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1.1 – LSG Rhineland-Palatinate, decision of 25 October 2024 – L 3 AS 165/24 B ER – legally binding, unpublished
Very low consumption figures for water, heating and electricity may indicate that the recipient of citizen's allowance has not actually used their apartment.
Note by Detlef Brock:
1. The job center must prove that the apartment is not being used.
2. Despite below-average consumption figures for water, heating, and electricity, the job center must pay for accommodation, heating, and hot water if it violates the principle of official investigation (§ 20 SGB X).
3. When assessing eligibility for assistance (§§ 7, 9 SGB II) as a prerequisite for entitlement to benefits to secure subsistence under the citizen's allowance scheme, the job center must focus on the applicant's current actual situation. Past circumstances may only be considered if they provide clear information about the current situation.
Legal tip:
There is no lack of use of the rented apartment if the person in need of assistance can credibly demonstrate economical water consumption in court, also with the help of witnesses and sworn statements (currently LSG NRW, L 21 AS 537/25 B ER).
1.2 – LSG Saxony, Judgment of 04.11.2024 – L 7 AS 942/19
Commentary by Attorney Dr. Jens-Torsten Lehmann
: Prohibition of fictitious asset consumption: on the prerequisites for a waiver pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) in the case of assets exceeding the allowance.
Comment by Detlef Brock
: 1. Even in cases where the recipient of benefits has caused a repayment claim for unemployment benefit II (ALG II) due to assets exceeding the allowance through gross negligence, a waiver of the claim pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is possible in atypical hardship cases (Federal Social Court, Judgment of April 25, 2018 – B 14 AS 15/17 R).
2. In this case, the answer is affirmative: The job center and the benefit recipient have reached a settlement.
Source: Attorney Dr. Jens-Torsten Lehmann
1.3 – LSG Hessen, Judgment of 05.06.2024 – L 6 SF 3/23 DS – rejecting: BSG, Decision of 11.07.2025 – B 4 AS 116/24 BH
Lawfulness of the transfer of the plaintiff's data to an employer in the context of receiving benefits under the citizen's allowance.
Note by Detlef Brock:
The transfer of social data is permissible insofar as it is necessary for the purposes for which it was collected. The name and address of the benefit recipient also serve, in particular, to facilitate placement in employment (see also Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of July 30, 2013 – L 10 AL 72/11).
Contact with potential employers serves not only to sanction omitted or insufficient applications, but also to optimize the applicant's job prospects and to fulfill the employer's search mandate. This can be systematically derived from Section 51b of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
The job center's interest, pursuant to Section 69 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Half-Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), must be carefully balanced with the benefit recipient's fundamental right to informational self-determination within the framework of the data protection law's concepts of necessity and purpose limitation (see BT-Drs. 15/2997, pp. 11, 25). The constraints of mass administration by public authorities must also be taken into account.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2. Decisions of the social courts regarding the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) / Citizen's Allowance
2.1 – SG Altenburg, Judgment of 18.08.2025 – S 39 AS 570/24
Only in the case of classic residential tenancy agreements does the job center pay for accommodation and heating costs.
Note by Detlef Brock
: 1. The job center will not cover rent costs if the contractual arrangements are unclear and not legally binding, as there was no standard residential lease agreement.
2. According to the Federal Social Court's (BSG) jurisprudence, (rental) purchase price installments or loan repayments are generally not considered reimbursable housing costs.
Guiding Principles: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
1. For the assessment of the type and legal nature of expenses for specific accommodation within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (rent or rent-to-purchase price installment), the decisive factor is the purpose of the payment agreed upon between the contracting parties, not the legal validity of the contract.
2. The provider of basic income support is not obligated to cover expenses arising from unclear and potentially non-binding contractual arrangements as accommodation costs.
Practical tip:
For the purposes of accepting so-called rent-to-own installments as accommodation costs, it is crucial whether they are essentially rent or purchase price installments serving the purpose of asset accumulation or debt repayment (LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, L 11 AS 415/20 B ER).
2.2 – SG Mannheim, judgment of 10 August 2023 – S 12 AS 2219/22 – legally binding, unpublished
Job centers do not cover the costs of formal attire and flowers for a dance course graduation ball for recipients of citizen's benefits.
