1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic income support (SGB II) and employment promotion law (SGB III)
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 01.10.2025 – B 7 AS 13/23 R
Basic income support for job seekers – exclusion from benefits – EU citizens – right of residence for job seeking – permanent residence – exception to the ban – de facto resident
Legal question:
Regarding the conditions for the application of the exception to the exclusion of benefits for foreigners with at least five years of habitual residence in the federal territory (§ 7 para. 1 sentence 4 SGB II).
Regarding the existence of a domestic obstacle to departure within the meaning of Article 8 ECHR (so-called de facto national status) as a prerequisite for the granting of a residence permit pursuant to Section 25 Paragraph 5 of the Residence Act.
Result:
The matter was resolved after the plaintiff's death.
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 01.10.2025 – B 7 AS 9/24 R
Basic income support for job seekers – legal fees – “Same matter” – household
Legal question:
Does the same matter exist within the meaning of Section 15 Paragraph 2 of the German Lawyers' Fees Act (RVG) if a lawyer has represented several members of a household receiving social assistance in exchange for reminder fees?
BSG:
No final decision on the amount of legal fees; case referred back to the LSG, as findings on the fairness of the fee determination pursuant to Section 14 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 RVG are lacking.
Note:
According to the Federal Social Court (BSG), this is not the same matter, as there is no intrinsic connection and no uniform framework for legal activity between the individual objection proceedings against payment reminders.
Source: BSG – Hearing 01.10.2025, B 7 AS 9/24 R
1.3 – BSG, Judgment of 01.10.2025 – B 11 AL 9/23 R
Unemployment insurance – Vocational training allowance – Tax-free allowance – Definition of parenthood – Youth welfare institution
Legal question:
Is an allowance pursuant to Section 67 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 No. 3 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) also to be taken into account if the training institution is not reachable within a reasonable time from an institution in which the person entitled to benefits grew up?
Regarding the term "parents" in Section 67 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 No. 3 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III).
Result:
The matter was settled through a compromise.
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support (SGB II / citizen's allowance)
2.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 16.05.2019 – L 32 AS 823/19 B ER (unpublished)
A gap in service during a change of responsibility after relocation is inadmissible
Note (Detlef Brock):
According to § 2 para. 3 SGB X, no gap in benefits may arise in the event of a change of jurisdiction.
The previously responsible provider remains liable for benefits until the new provider takes over.
The difference between standard living expenses and accommodation costs must be taken into account.
Accommodation costs for the old apartment may no longer be covered after a move (see LSG SH, judgment of 12.04.2011 – L 6 AS 45/10).
Practical tip:
The following legal question is pending before the Federal Social Court (BSG):
BSG B 7 AS 11/25 R
On the continued effect of the benefit application at the job center in the event of a change of jurisdiction due to relocation during the current benefit period.
Principle (LSG BB, L 5 AS 952/23):
The (continued) obligation to provide benefits pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) does not extend to costs of accommodation and heating.
2.2 – LSG Bayern, decision of 12.09.2025 – L 7 AS 325/25 B ER
Correction of the facts – need for legal protection required
Principle:
An application for correction of the facts is inadmissible if the inaccuracy is no longer relevant to the decision or if no legal remedy is available.
(Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de)
2.3 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 22.05.2025 – L 2 AS 1018/25
Garage / Parking space – Accommodation costs (§ 22 para. 1 SGB II)
Note:
If the apartment and garage can only be rented together and the total costs are reasonable, the garage costs are to be recognized as part of the accommodation costs.
2.4 – LSG Hessen, decision of 19.09.2025 – L 6 AS 399/25 B ER
Proof of need for assistance – redacted bank statements
Guiding principle:
If bank statements are extensively redacted, the need for assistance is not credibly demonstrated.
No benefits will be granted in expedited proceedings if cooperation is insufficient despite apparent credits.
(Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de)
2.5 – LSG NRW, decision of 21.07.2025 – L 21 AS 700/25 B ER
No blanket assurance according to § 22 para. 4 SGB II
Note:
A commitment only refers to a specific accommodation at a certain price.
There is no entitlement to a blanket guarantee of "any" or even unsuitable accommodation.
Legal tip:
See LSG BW, judgment of 25.06.2025 – L 3 AS 828/25.
3. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion (SGB III)
3.1 – SG Hildesheim, Judgment of 16.09.2025 – S 3 AL 26/23 (Appeal allowed)
Accessibility after relocation – digital communication – Section 138 SGB III
Key points:
No exclusive focus on accessibility via postal mail.
Electronic communication (e-mail, eService, mail forwarding order) is sufficient.
The plaintiff remained available and employable.
Note (Detlef Brock):
Accessibility can also be ensured through modern means of communication. Section 7b of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) can serve as a guideline.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam, Göttingen
Legal tip:
See SG Berlin, Judgment of 13.03.2024 – S 185 AL 1208/21 – Appeal L 14 AL 21/24 (LSG BB).
4. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – SG Koblenz, Judgment of 16.12.2024 – S 10 SO 35/24
Private accident insurance – asset allocation – no hardship
Guiding principle:
Benefits from a private accident insurance policy must be used as assets.
No hardship within the meaning of Section 90 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII; no comparability with compensation for pain and suffering.
Note:
Assets of 416,250 euros from an accident insurance policy must be used for living expenses.
5. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – SG Halle, decision of 08.09.2025 – S 17 AY 28/25 ER
Update of basic services – electricity cost deduction unlawful
Principle:
Reductions in monetary benefits by the amount of electricity costs violate Section 3a Paragraph 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
Section 28a paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) shall apply accordingly.
Source: Adam Law Firm, SG Halle
6. Decisions regarding the child supplement (BKGG)
6.1 – SG Hamburg, Judgment of 18.08.2025 – S 67 BK 5/22
Mixed household – students – exclusion from child supplement
Principle:
Students who are excluded from citizen's allowance according to § 7 para. 5 SGB II are also not entitled to child supplement (§ 6a BKGG).
Legal tip:
See BSG, judgment of 13 July 2022 – B 7/14 KG 1/21 R;
LSG BW, judgment of 7 August 2023 – L 12 BK 775/22;
LSG BB, judgment of 24 June 2021 – L 14 BK 2/18.
7. Miscellaneous
7.1 – Social law expert Udo Geiger: Linnemann's citizen's income proposal is unlawful
Former judge at the Social Court of Berlin and social law expert Udo Geiger considers the proposal by CDU General Secretary Linnemann to abolish citizen's allowance for EU foreigners with mini-jobs to be contrary to European law.
“A regulation that only affects EU citizens violates the EU founding treaties. German minijobbers would then also have to be excluded.”
– Udo Geiger in Handelsblatt
Source: Oldenburg Online Newspaper
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
