DECISION
L 8 SO 101/25 B ER
S 66 SO 4016/25 ER Social Court Hildesheim
In the appeal proceedings
xxx,
– Applicant and appellant –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Göttingen District Office, Legal Department,
represented by the District Administrator,
Reinhäuser Landstraße 4, 37083 Göttingen
– Respondent and Appellant –
included:
1. State of Lower Saxony, represented by the Lower Saxony State Office for Social Affairs, Youth and Family,
represented by the President,
Domhof 1, 31134 Hildesheim
2. Bosch BKK,
represented by the board of directors,
Kruppstraße 19, 70469 Stuttgart
The 8th Senate of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court decided on January 15, 2026 in Celle through Judge xxx and Judges xxx and xxx:
Upon the applicant's appeal, the decision of the Hildesheim Social Court of June 20, 2025 is overturned.
The respondent is ordered by way of preliminary injunction to grant the applicant integration assistance in the amount of €65.00 per month from March 20, 2025, until a final and binding decision is reached on the application for benefits dated January 26, 2022, but no later than June 30, 2026. The application for a preliminary injunction is otherwise dismissed.
The respondent must reimburse half of the applicant's extrajudicial costs for both instances of the proceedings.
REASONS
I.
The dispute concerns the provisional assumption of maintenance costs for an assistance dog (food and insurance) amounting to approximately €120.00 per month from mid-March 2025.
The applicant, born in 19xx, lives in Gleichen, a municipality within the respondent's district, in a rented single-family home. She suffers from, among other conditions, complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; ICD-10: F43.1), recurrent depressive disorder (ICD-10: F33.1), and emotionally unstable personality disorder (ICD-10: F60.31). Due to her illnesses, she is recognized as a severely disabled person with a disability rating of 60 and the disability marker "G". She receives care allowance according to care level 2. For her support, she keeps – in addition to another dog – a female dog named xxx, an ESD (Emotional Support Dog) trained from September 2020 to May 2021 and certified by a certified dog trainer in 2023. At the end of March 2025, the dog was recognized as an assistance dog within the meaning of Section 12a Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 No. 4 of the German Disability Equality Act (BGG). She forms a human-assistance dog partnership with the applicant (decision of the Lower Saxony State Office for Social Affairs, Youth and Family, which was joined as a party in the first instance, dated March 31, 2025) and is trained to support the applicant, among other things, in the event of panic attacks or migraines and generally in everyday life. Her deployment is considered medically necessary (see report by psychotherapist Dr. Scarpinato-Hirt dated October 26, 2021). xxx requires hypoallergenic food due to a food intolerance accompanied by chronic colitis and bloody diarrhea (see the certificates from the specialist veterinary practice of Dr. Wystub dated March 17, 2021, and December 4, 2024, and from the Veterinary Institute of the University of Göttingen dated August 19, 2025). The expenses for food and insurance were already the subject of legal proceedings before the Social Court (SG) Hildesheim (S 26 AS 816/20), in which the respondent, as the provider of basic income support for job seekers under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (opting-in municipality), was ordered to grant the applicant additional needs benefits pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 6 SGB II in the amount of €40.00 per month for July to November 2018 (judgment of December 15, 2023). The appeal filed by the applicant against this decision regarding the amount of benefits is still pending before the LSG (L 11 AS 75/24).
On the occasion of the granting of an indefinite pension due to total incapacity for work from March 2022 (decision of the German Federal Pension Insurance Fund dated January 20, 2022; currently amounting to approximately €270.00 net per month), the applicant applied to the respondent on January 26, 2022 for the first time for basic income support benefits under Chapter Four of the German Social Code, Book XII (basic income support benefits) and expressly – with reference to the aforementioned court proceedings – for “financial support” for the therapy dog. Since March 2022, she has been receiving supplementary basic income support (without recognition of additional needs due to animal husbandry costs), including monthly payments of approximately €910.00 for September 2024 to August 2025 (decision of the respondent dated July 9, 2024, as amended by the appeal decision of March 14, 2025, and the decisions of July 1 and August 12, 2025; action pending before the Social Court under case number S 66 SO 53/25) and monthly payments of approximately €900.00 for September 2025 to August 2026 (decision dated August 12, 2025, as amended by the appeal decision of November 10, 2025; action pending under case number S 66 SO 151/25). The basic income support benefits granted to the applicant from January 2023 to August 2025 are also the subject of (three) review proceedings pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (three decisions dated 11 February 2025 in the form of the appeal decisions dated 13 June 2025, actions pending before the Social Court under S 66 SO 102/25, S 66 SO 103/25 and S 66 SO 106/25).
