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 Berlin-Brandenburg, Judgment of 27.03.2025 – L 4 AS 1180/23 –
Citizen's allowance under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – VAT payment – necessity of a business expense
Comment by Detlef Brock
: 1. A VAT payment can only be considered if it was actually paid to the tax office during the benefit period (Federal Social Court, judgment of August 22, 2013 – B 14 AS 1/13 R). Such an actual payment could not be established in the plaintiff's bank statements.
2. A necessary expense is one that is typically incurred in the course of self-employment and that would have been incurred even without receiving benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II), provided the taxpayer acted economically. Necessity in this sense exists if the business idea cannot be implemented without the item or if the existing business cannot be continued (Higher Social Court Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of August 24, 2022 – L 1 AS 401/18).
3. In the court's opinion, a pen computer costing €2,369.00 is not necessary for a self-employed person receiving supplementary benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) in the field of animation/illustration – therefore, it cannot be deducted as a business expense.
Guiding principles (www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de):
1. Even under the application of Section 41a Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) from August 1, 2016, to March 31, 2021, the income of self-employed persons was initially to be determined according to Section 3 of the German Regulation on Unemployment Benefit II (Alg II-V).
2. It remains unclear how to proceed if a business expense deemed necessary by a self-employed person is subsequently reversed under civil law during the following benefit period.
1.2 – LSG Hamburg, Judgment of 16.07.2025 – L 4 AS 266/22 D –
Citizen's income: A 50% rent increase among relatives is unrealistic
Note by Detlef Brock
: 1. If a recipient of citizen's income claims in their application for continued benefits to the job center that their parents have increased the rent from €400.00 to €600.00 within a year, they are suspected of welfare fraud.
2. A 50% rent increase for subletting in one's own parents' house is unrealistic. Such a drastic adjustment would be clearly inappropriate and not credible. Furthermore, rentals between relatives must adhere to market-standard and moderate rent adjustments, which was not the case here.
3. Simply stating a purpose for a payment on a bank statement does not establish a genuine payment obligation as defined by the Federal Social Court's (BSG) jurisprudence regarding accommodation costs for relatives.
Source: www.landesrecht-hamburg.de
1.3 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 26.08.2025 – L 11 AS 472/24 B ER –
KdU: A coherent concept from the city of Salzgitter
Comment by Detlef Brock
: 1. The City of Salzgitter's concept for determining the housing needs of a two-person household for the period from August 1, 2024, to July 31, 2025, is conclusive within the meaning of the Federal Social Court's jurisprudence.
2. Judicial review of housing cost concepts is limited to procedural review. A blanket objection is therefore insufficient.
Official Guiding Principles:
1. A preliminary review reveals no fundamental doubts about the cogency of the concept developed by the city of Salzgitter (report of April 29, 2019, as amended by the 2023 and 2025 updates).
2. The preliminary injunction proceedings did not establish that the city of Salzgitter does not constitute a unified comparison area due to insufficient transport connections.
3. The following also applies in preliminary legal protection proceedings: Judicial review is limited to a procedural review; detailed questions only need to be examined if well-founded objections are raised.
2. Decisions of the social courts regarding the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) / Citizen's Allowance
2.1 – SG Nordhausen, Judgment of 19.08.2025 – S 13 AS 1489/24 –
Citizen's income: No entitlement to exclusive communication via judicial mailbox
Comment by Detlef Brock
: 1. A recipient of citizen's allowance with a visual impairment is not entitled to have all communication conducted exclusively via a judicial mailbox. Administrative procedures are not bound by specific formal requirements (§ 9 SGB X).
2. There is also no constitutional right to optimal access conditions, as the plaintiff was demonstrably capable of reading legal texts.
3. There is no violation of Article 3, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of the Basic Law.
Practical tip:
However, a right to barrier-free administrative procedures may arise when it comes to making notices accessible to blind or visually impaired benefit recipients (see SG Hamburg, judgment of 30.06.2023 – S 39 AS 517/23; Sächsisches LSG, judgment of 16.03.2016 – L 8 SO 10/14).
2.2 – SG Berlin, Judgment of 23.07.2025 – S 11 AS 1929/20 –
Under 25 with own income – not a member of the benefit unit
Note by Detlef Brock
1. In the case of an adult member of a household receiving social assistance, fault can only be attributed to them within the framework of a voluntary representation or a legal or implied power of attorney.
Principle (www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de):
A child under 25 with their own income sufficient to cover their needs is not part of the benefit unit (§ 7 para. 3 no. 4 SGB II). They cannot be held responsible if the job center mistakenly considers benefits in a decision addressed to the parent.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 13.03.2025 – L 32 AL 5/25 B ER –
Permit for temporary employment
Note by Detlef Brock
1. Refusal to extend a permit for temporary employment infringes upon the freedom to choose and practice a profession protected by Articles 12 and 14 of the Basic Law and is only permissible under strict adherence to the principle of proportionality.
Guiding principles (www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de):
- Preliminary legal protection is granted by ordering the suspensive effect of an objection or lawsuit.
- The predictive decision regarding reliability is forward-looking and must also take into account the applicant's further training.
Practical tip:
See also: LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 05.05.2025 – L 11 AL 76/24 B ER.
4. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Hessen, Judgment of 27.08.2025 – L 4 SO 42/25 –
Note by Detlef Brock:
The waiting period of Section 88 of the Social Court Act (SGG) is not modified in the law on integration assistance under the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) by the three-week processing period of Section 14 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX).
5. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – LSG Hessen, decision of 09.09.2025 – L 4 AY 6/25 B ER –
Integration assistance for inmates pursuant to Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with Section 100 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX)
Note by Detlef Brock:
A Somali national serving a prison sentence can receive a guarantee for the reimbursement of therapy costs under Section 35 of the German Narcotics Act (BtMG).
Principle (www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de):
Persons entitled to benefits under Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) may also receive medical rehabilitation as a discretionary benefit if this serves as therapy under Section 35 of the Narcotics Act (BtMG).
Note on citation style:
Unpublished judgments, annotations or case reviews may only be cited with source attribution:
- Source: Tacheles Legal Case Law Ticker Week 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: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles.
Source: Tacheles legal case ticker
