Overview of case law – basic income support, social assistance, Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), child supplement and citizen's allowance
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 Baden-Württemberg, decision of 07.10.2025 – L 2 AS 2681/25 ER-B
Citizen's allowance will not be granted in expedited proceedings if the applicant's need for assistance is considered uncertain
Note by Detlef Brock
: 1. If the applicant's income and assets are unclear, their need for assistance is not credibly demonstrated.
2. If there are suspicions of additional funds or donations, as well as several loans that cannot be proven, there are significant doubts about the applicant's need for assistance.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.2 – LSG Saxony, Judgment of 12.10.2023 – L 3 AS 91/17
Costs for orthodontic treatment of children (misaligned teeth) do not constitute an additional hardship allowance
Note by Detlef Brock:
The costs for orthodontic treatment of children do not justify additional hardship allowances.
Guiding Principles
: 1. The costs of treatment planned over three to four years according to a treatment and cost plan do not constitute an ongoing need.
2. Orthodontic treatment of children does not constitute a special need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.3 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, Judgment of 13.06.2024 – L 6 AS 1438/22
Bulgarian applicant is entitled to citizen's allowance despite three weeks of detention – habitual residence at the place of detention
Note by Detlef Brock
: 1. A temporary absence of three weeks (with limited possibility of extension) is permissible. A minor extension of two days does not lead to an immediate loss of benefits.
2. Habitual residence is determined by the actual circumstances, not by the wishes of the person concerned.
3. If someone is in prison, their habitual residence is at the location of the prison (cf. BSG, judgment of 29.05.1991 – 4 RA 38/90).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Legal tip:
Federal Social Court (BSG), judgments of 23 September 2025 – B 4 AS 8/24 R – and of 11 September 2024 – B 4 AS 12/23 R –:
For the habitual residence within the meaning of the exception in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the legality of the residence is not relevant, but rather a prognosis of future actual developments.
1.4 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, Judgment of 08.10.2025 – L 13 AS 241/23 (Appeal allowed)
Basic income support for job seekers – denial of benefits due to lack of cooperation – household unit – no breach of own duty to cooperate
Guiding Principles
1. Section 66 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) does not authorize the denial of citizen's allowance to persons who have not themselves violated any duty to cooperate, even if another person in the household has done so (following the ruling of the Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court, judgment of June 21, 2016 – L 6 AS 121/13).
2. A denial notice pursuant to Section 66 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) is flawed due to an abuse of discretion if only formulaic considerations are made or if factual prerequisites are already repeated.
Source: voris.wolterskluwer-online.de
2. Decisions of the social courts regarding the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) / Citizen's Allowance
2.1 – SG Karlsruhe, decision of 16.10.2025 – S 12 AS 2884/25 ER
Cost bearing in the case of expedited relief
Principle:
Although the respondent formally prevails as a result of the remedy, he must bear the extrajudicial costs of the applicants pursuant to § 193 SGG analogously, since he initiated the expedited proceedings by means of an unlawful withdrawal order.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.2 – SG Halle, decision of 04.08.2025 – S 16 AS 463/25 ER
No accommodation costs in expedited proceedings for unoccupied apartments (low consumption values)
The guiding principle
is that needs for accommodation and heating can only be assumed if the apartment is actually occupied. Minimal consumption figures for water, electricity, and hot water do not constitute credibility. Furthermore, stricter requirements apply to substantiation during the review process.
Source: Halle Social Court
3. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Saxony, Judgment of 22.05.2025 – L 3 AL 81/21
No entitlement to equal treatment to retain one's job
Guiding Principles:
1. Hypothetical considerations are irrelevant if it is unclear whether the corresponding events will actually occur.
2. A merely abstract interest of the employer does not constitute a concrete threat to the workplace.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Bayern, decision of 28.11.2024 – L 8 SO 199/24 B ER
The determination of the loss of freedom of movement takes immediate effect (§ 7 para. 1 Freedom of Movement Act/EU)
Guiding Principles
: 1. The determination of the loss of freedom of movement takes effect even before it becomes legally binding and terminates the right of residence.
2. A determination of loss triggers an exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
3. Objection or expedited proceedings do not alter this.
4. There is no constitutional entitlement to benefits for EU citizens whose right of freedom of movement has expired.
5. Section 23 Paragraph 3 Sentence 6, second half-sentence, of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) does not establish an entitlement to ongoing benefits.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Practical tip:
See LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 23.08.2023 – L 8 SO 84/23 B ER –;
LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of 28.11.2024 – L 32 AS 105/24 –;
appeal pending before the BSG, file number: B 4 AS 32/24 R.
4.2 – LSG Bayern, decision of 08.10.2025 – L 8 SO 119/25 B ER
No preventive legal protection in cases where the authority is obligated to provide information
Note by Detlef Brock:
1. If there are indications that the annual income limit has been exceeded, the social welfare office may, pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB
X), use all admissible means of evidence. 2. This also includes requests for information from tax authorities (Section 117 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in conjunction with Section 21 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X)).
3. Corresponding indications may arise from the circumstances of the individual case (cf. BSG, judgment of 27.11.2024 – B 8 SO 5/23 R).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – Social Court Nuremberg, decision of 07.03.2025 – S 11 AY 1/25
No joinder of the issuing authority after termination of proceedings (§ 75 SGG)
Principle:
In an action for failure to act pursuant to Section 88 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the inaction of the issuing authority is attributable to the appeals authority. Joinder after the conclusion of the proceedings is inadmissible.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5.2 – Social Court Nuremberg, decision of 04.04.2025 – S 11 AY 7/25 ER
Exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) only applies if there is an actual possibility of departure
Guiding principle:
An exclusion of benefits does not apply if the beneficiary is unable to leave for the responsible EU state for legal or factual reasons.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5.3 – SG Stuttgart, decision of 17.10.2025 – S 11 AY 3732/25 ER
Granting of benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1
Note by Detlef Brock:
The applicant is entitled to benefits in the amount of the standard benefit level 1, taking into account the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 19 October 2022 (1 BvL 3/21).
Source: anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
5.4 – SG Halle, decision of 13 October 2025 – S 17 AY 37/25 ER
No continued insurance coverage under voluntary health insurance after the end of employment
Guiding Principles
: 1. Recipients of basic benefits under Sections 1 and 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) cannot claim reimbursement of contributions to voluntary health or long-term care insurance.
2. Sections 4 and 6 of the AsylbLG do not provide a basis for claims.
3. After the termination of employment, there is no mandatory continued insurance coverage (Section 188, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V)). Health care assistance under Section 4 of the AsylbLG is considered alternative coverage in case of illness.
Source: SG Halle
6. Decisions of the State Social Courts on the Child Supplement
6.1 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 26.09.2025 – L 9 BK 2/25 B
There is no constitutional right to a continuous child supplement
Comment by Detlef Brock
: 1. After taking up employment, the entitlement to child supplement does not begin immediately, but is based on the average income of the last six months (§ 6a para. 7 sentence 1, 2 BKGG).
2. This regulation is not objectionable under constitutional law.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
7. Miscellaneous
7.1 – Newsletter 08/2025 by Attorney Volker Gerloff
Including numerous references to current case law in asylum law.
More information: www.ra-gerloff.de
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
- For newsletters: Thomé Newsletter 12/2025 from April 6, 2025 – Author: Harald Thomé
- License: Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0
⚠️ Quotes without source attribution are copyright infringement.
Author: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles.
Source: Tacheles legal case ticker
