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 NRW, Decision of 31.07.2025 – L 12 AS 422/25 B ER – www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Pure speculation and conjecture do not justify the job center in suspending citizen's income benefits (guideline statement by Detlef Brock)
Detlef Brock adds
The job center may not base the termination of unemployment benefit II (ALG II) on mere assumptions.
1. The job center cannot base a termination order under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), on doubts and thus mere assumptions, because it is irrelevant whether the applicants can demonstrate their need for assistance. Rather, in a termination situation, the job center is obligated to conduct the necessary investigations (see Federal Social Court (BSG) judgment of June 25, 2015 – B 14 AS 30/14 R –), which is expressly criticized by the court in this particular case.
In the absence of any findings by the job center regarding the existence of a shared household and financial arrangement, the following applies:
2. For the applicant's need for assistance to be denied, it is necessary not only that a household unit (here with the landlord) exists, but also that sufficient income is generated within that household unit to be taken into account. The job center has failed to make any findings regarding the existence of a shared household and financial arrangement, and thus even regarding the existence of a household unit. Findings regarding the amount of income and assets are entirely lacking.
Duty of the Jobcenter to investigate official matters pursuant to Section 20 of the German Social Code, Book X (
SGB X): 4. The Jobcenter also failed to adequately fulfill its duty to investigate official matters pursuant to Section 20 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), because the Jobcenter failed to initiate a request for information pursuant to Section 60 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) against the landlord in order to ascertain the facts relevant to the decision and instead raised “doubts” about the applicants’ need for assistance.
The burden of proof for the adverse revocation of the citizen's allowance lies with the job center
. The job center also bears the objective burden of proof for the adverse revocation decision and is already obligated in the previous stage of the proceedings to determine and establish the factual prerequisites for a legal norm on which it bases its administrative decision.
The job center can obtain information itself – Section 60 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Sections 62 et seq. of the SGB II
. In situations like these, where the existence of a household community is disputed and the partner refuses to provide the requested information, the job center has the option of contacting the third party directly (Section 60 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the SGB II) and, in the event of a breach of the duty to provide information, demanding compensation or imposing fines (Sections 62 et seq. of the SGB II).
When can an economic community be assumed according to case law and legal literature on the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)?
7. An economic community cannot be assumed simply because shopping is occasionally done for the other person or certain items are jointly procured despite generally separate finances, e.g., milk for coffee. There are no objective indicators for this.
Shared use of the living room, kitchen, and bathroom is insufficient. No findings were made as to whether the applicants shop for groceries, cook, clean, or perform similar tasks together with their landlord.
Practical tip regarding the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII): North Rhine-
Westphalia Higher Social Court (LSG NRW), judgment of 28 September 2023 – L 9 SO 170/21 –
Detlef Brock comments on the following points:
1. Regarding the assumption of costs for the deceased woman's inpatient care.
2. Benefits to secure subsistence should not be denied based on mere speculation.
3. The social welfare office must cover the uncovered costs for the inpatient care of a person in need of care even if assets were originally available, the whereabouts of which have not been fully clarified.
1.2 – LSG Schleswig-Holstein, decision of 30.07.2025 – L 3 AS 87/25 B ER
Citizen's allowance: The trial year for joint partners (§ 7 para. 3a no. 1 SGB II) does not begin againif the relationship has been interrupted for a few months – in this case due to the renovation of the jointly rented apartment.
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. If partners live together in a shared household for over a year and the cohabitation is interrupted for several months for reasons unrelated to the partnership – in this case, renovation of the jointly rented apartment – the presumption under Section 7 Paragraph 3a No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) applies upon their re-establishment of cohabitation.
2. The "probationary year" does not begin again.
1.3 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 03.04.2025 – L 2 AS 323/24 ZVW –
Citizen's income: The job center no longer needs to make a revocation decision pursuant to Section 44 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), if the legally binding decision, which is generally subject to revocation, can no longer have any effect, i.e., if it exclusively concerns benefits for periods that lie outside the limitation period specified by the revocation application (for example, Federal Social Court case no. B 4 AS 57/15 R – guidance note by Detlef Brock)
Guideline www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
On the handling of review applications concerning benefits outside the one-year limitation period pursuant to Section 44 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB X in conjunction with Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGB II.
