VERDICT
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Federal Employment Agency, Hanover Employment Agency, Operational Service -071-,
represented by the management,
Brühlstraße 4, 30169 Hanover
– Defendant –
The 3rd Chamber of the Social Court of Hildesheim, in the oral proceedings of September 16, 2025, with Judge xxx of the Social Court and Lay Judges xxx and xxx presiding, has ruled as follows:
The defendant's decision of 23 January 2023, as amended by the appeal decision of 27 March 2023, is hereby revoked.
The defendant shall bear the plaintiff's necessary extrajudicial costs in full.
The appeal is admitted.
FACTS
The parties are arguing about the legality of revoking the grant of unemployment benefits due to lack of availability.
The plaintiff was granted unemployment benefits for the period from November 8, 2022 to November 7, 2023 by decision dated November 24, 2022.
The plaintiff's residential and registered address at that time was in xxx. On January 1, 2023, the plaintiff moved with her family to xxx.
The plaintiff notified the defendant of the move in writing, with receipt on January 18, 2023.
The defendant informed the plaintiff by notice dated January 23, 2023, that the grant of unemployment benefits for the period from January 2, 2023, to January 17, 2023, was revoked. The plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit during this period because she was no longer available for work.
The plaintiff filed an objection against this, which the defendant rejected as unfounded with a notice of objection dated March 27, 2023.
Due to her delayed notification of the relocation, the plaintiff was not available for job placement services by the employment agency during the period in question. Therefore, she was not unemployed within the meaning of Section 138 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), and was not entitled to unemployment benefits.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against this on April 2, 2023.
The plaintiff argues that the decision regarding the waiting period is unlawful and should therefore be overturned. She points out that her husband had arranged mail forwarding for himself and her. Furthermore, a video conference took place between the plaintiff and the defendant on November 7, 2022, during which the move, scheduled for January 1, 2023, was already communicated. The plaintiff herself also requested an appointment with the defendant via the so-called BA app in 2022 to officially report the move and submit the necessary documentation. This appointment was only granted on January 9, 2023. The plaintiff communicated with the defendant continuously via the BA app, receiving job placement offers and even official notifications through this channel.
The plaintiff requests
that the defendant's decision of 23 January 2023, as amended by the appeal decision of 27 March 2023, be overturned.
The defendant requests that
the action be dismissed.
She continues to believe that the cancellation of the granted unemployment benefit from January 2nd, 2023 to January 17th, 2023 due to lack of availability was justified.
Regarding further details of the facts and the legal issues, reference is made to the court files and the administrative files consulted, as well as to the minutes of the oral hearing on September 16, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The admissible claim is well-founded.
The defendant was not entitled to revoke the grant of unemployment benefits for the period from 02.01.2023 to 17.1.2023.
The legal basis for the revocation is found in Section 48 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), in conjunction with Section 330 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III). According to this provision, an administrative act with continuing effect must be revoked from the time of a significant change in circumstances, among other things, if the person concerned has intentionally or with gross negligence failed to comply with a legally prescribed obligation to report significant changes in circumstances (Section 48 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB X). A significant change is any factual or legal change that affects the benefit granted, either in terms of its amount or the benefit itself (Federal Social Court [BSG], Judgment of June 20, 2001, B 11 AL 10/01 R, SozR 3-4300 § 119 No. 3).
The court could not establish a significant change in circumstances due to the delayed notification of the move and thus due to a lack of availability during the period from January 2nd, 2023 to January 17th, 2023.
The plaintiff did not lose her status as unemployed within the meaning of Section 138 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), due to the delayed notification of her new postal address. The plaintiff was available for work.
In light of the development of digital communication channels between the employment agency and the insured, the court considers it outdated to rely solely and without exception on postal mail as the standard for accessibility. Legal literature and case law (Social Court Berlin, Judgment of March 13, 2024 – S 185 AL 1208/21 –, juris; Öndül in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB III, 3rd ed., § 138 SGB III (as of September 9, 2024), para. 150_1) convincingly argue that, in cases such as the present one, the regulation in § 7b SGB II can serve as a model. According to § 7b para. 1 sentence 2 SGB II, employable benefit recipients are considered reachable if they are within the immediate vicinity of the responsible job center and can take note of its communications and requests on working days. The requirement to acknowledge notices and requests from the responsible job center on weekdays includes not only the option of authorizing third parties to do so, but also the use of modern communication tools while adhering to data protection regulations. This means that the benefit recipient does not have to be personally or pedestrian-contactable at the specified address every day.
Like the Berlin Social Court, this court assumes that when assessing whether the legal requirements for entitlement to benefits under Section 138 Paragraph 5 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) are met, all the specific circumstances of the individual case must be taken into account. These include the job placement activities of the employment agency, the distance between the new and old residences, the existence of continuous de facto availability, written communication via eService including email forwarding, the establishment of a mail forwarding order, and the insured person's own initiative in successfully and promptly terminating their benefit receipt by taking up employment.
In the plaintiff's case, communication was possible via the defendant's eService, for example, to send the plaintiff job offers or official notices. Furthermore, the change of residence was not a significant one, such as to another federal state. The plaintiff credibly testified in the oral proceedings that she regularly traveled to her old address after the move to collect mail. Moreover, the plaintiff or her husband arranged for mail forwarding. The court also found it decisive that, as can be seen from the administrative file, the plaintiff had evidently made a serious effort to find employment. Therefore, the court could not substantiate the plaintiff's claim of being unavailable for work during the period in question. The plaintiff was unemployed, and the decision granting her unemployment benefits was therefore not to be overturned.
The complaint was therefore to be granted.
The decision on costs follows from § 193 SGG.
The chamber has admitted the appeal pursuant to Section 144 Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), as it could be significant for future cases whether, in the event of a relocation, the question of availability is to be determined exclusively by postal accessibility.
The following is information on legal remedies.