Note by Detlef Brock:
1. Costs for formal attire and flowers for a dance course graduation ball are covered by the standard benefit.
2. It is reasonable to expect recipients of citizen's income to buy used clothing for special occasions such as a graduation ball and resell it later.
3. These are also not considered benefits for participation in social and cultural life in the community (§ 28 para. 7 SGB II).
2.3 – SG Darmstadt, decision of 14.08.2025 – S 27 AS 458/25 ER
Note by Detlef Brock:
Provisional benefits in interim legal protection within the framework of the balancing of interests to secure subsistence under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as well as for the costs of accommodation and heating – also for the third-country national parent of minor EU citizens.
Guiding principle: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
SGB II benefits also for third-country national parents of minor EU citizens.
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law according to the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III)
No.
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 07.07.2025 – L 8 SO 47/25 B ER
Continued provision of integration assistance benefits in the form of a personal budget; termination due to lack of cooperation in a required needs assessment.
Comment by Detlef Brock
: 1. The revocation of the budget notice for the future is lawful pursuant to Section 29 Paragraph 4 Sentence 7 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) in conjunction with Section 48 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X).
2. Section 48 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) additionally serves as a further legal basis for the revocation of a budget notice in the event of a significant change in circumstances due to the termination of the target agreement (see also Hessian State Social Court, Decision of November 27, 2024 – L 4 SO 95/24 B ER; contra, apparently, Saxony-Anhalt State Social Court, Decision of September 6, 2024 – L 8 SO 34/24 B ER).
Official Headnote
1. On the delimitation and requirements of preliminary legal protection proceedings pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 and Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
2. On the requirements for a valid reason for terminating a target agreement within the meaning of Section 29 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), in particular termination due to lack of cooperation in a necessary needs assessment pursuant to the SGB IX.
3. The revocation of an administrative act granting a personal budget pursuant to Section 29 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), for the future, is governed by Section 29, Paragraph 4, Sentence 7 of the SGB IX in conjunction with Section 48, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), in the event of termination of the underlying target agreement, and takes precedence over a withdrawal pursuant to Section 45 of the SGB X.
4. The restriction of a personal budget or sub-budget concerning benefits under Part 2 of the SGB IX to specialized integration assistance services may render the entire budget unlawful due to the inclusion of home care services in the budget pursuant to Section 103, Paragraph 2 of the SGB IX (so-called life situation model).
Source: voris.wolterskluwer-online.de
4.2 – Mannheim Social Court, judgment of 22 May 2024 – S 9 SO 14/24 – legally binding, unpublished
A 25-year-old female student who uses a wheelchair is entitled to vehicle assistance – a minibus with an integrated wheelchair ramp.
Note by Detlef Brock
: 1. A 25-year-old female student who uses a wheelchair is entitled to have the costs of acquiring a minibus with an integrated wheelchair ramp covered to enable her social participation in the community.
2. Attending university also serves to establish and strengthen social contacts. If relying on public transportation is unreasonable due to disability-related problems, the authorities must pay for the vehicle assistance.
Practical tip
1. Severely disabled persons are entitled to reimbursement of their costs for the conversion of their VW T7 Multivan to be suitable for their needs within the framework of integration assistance (Social Court Landshut, judgment of March 14, 2025 – S 10 SO 48/23).
2. While Sections 6 and 8 of the Motor Vehicle Assistance Ordinance (KfzHV) provide for the benefit as a subsidy based on the income of the disabled person, Section 7 Sentence 1 of the KfzHV stipulates that the costs for additional equipment required due to the disability, its installation, technical inspection, and restoration of its functionality are fully covered.
4.3 Saxon State Social Court, Judgment of 14 November 2024 – L 8 SO 50/22 – unpublished
Costs for a wheelchair bicycle (tandem bicycle where the rider sits at the back and a wheelchair can be locked at the front) as a benefit for social participation.
Note by Detlef Brock
: 1. A claim for reimbursement of the costs of an assistive device in the form of a wheelchair bike as a social participation benefit for integration into society may exist if it is necessary to compensate for a limitation on equal participation in community life caused by the disability.
2. This is the case if the wheelchair bike is not only used as a means of transport to extend the radius of movement, but also enhances social interaction with family members, assistants, or friends on shared journeys – both for everyday tasks and on outings.
