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 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Judgment of 20.03.2025 – L 10 AS 542/19
Citizen's allowance:
If household furnishings are sold voluntarily, the job center will not provide initial furnishing assistance, as this is considered a replacement purchase.
Detlef Brock states:
1. If a benefit recipient voluntarily sells their furniture to their new tenant for a transfer fee due to the closure of their restaurant, they are not entitled to a grant for initial furnishing from the job center. No exceptional external circumstances (cf. Federal Social Court, case no. B 4 AS 57/13 R) were present.
2. The plaintiff could have used the compensation paid to the new tenant to purchase new furniture. His reference to debts from previous employment is irrelevant, as the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), does not cover debts.
1.2 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, Judgment of 12.02.2025 – L 2 AS 70/24
Guiding principles: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. On the requirements for a request for cooperation in the context of the final determination of benefits pursuant to Section 41a Paragraph 3 Sentences 3 and 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
2. In review proceedings concerning a zero determination pursuant to Section 41a Paragraph 3 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), subsequently submitted documents are inadmissible.
1.3 – LSG Hessen, Judgment of 17.03.2025 – L 9 AS 209/24
Federal Social Court (BSG), decision of 16 June 2025 – B 4 AS 24/25 B – appeal against the refusal to grant leave to appeal dismissed
No entitlement to unemployment benefit II due to the inability to clarify existing assets (here: inheritance) – Job center does not reverse the burden of proof
Detlef Brock comments on this:
1. Unemployment benefit II (ALG II) will not be granted if the recipient fabricates a theft and claims that an inheritance has disappeared.
2. According to general principles, the employable recipient of benefits bears the burden of proof that the legal requirements for a claim under Section 7 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are met, including the requirement that they are in need of assistance (see Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of January 27, 2009 – B 14 AS 6/08 R). The inability to clarify the financial situation therefore leads to the denial of need for assistance.
3. Although the SGB II does not contain an explicit presumption rule, this does not preclude the possibility that, according to the general principles of objective burden of proof, the inability to clarify the financial situation is to the detriment of the benefit recipient.
4. The Federal Social Court has ruled that the lack of proof of relevant facts is to the detriment of the benefit recipient if the lack of evidence is due to a lack of cooperation. If the circumstances cannot be clarified, the recipient of the benefit is to be treated as if the element of the offense had not been present (cf. BSG, judgment of 15.06.2016 – B 4 AS 41/15 R).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Practical tip on the reversal of the burden of proof in the case of citizen's income – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, judgment of 16 July 2025 – L 13 AS 152/23
Regarding the situation of unclear income circumstances despite the exhaustion of all sources of information and the lack of a basis for a realistic estimate.
Detlef Brock comments:
1. In principle, the authority bears the objective burden of proof for the illegality of a grant notice if it revokes it.
2. However, a reversal of the burden of proof is justified if there is a particular proximity to the evidence in relation to a party involved – in particular, if events rooted in that party's personal sphere cannot be clarified and the clarification of the facts is prevented by a lack of cooperation (cf. Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, judgments of December 21, 2022 – L 13 AS 477/21 – and of January 24, 2024 – L 13 AS 395/21).
1.4 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, Judgment of 05.12.2024 – L 9 AS 83/23
Federal Social Court (BSG), decision of June 3, 2025 – B 7 AS 1/25 B – Refusal to grant leave to appeal rejected
Citizen's income: Job centers will not cover voluntary rent payments
Detlef Brock explains:
1. Contractual obligations under a tenancy agreement must be valid to be considered as costs for accommodation and heating (see Federal Social Court [BSG], judgments of February 19, 2009 – B 4 AS 48/08 R and of November 24, 2011 – B 14 AS 15/11 R). Mere voluntary payments are insufficient.
2. A tenancy agreement must not be void due to a violation of law (§ 134 of the German Civil Code [BGB]) or be subject to content control under §§ 307 et seq. of the German Civil Code [BGB]). The existence of a valid contract – including the question of a sham transaction (§ 117 of the German Civil Code [BGB]) – must always be examined by the job centers and, if necessary, by the courts.
3. In this case, the benefit recipients had only made irregular payments to their son. A deferral agreement was alleged but not proven.
The court also pointed out that, due to the alleged deferral, no claim could exist under Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as it must be a current need .
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Practical tip:
A claim would only have existed if the deferral of payment had been granted "involuntarily." A deferral granted by relatives does not constitute a permanent postponement that would preclude a claim under Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (see Hamburg Higher Social Court, judgment of September 10, 2021 – L 4 AS 156/20 – with reference to the Federal Social Court, judgment of May 7, 2009 – B 14 AS 31/07 R).
1.5 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, Judgment of 22 January 2025 – L 38 SF 159/24 EK AS
Source: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Citizen's allowance: Entitlement to compensation of €2,600 plus 5% interest due to unreasonable length of court proceedings
Detlef Brock explains:
1. The compensation claim is decided in favor of the benefit recipient, as proceedings under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) regularly have above-average significance for those affected (see Federal Constitutional Court, decision of January 10, 2023 – 1 BvR 1346/22).