Practical tip regarding social assistance under Book XII of the
German Social Code: No blanket review of all notices
The social welfare office is not required to conduct a blanket review of all social assistance notices for 2020-2023 – an article by Detlef Brock, published here: www.gegen-hartz.de
2. Decisions of the social courts regarding the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) / Citizen's Allowance
2.1 – none
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law according to the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG NRW, Judgment of 27 January 2025 – L 20 AL 127/23 – Appeal allowed www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Unemployment benefit: Termination of entitlement to unemployment benefit upon reaching the standard retirement age according to the German Social Code, Book VI (SGB VI) – not unconstitutional (Guidance by Detlef Brock)
Detlef Brock states:
1. The cessation of entitlement to unemployment benefits upon reaching the standard retirement age according to the German Social Code, Book VI (SGB VI), is compatible with Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law (GG).
2. The subsidiary nature of social assistance does not imply that an employee who has become unemployed after reaching the standard retirement age under Book VI of the German Social Code (SGB VI) is entitled to either unemployment insurance benefits or pension insurance benefits – or, in this case, benefits from the pension fund.
3.2 – LSG Hessen, judgment of 06/13/2025 – L 7 AL 73/23 –
Insolvency compensation: A new insolvency event cannot occur as long as the employer's insolvency based on a previous insolvency event continues (cf. Federal Social Court, judgment of November 21, 2002 – B 11 AL 35/02 R – note by Detlef Brock – Tacheles e. V.)
Guiding Principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. The blocking effect of the first insolvency event continues to apply during the ongoing monitoring of the fulfillment of the insolvency plan during the opening of a new insolvency proceeding, even if the monitoring is limited to the distribution of the insolvency quota by the trustee, with the consequence that no new entitlement to insolvency pay arises.
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – SG Munich, Judgment of 02.07.2025 – S 48 SO 331/24 –
Integration assistance: Article 3, paragraph 3, sentence 2 of the Basic Law includes a mandate to promote integration and grants disabled people the right to equal participation in everyday life, which also includes holidays and leisure time (Federal Social Court case law – note by Detlef Brock, Tacheles e. V.)
Detlef Brock adds:
1. Integration assistance/social assistance: Wheelchair attachment secures the right of disabled people to social participation – authorities must take into account the case law of the Federal Social Court –
2. According to the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court (BSG), an authority's requirement for a disabled person to use accessible routes for their excursions constitutes a violation of constitutional law.
Guiding principles www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. A disabled person is entitled to a wheelchair attachment device (in addition to the already existing active wheelchair) for the purpose of indirect compensation for disability if this aid is necessary to be able to access the extended immediate area within the meaning of the recent case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG) on health insurance law on their own.
2. Such a claim also exists under the law of social participation if the disabled person cannot, without the aid, organize their leisure and holiday activities as desired, similar to a comparable person who is not affected by a disability.
4.2 – SG Münster, Judgment of 30.04.2021 – S 20 SO 182/20 – confirmed by BSG, Judgment of 08.05.2024 – B 8 SO 3/23 R –
Integration assistance: School attendance for children with mobility impairments, if necessary also by taxi
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – Social Court Karlsruhe, decisions of 21 July 2025 – S 12 AY 1347/25 ER, – S 12 AY 1381/25 ER; S 12 AY 1152/25 ER – and – S 12 AY 1183/25 ER –
Tolerating criminal attacks on the social and legal state under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice and Migration of Baden-Württemberg
Detlef Brock states:
1. The amounts currently published on the website of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (i.e., on 21 July 2025) as "New benefit rates under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act" for the period from 01 January 2025 are incorrect and too low.
2. The entitlement to continued consideration of the higher standard rates newly determined for 2024 in the following year 2025 arises directly from the corresponding vested rights provision in Section 3a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 AsylbLG in conjunction with Section 28a Paragraph 5 SGB XII in conjunction with Section 40 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGB XII in conjunction with Section 1 Paragraph 2 RBSFV 2025 (SG Marburg, 14.2.2025, S 16 AY 11/24 ER; SG Halle-Saale, 17.03.2025, S 17 AY 3/25 ER).
