs of, among other things, therapeutic devices such as glasses are not included in the standard allowance and must therefore be covered by the job center, even if benefit recipients would generally have a right to reimbursement from their health insurance.
The plaintiff, who received basic income support, had purchased a pair of progressive lenses. Shortly thereafter, both lenses were damaged in a fall. The defendant, the Jobcenter, rejected the plaintiff's application for reimbursement of the €780 cost of two new lenses. The Cologne Social Court dismissed her lawsuit.
The North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court overturned the lower court's ruling on the plaintiff's appeal and ordered the job center to pay €256. This is because, according to Section 24 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 Number 3, Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the costs for repairing therapeutic devices such as eyeglasses are covered separately (see Section 31 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII)). The plaintiff's generally preferred claim against statutory health insurance was inadmissible in this case because she had not followed the prescribed procurement procedure. Therefore, the job center is responsible for providing the corresponding benefit.
More information: sozialberatung-kiel.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
