Overview of case law – basic income support, social assistance, Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and citizen's income
1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on social assistance (SGB XII) and on basic income support under the SGB II
1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 30.10.2025 – B 8 SO 13/24 R
Social assistance – Assistance with care – Shared living – Care services – Outpatient care – Death of the beneficiary – Transition – Entitlement to benefits – Care service providers
Legal question:
Do the claims for "services for facilities" that are transferred to the service provider under Section 19 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), also include claims for the reimbursement of costs for outpatient care services provided in a provider-managed shared living arrangement with care services within the meaning of Section 24 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Care and Support Act (WTG NW)?
BSG:
The care service provider has no claim against the social welfare office for payment of the uncovered care costs.
Note (Detlef Brock):
1. The service provider is not the legal successor of the deceased beneficiary because the care services provided are not "services for institutions." It did not bear overall responsibility for the beneficiary's daily life.
2. The term "institution" in Section 19 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is not to be interpreted differently from the law governing benefits.
3. The legislator deliberately and permissibly limited the legal succession to specific factual situations and did not favor outpatient services .
Source: Federal Social Court (BSG) hearing of October 30, 2025 – B 8 SO 13/24 R
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 30.10.2025 – B 8 SO 1/25 R
Social assistance – Assistance with care – Shared living arrangements – Death of the beneficiary – Transition – Entitlement to benefits – Care providers
Legal question:
Do the claims for "services for facilities" that are transferred to the service provider under Section 19 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), also include claims for the reimbursement of costs for outpatient care services provided in a provider-managed shared living arrangement?
BSG:
The care provider has no right to payment of the uncovered care costs.
Note (Detlef Brock):
It is not the legal successor of the deceased beneficiary, as the benefits provided are not "benefits for institutions" (cf. BSG, judgment of 30.10.2025 – B 8 SO 13/24 R).
Source: Federal Social Court (BSG) hearing of October 30, 2025 – B 8 SO 1/25 R
1.3 – BSG, Judgment of 30.10.2025 – B 8 SO 12/24 R
Social assistance – long-term care assistance – residential care facility – reimbursement claim – incompetent social assistance provider – competent social assistance provider – limitation period – start of the limitation period – recurring benefits
Legal question:
With regard to the commencement of the limitation period under Section 111 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), are benefits for assistance with care in inpatient facilities considered recurring benefits or a single, uniform benefit?
BSG:
Benefits for assistance with care in inpatient facilities constitute a single benefit .
Note (Detlef Brock):
1. As with integration assistance, the necessary individual measures constitute a single service .
2. The services are intended to help those in need of care to lead a life that is as self-determined as possible (§ 2 para. 1 SGB XI).
3. During the stay in the care facility, there is a continuous need for services , without any change in the nature of the services provided.
Source: Federal Social Court (BSG) hearing of October 30, 2025 – B 8 SO 12/24 R
1.4 – BSG, Judgment of 16.07.2025 – B 7 AS 19/24 R
Basic income support for job seekers – provisional approval – projected income from self-employment – cancellation – income from employment
BSG:
Preliminary decisions granting benefits cannot be retroactively revoked to the detriment of the beneficiary.
Note (Detlef Brock):
1. According to Section 41a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the legality of the amended benefit award is governed exclusively by Section 41a, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the SGB II.
2. The application of Sections 45 and 48 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) to the detriment of the benefit recipient is excluded after the expiry of the benefit period.
Source: Full text available at www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (citizen's allowance)
2.1 – LSG Hessen, Judgment of 28.03.2025 – L 7 AS 88/22 NK
(Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court under file number B 7 AS 15/25 R)
Principle:
The Jobcenter's housing cost regulations are materially unlawful not conclusively explained in the underlying concept .
Note (Detlef Brock):
Regarding the requirement for a coherent concept according to § 22 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB II with regard to apartment size, net cold rent and cold operating costs in municipal statutes (§§ 22a ff SGB II).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support / citizen's allowance
3.1 – SG Leipzig, decision of 21.08.2025 – S 24 AS 1280/24
Incorrect legal remedy information leads to a one-year deadline for filing an objection
Note (Attorney Volker Gerloff):
If a legal remedies notice states that an electronic objection via EGVP is only valid with a qualified electronic signature , this is incorrect. A simple signature . Therefore, the one-year deadline .
Source: Attorney Volker Gerloff – Newsletter 08/2025
3.2 – Social Court Chemnitz, Judgment of 25 June 2019 – S 10 AS 1321/17
Anonymous complaint and years of defamation – job center must grant access to files
Guiding principles:
A job center can be compelled by an appealable interlocutory judgment to disclose verbatim transcripts of anonymous complaints.
The interest in confidentiality recedes if the complaint was made knowingly or with the intent to damage its reputation (see Federal Administrative Court, judgment of September 4, 2003, case no. 5 C 48/02).
3. To examine these prerequisites, the party must be aware of the complete content of the anonymous complaints.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)
No new decisions.
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 22.05.2023 – L 2 SO 3161/22
Frugal welfare recipients – no entitlement if there is no need for assistance
Principle:
Back payments of basic income support are not considered income , but can assets within the meaning of Section 90 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). The origin of the assets is generally irrelevant (see Federal Social Court [BSG] judgment of April 30, 2020 – B 8 SO 12/18 R).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5.2 – LSG Munich, decision of 14.06.2023 – L 8 SO 105/23 B ER
Entitlement to childcare for single mothers within the framework of household help (§ 70 SGB XII)
Guiding principles:
1. Childcare services during the absence of a person with a disability are not considered parental assistance , but can be provided
domestic help 2. A blind, single mother requiring dialysis has an indirect entitlement to childcare under Section 70 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
3. Services can also on a long-term basis if this prevents the need for inpatient care.
Source: www.gesetze-bayern.de
5.3 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 17.09.2025 – L 2 SO 2657/25 ER-B
Integration assistance – obligation not fulfilled – entitlement to high financial benefits
A young man with Prader-Willi syndrome received integration assistance in the form of a cash benefit of €44,841.48 per month in an expedited procedure because the responsible agency failed to meet its obligation to provide it.
Comment (Roland Rosenow):
If the provider of integration assistance fails to fulfill its obligation to ensure provision, it must approve the necessary services as a cash benefit , even if they uneconomical .
Source: Social Law Rosenow – Report from 2025
6. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
6.1 – Social Court Würzburg, decision of 13 October 2025 – S 8 AY 151/25 ER
Note (Attorney Volker Gerloff):
The Social Court of Würzburg is the first court to recognize that " Dublin cases have
right of residence until their actual transfer in accordance with Article 9 of the Asylum Procedures Directive The temporary residence permit therefore remains valid; Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is not applicable , as it only applies to those subject to enforceable deportation orders without tolerated stay.
Source: Attorney Volker Gerloff
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 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