On March 20, 2025, the applicant filed the present application for preliminary relief with the Social Court (SG), seeking provisional coverage of the costs for the dog xxx's food and dog liability insurance in the monthly amounts of €113.47 and €4.99, respectively. The Social Court rejected the application for preliminary relief, reasoning that a deviation from the standard benefit rate pursuant to Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) was not possible because the claimed costs and the need were not unavoidable. Firstly, the need for special food would not arise for a healthy dog with ESD, and the applicant had chosen to acquire a dog that was likely ill. Secondly, she had not credibly demonstrated the amount of the additional costs, as internet research had shown that more cost-effective alternatives existed (e.g., www.petsdeli.de). The costs of the dog liability insurance were within the usual range. The applicant cannot successfully claim benefits for social participation because the dog is not an assistive device within the meaning of Section 113 Paragraph 2 No. 8, Paragraph 3 in conjunction with Section 84 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX). There is no indication that the dog is intended to facilitate access to the immediate surroundings or to promote participation in community life. Assistive device benefits under Section 33 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Alternative 1 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) are also not applicable because the dog's support serves only as indirect compensation for the disability, not to compensate for the effects of an illness in all aspects of life or for basic needs. Finally, the particular urgency of the matter (ground for the injunction) is also questionable due to the fact that the application for interim relief was filed approximately six months after the approval of basic income support benefits for the period from September 2024 onwards (decision of June 20, 2025).
The applicant filed an appeal on June 26, 2025, against this decision. She argues, among other things, that the assistance dog is medically suitable and necessary for her support. According to the judgment of the Social Court of December 15, 2023 (S 26 AS 816/20), the costs of keeping the animal (food, liability insurance) justify an additional need under basic income support law or a deviation from the standard benefit rate. The relevant legal bases for this claim would be Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1, Section 30 Paragraph 10, and Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). Furthermore, the provision of assistive devices could be considered under Section 33 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) (referring to the judgment of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court of October 21, 2024 – L 16 KR 131/23) or as a benefit for social participation under the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) (referring to the judgment of the Karlsruhe Social Court of March 17, 2025 – S 5 KR 2092/24). In this respect, the respondent should have forwarded the application for basic income support dated January 26, 2022, insofar as it related to financial support for the therapy dog, to the department responsible for integration assistance; this application remains undecided to this day.
The respondent considers the Social Court's decision to be correct and argues, among other things, that the applicant did not submit an application for integration assistance within the meaning of Section 108 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), but merely an application for higher basic income support benefits. The granting of preliminary legal protection is therefore not possible because the benefit notice of July 9, 2024, which was relevant at the time the application for preliminary relief was filed, is legally binding and the costs for keeping the animal are already included in the standard benefit rate; this also applies to the dog liability insurance (referring to the Federal Social Court's judgment of February 8, 2017 – B 14 AS 10/16 R – juris para. 21). Furthermore, a claim for benefits in connection with the provision of assistive devices under the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) or Book IX (SGB IX), is also not applicable. While the applicant's dog is indeed an assistive device for medical rehabilitation as a so-called signal dog pursuant to Section 33 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB V; However, the procurement procedure under health insurance law was not followed, and the methodological reservation pursuant to Section 135 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) applies. As an aid primarily for medical rehabilitation, the dog cannot simultaneously be considered an aid for social participation under Sections 76 and 84 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) (referring to the judgment of the Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg dated October 21, 2024 – L 4 KR 1714/21). The recognition of the dog as an assistance dog within the meaning of Section 12a Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 No. 4 of the German Disability Equality Act (BGG) was unlawful in any case due to the lack of an examination of its suitability for this purpose. Regarding the amount of the maintenance costs, the respondent disputes the necessity of the premium food used by the applicant; regardless, the applicant should have expected additional costs when acquiring the sick dog.
The Senate joined the applicant's health insurance fund as a party to the proceedings (decision of August 28, 2025). The fund essentially agrees with the respondent's position and argues that while an assistance dog can, in principle, be considered an assistive device within the meaning of Section 33 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V), a claim under health insurance law is precluded by the prohibition of benefits or the blocking effect under Section 135 of the SGB V because the assistance dog is to be used within the framework of a new treatment method. The fund maintains that no claim for assistive devices exists against the joined party within the framework of social participation because it is not a rehabilitation provider within the meaning of Section 6 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX).
In addition to the administrative records of the respondent, the Senate also consulted the court file (including supplementary files) of the appeal proceedings pending before the LSG (S 26 AS 816/20, L 11 AS 75/24).
II.