3. A severely disabled person suffering from infantile cerebral palsy with spastic tetraparesis and dyskinetic movement disorder as well as a pronounced speech disorder (degree of disability 100; disability markers "G", "aG", "H") and living in their own apartment is entitled to reimbursement of the costs for a wheelchair bike.
Legal tip:
Costs for an adult tricycle may be covered as a benefit for social participation, as it not only serves mobility but also independent and self-determined living within the framework of the participation goal of "social participation" (SG Lüneburg, Judgment of 10.06.2025 – S 38 SO 96/23).
5. Decisions on asylum law and the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 12 June 2025 – L 8 AY 24/25 B ER
Restrictions on entitlement for persons entitled to protection recognized in another Member State; reasonableness and possibility of return to the country granting protection for factual and legal reasons.
Comment by Detlef Brock
: 1. Full benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for a family with minor children (contrary to the Federal Administrative Court's judgment of April 16, 2025 – 1 C 18.24 and 1 C 19.24 – according to which the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment is not probable for recognized refugees in Greece deemed not vulnerable).
2. Granting of full basic benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), as the applicants and their minor children – as the nuclear family – are vulnerable persons. Among other things, the recent hospitalization of the older son due to abnormal weight loss and the need for adequate medical care must be taken into account in the assessment.
3. An unlawful reduction of the amount imposed would seriously infringe upon fundamental rights (see Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of 5 November 2019 – 1 BvL 7/16); this is offset only by a (possibly temporary) financial loss for the authority.
Principle of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court
: 1. A restriction of entitlement under Section 1a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) presupposes, as an unwritten element of the offense, that the return of the person in question to the country granting protection is possible and reasonable for factual and legal reasons (adherence to the Senate decision of November 19, 2019 – L 8 AY 26/19 B ER).
2. Vulnerable persons entitled to protection are exposed to a serious risk of experiencing inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) or Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) upon return to Greece, due to the living conditions there.
Source: (VORIS document) – Link shortened in the template.
Legal tip (Attorney Sven Adam, Tacheles Case Law Ticker Week 24/2025):
Section 1a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) contains an unwritten characteristic of the actual and legal possibility of return; for vulnerable groups, this possibility does not exist in the case of departure to Greece (danger within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union / Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
5.2 – Social Court Speyer, decision of 01.09.2025 – S 16 AY 88/25 ER
Legal provisions: Section 1 Paragraph 4 AsylbLG, Section 193 SGG
Keywords: Exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), European law, cost decision, immediate recognition, State of Rhineland-Palatinate, Supervisory and Service Directorate, Speyer Social Court
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.3 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 05.08.2025 – L 7 AY 1344/25 ER-B
Legal provisions: Section 6 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), Section 188 Paragraph 4 Social Code Book V (SGB V)
Keywords: mandatory follow-up insurance, benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), health insurance, long-term care insurance, Ludwigsburg District Office
Comment by Detlef Brock
: 1. The Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) does not contain a grandfathering clause corresponding to the provision in Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), for cases where the adjustment of standard benefit rates leads to a reduction in the standard benefit amount. Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the SGB XII is not applicable, in particular, via Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the AsylbLG.
2. The assumption of contributions to mandatory follow-up insurance is essential here to secure subsistence within the meaning of Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the AsylbLG. The exception is systematically linked to the lump-sum needs allowances of Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG and supplements them as required by fundamental rights.
3. Contributions to mandatory follow-up insurance are needs that are not covered by Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG.
4. The atypicality required for Section 6 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) arises from the fact that while beneficiaries may be subject to mandatory follow-up insurance, the AsylbLG – unlike the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Book XII (SGB XII) – does not contain any provision for considering unavoidable mandatory contributions to statutory health and long-term care insurance as separate needs (Section 26 SGB II or Sections 32, 32a SGB XII; cf. Social Court Freiburg, Judgment of March 17, 2025 – S 7 AY 3255/24).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.4 – Stuttgart Social Court, decision of 09.09.2025 – S 11 AY 3998/25 ER
Legal provisions: Sections 3, 3a AsylbLG, Section 86b para. 2 sentence 2 SGG
Keywords: Standard benefit level 1, Standard benefit level 2, Benefits according to § 3 AsylbLG, Benefits according to § 3a AsylbLG, City of Stuttgart
Comment by Detlef Brock
: 1. The authority is ordered by way of preliminary injunction to grant the applicant basic benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1 on a provisional basis and subject to the right of recovery.