2. The right to legal protection within a reasonable time is intended, among other things, to avoid prolonged uncertainty regarding claims and the associated emotional distress (see draft bill, Bundestag printed matter 17/3802, p. 19).
3. The claim for interest on the judgment arises from an analogous application of Sections 288 Paragraph 1 and 291 Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB). These also apply in the context of compensation claims in public law jurisdictions, as there are no special regulations (see BSG, judgments of 03.09.2014 – B 10 ÜG 9/13 R –, – B 10 ÜG 12/13 R – and – B 10 ÜG 2/14 R –).
1.6 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, Judgment of 04.04.2025 – L 7 AS 649/22
Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court – Case No. B 7 AS 13/25 R
Question:
Is the job center allowed to declare the offsetting of a reimbursement claim against current benefits already in the reimbursement notice, or does an effective offset require legal force?
Detlef Brock comments:
1. According to the 7th Senate of the Higher Social Court of Celle (judgment of March 12, 2024 – L 7 AS 458/22), the set-off can be effected in the same decision as the reimbursement decision.
2. In contrast, other senates (see Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgments of May 18, 2021 – L 13 AS 159/20 – and of March 16, 2021 – L 15 AS 139/20) consider a joint order without an order for immediate enforceability pursuant to Section 86a Paragraph 2 No. 5 of the Social Court Act (SGG) to be inadmissible. However, they overlook the fact that, for the set-off situation under Section 387 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the existence and due date of the counterclaim are sufficient. This occurs in the case of reimbursement claims upon notification and effectiveness of the reimbursement notice (§§ 37, 39 SGB X) (cf. LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of 03.03.2022 – L 9 AS 625/20).
Source: Full text on www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de, researched by Detlef Brock in the Tacheles case law ticker, week 34/2025
Practical tip – opposing view (Thuringian State Social Court, judgment of March 27, 2024 – L 9 AS 906/22, appeal pending before the Federal Social Court – B 4 AS 18/24 R, hearing date: September 25, 2025):
1. An objection to a reimbursement order has suspensive effect pursuant to Section 86a Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Procedure Act (SGG). Since Section 39 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not apply, offsetting can only occur once the order is legally binding or immediate enforcement has been ordered (Section 86a Paragraph 2 No. 5 SGG).
2. If the decision on reimbursement and offsetting is made simultaneously, the reimbursement order lacks legal force.
Recommended reading:
“Citizen's income: Thousands of job center notices may be incorrect”
Read more at 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 Hamburg, Judgment of 23 July 2025 – L 2 AL 12/24
Source: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Unemployment insurance: Granting a start-up subsidy requires receipt of unemployment benefits
Detlef Brock explains:
1. Starting a business can only be supported with a start-up grant if, at the time of application, the substantive requirements for entitlement to unemployment benefits are met. Simply registering as unemployed is not sufficient.
2. If these requirements are not met, for example, during a waiting period, the entitlement to unemployment benefits is suspended (§ 159 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB III).
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Bayern, Judgment of 10.04.2025 – L 8 SO 108/23
Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court – B 8 SO 8/25 R
Standard benefits: Plaintiff demands €725 plus electricity costs for a single-person household
Detlef Brock stated that
there were no fundamental constitutional concerns regarding the level of the standard rates for 2022, 2023 and 2024.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Practical tip regarding the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) – Munich Higher Social Court (LSG München), judgment of February 19, 2025 – L 8 SO 256/23 (appeal allowed):
Currently, 6 proceedings pending before the Federal Social Court (BSG) regarding the question of whether the standard rates for 2022–2024 were constitutional.
- B 4 AS 5/25 R (LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 05.11.2024 – L 2 AS 3642/22)
- B 7 AS 30/24 R (LSG NRW, Judgment of 13.12.2023 – L 12 AS 1814/22)
- B 7 AS 20/24 R (LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, Judgment of 18.10.2023 – L 18 AS 279/23)
- B 8 SO 8/25 R (LSG Bayern, Judgment of 10.04.2025 – L 8 SO 108/23)
- B 8 SO 4/24 R (LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 17.11.2022 – L 7 SO 1468/22)
- B 8 SO 5/24 R (LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 27.04.2023 – L 7 SO 296/23)
4.2 – LSG Hessen, Judgment of 27.08.2025 – L 4 SO 38/25
Source: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
Costs of an eviction lawsuit can, in principle, include housing costs or rent arrears within the meaning of Section 36 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
Detlef Brock explains:
1. The social welfare office does not pay the costs of an eviction lawsuit if the apartment has already been vacated and the legal objective – preserving the apartment – can no longer be achieved.
2. In principle, the social welfare agency covers the costs of the eviction lawsuit as rent arrears according to Section 36 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
3. However, this does not apply if the applicant has already paid the costs before submitting the application.
4. Pure "restitution" according to Section 36 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is not possible.
Guiding principles:
On the question of under what conditions the costs of an eviction lawsuit pursuant to Sections 35, 36 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) can be covered or reimbursed by the social welfare agency.
Important note regarding 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
For newsletters: Thomé Newsletter 12/2025 of 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