The appeal, which was filed in due form and time (§ 173 SGG) and is also admissible in all other respects, in particular with a claimed benefit of approximately €120.00 per month (§ 172 para. 1 and 3 no. 1 in conjunction with §§ 143, 144 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 1 SGG; regarding the determination of the value of the appeal in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning the provisional granting of ongoing subsistence benefits, see most recently the Senate decision of September 17, 2025 – L 8 AY 29/25 B – juris para. 8 with further references), is partially successful. The Social Court wrongly rejected the applicant's application for preliminary injunction.
Preliminary injunctions are permissible under Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG) to regulate a provisional state of affairs with regard to a disputed legal relationship if such regulation appears necessary to avert substantial disadvantages. A prerequisite for issuing a preliminary injunction is that a right asserted against the respondent exists (claim for an injunction) and that the applicant would suffer substantial disadvantages without the issuance of the requested injunction (ground for an injunction). Both the sufficient probability of a substantive claim to performance and the urgency of the regulation to avert substantial disadvantages must be substantiated (Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 SGG in conjunction with Section 920 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)).
A claim for an injunction exists if the applicant is highly likely to be entitled to the main claim to be secured, i.e., if a preliminary assessment of the main action, based on a summary review, shows that the applicant's success in the main proceedings is highly probable. According to the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG, decision of May 12, 2005 – 1 BvR 569/05 – juris), decisions in preliminary injunction proceedings for actions to set aside a decision and (as in this case) for actions to take effect may, in principle, be based on both a balancing of interests and a summary review of the prospects of success in the main proceedings. However, Article 19 Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law (GG) sets special requirements for the design of the preliminary injunction proceedings if, as in this case, without the granting of preliminary legal protection, serious and unreasonable impairments could arise that cannot be averted in any other way and that could no longer be remedied by the main proceedings. In such a case, according to the aforementioned decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, if the courts wish to base their decision on the prospects of success in the main proceedings, they must examine the facts and the law not merely summarily, but conclusively. If the courts decide to make a decision on this basis, they must not impose excessive requirements on the applicant's substantiation in the preliminary injunction proceedings; questions of fundamental rights protection must be taken into account. If, however, a complete clarification of the facts and the law is not possible for the court in the preliminary injunction proceedings, a balancing of interests must be carried out. In this case as well, the applicant's fundamental rights must be fully considered in the balancing process. This applies particularly when it comes to safeguarding human dignity. The courts must prevent any violation of this fundamental right, even if it only appears possible or is only temporary (Federal Constitutional Court, ibid.).
Based on these criteria, the applicant has not credibly demonstrated a claim to (higher) social assistance benefits under Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) due to the claimed costs of keeping the assistance dog Yuma (see section 1). However, she is highly likely to have a claim against the respondent for integration assistance under Book IX of the German Social Code (SGB IX) (benefits for social participation, see section 2). In this respect, the disputed legal relationship amenable to a preliminary injunction is, in principle, the application for integration assistance dated January 26, 2022, which has not yet been decided upon by the respondent (see section 2.a for more details). Whether this claim is at least partially already the (admissible) subject matter of the legal proceedings pending before the Social Court (S 66 SO 53/25, S 66 SO 151/25, and, within the framework of review proceedings, S 66 SO 102/25, S 66 SO 103/25, and S 66 SO 106/25; see also below), because the claim for higher basic income support benefits and the claim for integration assistance, which are contested there due to the costs of keeping animals, are interrelated in such a way that, although the benefits do not necessarily overlap in content, the legal basis and consequences are essentially the same (cf. Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, judgment of June 9, 2016 – L 7 SO 1741/12 – juris para. 31 on § 75 para. 5 of the Social Court Act; on the subject matter of legal proceedings in general, cf., for example, Wehrhahn in jurisPK-SGG, 2nd ed. 2022, § 95 Paragraphs 14-16) can be left to be clarified in these proceedings. Based on a balancing of interests, and considering the circumstances of the individual case, it is justified and necessary that, until a final decision is reached regarding the claim for integration assistance asserted in the application for benefits dated January 26, 2022, at least a portion of the claimed costs be covered provisionally, initially for a limited period until mid-2026 (see section 3 below).
1.
There is no legal basis for benefits to cover the claimed expenses for keeping animals under Chapter Four of the German Social Code, Book XII (see a). Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII, is also not applicable (see b).
a)
The (single) applicant is permanently and fully incapacitated for work due to her health impairments and is therefore in principle entitled to benefits under Chapter Four of the German Social Code, Book XII (Section 19 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 in conjunction with Sections 41 Paragraphs 1 and 3, 42 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book XII). Accordingly, she receives basic income support from the respondent, the approval of which for September 2024 to August 2025 (responsible party's decision of 9 July 2024 as amended by the objection decision of 14 March 2025 and the decisions of 1 July and 12 August 2025) and for September 2025 to August 2026 (decision of 12 August 2025 as amended by the objection decision of 10 November 2025) is the subject of several pending legal proceedings before the Social Court (S 66 SO 53/25 and S 66 SO 151/25 as well as in the context of review proceedings S 66 SO 102/25, S 66 SO 103/25 and S 66 SO 106/25).