2. The court is convinced that the entitlement already arises from the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of October 19, 2022 (1 BvL 3/21).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.5 – Social Court Magdeburg, decision of 08.09.2025 – S 31 AY 71/25 ER
Legal provisions: Sections 3, 3a AsylbLG, Section 86b para. 2 sentence 2 SGG
Keywords: Standard benefit level 1, Standard benefit level 2, Benefits according to § 3 AsylbLG, Benefits according to § 3a AsylbLG, Altmarkkreis Salzwedel
Comment by Detlef Brock
: 1. Granting of benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard
benefit level 1. 2. The applicant lives in communal accommodation within the meaning of Section 53 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act (AsylG) and indisputably receives benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG. However, in light of the Federal Constitutional Court's decision of October 19, 2022, he is entitled to these benefits to the extent of standard benefit level 1.
3. The Federal Constitutional Court ruled in its decision of October 19, 2022 (published on November 23, 2022, 1 BvL 3/21) that special benefit level 2 for a single adult housed in communal accommodation, according to the parallel provision of Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Number 1 of the AsylbLG, is incompatible with the Basic Law.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.6 – SG Altenburg, decision of 02.04.2025 – S 21 AY 114/25 ER
Note by Detlef Brock:
1. Asylum seeker refuses job at hospital – compensation of 80 cents per hour.
2. According to Section 5 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), employable, non-working benefit recipients who are no longer of compulsory school age are obligated to accept any work opportunity offered to them.
Guiding principles: www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
If, upon judicial review of an official order for immediate enforcement (§ 86b para. 1 sentence 1 no. 2 SGG), no compelling doubts exist regarding the legality of an assignment order to a work opportunity pursuant to § 5 para. 4 AsylbLG, the requirements for the public interest in enforcement are reduced within the framework of the balancing of interests.
The objectives pursued with the work opportunities pursuant to § 5 AsylbLG – initial language acquisition, prevention of the negative effects of unemployment, and a meaningful daily structure – support timely implementation.
Practical tip:
The Thuringian State Social Court (LSG) dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Social Court (SG) Altenburg (dated 02.04.2025 – S 21 AY 114/25 ER) with a decision dated 10.04.2025 (L 8 AY 270/25 B ER).
Source: LSG Thüringen – sozialgerichte.thueringen.de
5.7 – LSG Thüringen, decision of 16.05.2025 – L 8 AY 222/25 B ER – and BVerfG, decision of 30.06.2025 – 1 BvR 1200/25 (inadmissible constitutional complaint due to insufficient submission on subsidiarity)
Note by Detlef Brock
: 1. Asylum seeker benefits were discontinued for an asylum seeker subject to deportation, as there were significant doubts about the applicant's actual residence in Germany. Eligibility for benefits is contingent upon actual residence in Germany.
2. Mere postal accessibility is insufficient for this purpose; there were significant doubts about uninterrupted residence.
Note from the Thuringian State Social Court (from the press release/reasoning):
The proceedings concerned the termination of benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) effective December 31, 2024, and the granting of bridging benefits until January 14, 2025, but not hardship benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 6 of the AsylbLG. The legal requirements of Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the AsylbLG were met (legally binding Dublin responsibility of Malta). No constitutional or European law concerns were apparent.
See also: “Reduction of benefits in the case of obligation to leave the country under the Dublin procedure is constitutional and in accordance with European law” – www.asyl.net/rsdb/m33410
5.8 – LSG Hessen, decision of 17.09.2025 – L 4 AY 9/25 B ER
Comment by Attorney Sven Adam
: 1. The Hessian State Social Court left open the question of whether the return to the country granting protection (here: Greece) is impossible or unreasonable for the applicants (parents of four children) for factual and legal reasons, and whether this alone renders Section 1a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act inapplicable.
2. In any case, a reduction of benefits for more than six months is not possible.
Source: anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
Note on citation style:
Unpublished judgments, annotations or case reviews may only be cited with source attribution:
Source: Tacheles Case Law Ticker Week XX/2025 – Author: Detlef Brock.
For newsletter subscriptions, please quote: Source: Thomé Newsletter 12/2025 from April 6, 2025 – Author: Harald Thomé
Published under a Creative Commons license – CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Quotations without attribution are a copyright infringement.
Author: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles.
Source: Tacheles legal case ticker
