Tacheles Legal Case Law Ticker Week 51/2025

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 under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII)

1.1 BSG, Judgment of 28.05.2025 – B 8 SO 2/24 R

Social assistance – assistance with care – inpatient care – additional support and activation services

Key message:
Services for additional care and activation, which are provided to persons with long-term care insurance under Section 43b of the German Social Code, Book XI (SGB XI), as benefits of long-term care insurance, must also be provided as benefits of assistance for care under Section 65 in conjunction with Section 64b Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) for persons who are not insured under the social long-term care insurance scheme.

Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.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 Baden-Württemberg, decision of 28.07.2025 – L 12 AS 2217/25 ER-B –

Key message:
A need for legal protection for an application for an interim injunction generally only exists if the applicant has previously contacted the administration, submitted an application for the benefit there, and waited for the normal processing time.

Note by Detlef Brock

1. There is no evidence to suggest that, as an exception, the job center could be spared from being consulted before the urgent application was filed – for example, due to great time constraints beyond the applicant's control.
2. In particular, the applicant could have submitted a new application for benefits to the respondent at any time if the need for assistance persisted.

Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de

2.2 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, Judgment of 11 December 2025 – L 19 AS 1079/23 – unpublished

Topic:
EU children must not be treated less favorably than German children – this also applies to the status of their parents.

Key message:
A Bulgarian mother is entitled to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). The parent of a child with EU citizenship is entitled to a residence permit under Section 28 Paragraph 1 No. 3 of the German Residence Act (AufenthG), even if the child does not have German citizenship (see ECJ, Judgment of 1 August 2025 – C-397/23).
Source: Lawyers Michael Gödde and Michael Kosthorst, Duisburg

Note by attorney Michael Kosthorst:
This is the first higher court ruling by which the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (LSG NRW) implements the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision on the right of residence of a parent with custody who does not have their own right of free movement.
The Duisburg Job Center had refused to grant this right, citing its own directives, until the hearing date of December 11, 2025. This resulted in the imposition of an abuse fee, which the Senate justified in very clear terms.

The verdict can be read here : https://t1p.de/bh9vg

Information on the ECJ ruling:
https://t1p.de/kx1ab

3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support / citizen's allowance

3.1 – SG Landshut, decision of 08.12.2025 – S 11 AS 518/25 ER –

Subject:
A loan from the job center to cover electricity debts in the event of a power cut and no imminent homelessness is at the discretion of the job center (§ 22 para. 8 sentence 1 SGB II) and is only considered if there is a reduction of discretion to zero; this was denied here, as the applicant's mother would also have had to pay her share of the debt.

Key message:
Provisional benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) should be granted, because the mere determination of loss does not terminate or interrupt the applicant's habitual residence in Germany.

Guiding principles:
A finding of loss alone does not restart the five-year period of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).

Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de

4. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Employment Promotion Law (SGB III)

4.1 – LSG Hessen, Judgment of 27.11.2025 – L 7 AL 1/25 – Appeal allowed

Topic:
The reason and scope of the provisional nature of short-time work compensation do not have to be solely derived from the operative clause of the decision.

Guiding principles:

1. The reason for and scope of the provisional nature of the short-time work allowance need not be solely evident from the operative part of the approval notice. It is sufficient if the provisional nature of the allowance is clear from a comprehensive review of the operative part, the entire content of the approval notice, and the applications for short-time work allowance.
2. Regarding the question of the binding effect of a decision by which the Federal Employment Agency has acknowledged a significant loss of work in advance for the subsequent granting of short-time work compensation.

Source : www.sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de​

5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)

5.1 – LSG Hamburg, Judgment of 16.10.2025 – L 4 SO 30/24 –

Topic:
Needs for accommodation and heating during incarceration

Note by Detlef Brock

1. The threat of losing one's home after release from prison is, in principle, considered a "special life circumstance with social difficulties" within the meaning of Section 67 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
2. The necessity of financial assistance to prevent homelessness depends on a predictive decision regarding the expected situation upon release from prison (see BSG, judgment of 12.12.2013 – B 8 SO 24/12 R).
3. If the duration of the detention is not foreseeable, the social welfare office may deny the necessity of preventive measures to preserve housing, since a sufficiently reliable prognosis cannot be made if the circumstances after release from detention cannot be assessed due to the still pending duration of the detention.

Source: LSG Hamburg

Legal tip:
Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, judgment of June 24, 2021 – L 8 SO 50/18 –;
North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court, decision of September 30, 2020 – L 12 SO 174/20 B ER – legally binding

6. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)

6.1 – SG Karlsruhe, Judgment of 03.12.2025 – S 12 AY 2527/25 –

Subject:
Contributions to mandatory follow-up insurance as well as late payment surcharges, reminder fees and enforcement costs pursuant to Section 6 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).

Note by Detlef Brock:
According to the case law of the Federal Social Court, late payment surcharges, reminder fees and enforcement costs for insurance contributions for mandatory follow-up insurance not paid on time pursuant to Section 188 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) are also to be borne by the benefit provider pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).

Guiding principles by Detlef Brock:

1. Assumption of contributions to voluntary health and social long-term care insurance within the framework of the so-called mandatory follow-up insurance according to § 6 AsylbLG.
2. If the earned income to be taken into account is insufficient or the person entitled to benefits does not earn any earned income to be taken into account, the contributions or their uncovered part must always be covered by supplementary cash benefits in accordance with Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
3. The case law on this matter is unanimous in Baden-Württemberg (list unchanged).
4. Late payment surcharges and reminder fees for insurance contributions for mandatory follow-up insurance not paid on time pursuant to Section 188 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) are among the other benefits that can be covered pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), if these were previously unlawfully withheld from the beneficiary (in accordance with Section 32 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII); Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of November 15, 2012 – B 8 SO 3/11 R).

Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de

7. Miscellaneous

7.1 – Cohabiting couples are not obligated to support each other during the probationary year

Contribution by attorney Helge Hildebrandt to the Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court decision of October 29, 2025 – L 3 AS 163/25 B ER –

Source: Sozialberatung-kiel.de

7.2 – Newsletter 12/2025 by Attorney Volker Gerloff

1. The protection of the home also applies in accommodations for refugees – the police may not enter private living quarters for deportation purposes without a judicial search warrant (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 30.09.2025 – 2 BvR 460/25).

Source: www.ra-gerloff.de

I/We at Tacheles e. V. wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Due to the holidays, there will be no legal news ticker on December 28, 2025.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all readers for their loyalty and wish you a Merry Christmas.

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.