Guiding principles
1. When calculating the cash benefit amounts for asylum seekers, according to the grandfathering rule which also applies to them, the euro amounts determined for the previous year 2024 are to continue to be applied from 01.1.2025, because the euro amounts carried forward for the year 2025 are lower than those for the previous year 2024.
2. The amounts currently published on the website of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (i.e., on 21 July 2025) as "New benefit rates under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act" for the period from 1 January 2025 onwards are incorrect and too low.
3. The asylum seekers' benefits authority may be liable to the person it has harmed for causing them to apply for voluntary but mandatory follow-up insurance in the statutory health and long-term care insurance system after the end of their employment, the implementation of which is mandatory and foreseeably uneconomical for the selected health and long-term care insurance funds, as long as the deceptive asylum seekers' benefits authority fails to provide the asylum seeker with any cash benefits for the subsequently owed insurance contributions, contrary to its prior notification, and the two funds are unable to enforce their contribution claims against the destitute refugee (see Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of March 31, 2025, S 12 AY 706/25 ER; Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of July 21, 2025, S 12 AY 1152/25 ER; Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of July 21, 2025, S 12 AY 1183/25 ER; Social Court Karlsruhe). Karlsruhe, decision of 21.07.2025, S 12 AY 1381/25 ER).
4. A recipient of basic benefits already has a legal entitlement, pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), to the assumption of contributions to voluntary health and social long-term care insurance within the framework of the so-called mandatory follow-up insurance (see Social Court Karlsruhe, 31 March 2025, S 12 AY 706/25 ER; Social Court Heilbronn, 23 June 2025, S 15 AY 1361/25 ER).
5. In the event of an administrative practice aimed at defrauding refugees who are helpless in their host country without work, income, language and legal knowledge, it is unreasonable to expect those affected, in their considerable distress, to also have to defend themselves again before the social court after only a few weeks against the predictably recurring violations of the law by the same respondent, or indeed constantly.
6. From the perspective of the Social Court of Karlsruhe, the Ministry of Justice and Migration of Baden-Württemberg, as the highest supervisory authority in the area of “migration”, is to be expected to tolerate executive disobedience, because the Ministry has also allowed executive disobedience to law and justice by the management of the Social Court of Karlsruhe, which is subordinate to it in this respect, for years in its broader area of responsibility (“justice”).
5.2 – Stuttgart Social Court – Decision of 14 August 2025 – Case No.: S 11 AY 2571/25 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
Standard benefit level 1 by preliminary injunction in court
Detlef Brock states:
1. The authority believes there is no legal basis for standard benefit level 1.
2. The applicant is accommodated in communal accommodation within the meaning of Section 53 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act and is indisputably entitled to basic benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act. In the opinion of the Chamber, taking into account the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of October 19, 2022 (Case No. 1 BvL 3/21), he is entitled to these benefits to the extent of standard benefit level 1.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
Practical tip also from
the Stuttgart Social Court – decision of 14.08.2025 – file number: S 11 AY 2621/25 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
6. Miscellaneous information on citizen's income, social assistance, housing allowance and other legal codes
6.1 – No protection of legitimate expectations regarding excessive heating cost subsidies – Press release from the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court regarding the judgment of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court of 1 July 2025 – L 11 AS 597/23 –
The Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court (LSG) has ruled that a job center may reclaim overpaid heating cost subsidies if the initial approval was only provisional. Such a provisional status does not establish any legitimate expectation of continued payment.
Source: landessocialgericht.niedersachsen.de
Case review with guiding principle by Tacheles e. V. in the Tacheles case law ticker, week 32/2025
1. Recipients of citizen's income must read and acknowledge the job center's approval notices, as preliminary notices do not guarantee protection of legitimate expectations.
2. If the job center erroneously grants a benefit recipient the one-time heating cost allowance for heating oil on a monthly basis instead of the one-time allowance that has been standard practice for years, and this results in benefits more than double, the recipient generally cannot claim that they were unaware of the illegality of the approval.
Important note on citation style:
Unpublished judgments, annotations, or case reviews may only be cited with source information:
Source: Tacheles Case Law Ticker KW XX/2025 – Author: Detlef Brock
Please cite the following source for newsletter subscriptions:
Thomé Newsletter 12/2025 dated April 6, 2025 – Author: Harald Thomé
Published under Creative Commons license – CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Quotations without source attribution are copyright infringement.
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