According to Section 42 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), the needs under this chapter include, among other things, the standard rates according to the standard needs levels of the appendix to Section 28 SGB XII, whereby Section 27a paragraphs 3 and 4 SGB XII apply (see No. 1), as well as the additional needs according to the Second Section of Chapter Three and needs according to Section 42b SGB XII (No. 2). A different determination of the standard rate according to Section 42 No. 1 in conjunction with Section 27a paragraph 4 sentence 1 No. 2 SGB XII is not possible due to the animal husbandry costs to be borne (see aa). Furthermore, there are no entitlements to additional needs according to Section 42 No. 2 in conjunction with Section 30 paragraph 5 SGB XII (see bb) or in conjunction with Section 30 paragraph 10 SGB XII (see cc).
(aa)
The applicant is not entitled to higher benefits due to the disputed costs based on a deviating determination of the standard rate pursuant to Section 42 No. 1 in conjunction with Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). According to this provision, the standard rate is set differently from the applicable standard benefit level in individual cases (deviating standard rate determination) if a need covered by the standard benefits is not only a one-off occurrence, but unavoidably exceeds average needs to a more than minor extent for a period expected to exceed one month, as determined by the average consumer expenditures underlying the calculation of the standard benefits, and the resulting additional expenses cannot be justifiably offset in any other way.
An individual increase in the standard benefit rate pursuant to Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is not applicable here, because the costs of keeping an animal were not considered as consumption expenditures when determining the standard benefit rates. The determination of the standard benefit rates is regulated in detail in Section 28 of the SGB XII. For this purpose, the Federal Statistical Office is commissioned to conduct special analyses based on a (new) income and expenditure survey (EVS) – in this case, the 2018 EVS (Paragraph 3 Sentence 1). The consumption expenditures of reference households shown in these special analyses are to be considered relevant for determining the standard benefit rates, insofar as they are necessary to secure the minimum subsistence level and enable a simple lifestyle, such as that of low-income households that do not exclusively rely on benefits under the SGB XII or the SGB II (Paragraph 4 Sentence 1). The specific amounts relevant for determining standard needs are currently derived from the legislative materials for the Act on Determining Standard Needs pursuant to Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), effective from 2021 (Standard Needs Determination Act – RBEG – see Bundestag Printed Paper 19/22750, pp. 18 et seq.). Accordingly, the costs for pets, including veterinary and other services, which are listed in the 2018 Income and Expenditure Survey (EVS 2018) under item no. 154 and average €6.19 per household per month (see the annex to the RBEG 2018, available at https://www.bmas.de), are not included in the standard needs determination. They are not relevant to standard needs because they have not been recognized by the legislator as necessary to secure the minimum subsistence level (see also LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 1 June 2015 – L 12 SO 20/15 NZB – juris Rn. 10).
(bb)
The recognition of additional needs due to medically necessary, costly nutrition pursuant to Section 42 No. 2 in conjunction with Section 30 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (nutritional additional needs) is precluded because, according to the clear wording of the provision, such a claim can only concern the nutritional needs of the person entitled to benefits – here, the applicant. A pet, or in this case, the assistance dog, is not covered by the personal scope of application of the provision.
(cc)
There is also no entitlement to benefits to cover additional needs pursuant to Section 42 No. 2 in conjunction with Section 30 Paragraph 10 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). According to this provision, additional needs are recognized for benefit recipients if, in an individual case, there is a one-time, unavoidable, special need that cannot be met in any other way and a loan pursuant to Section 37 Paragraph 1 SGB XII is exceptionally unreasonable or not possible due to the nature of the need. According to the wording of the provision and in contrast to the scope of application of an individual increase in the standard benefit rate pursuant to Section 27a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB XII (see above), only one-time needs are relevant (cf., for example, Simon in jurisPK-SGB XII, 4th edition 2024, Section 30, marginal note 168). The recurring or ongoing need for the upkeep of the assistance dog does not fall under this provision.
b)
There is also no entitlement to assistance in other life situations under Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). According to this provision, benefits can also be provided in other life situations if they justify the use of public funds (sentence 1). Cash benefits can be provided as a grant or as a loan (sentence 2). A "other life situation" within the meaning of Section 73, sentence 1, of the SGB XII is characterized by the fact that it is not covered by any other benefit area of the SGB XII and thus constitutes a special need (atypical need situation) (Federal Social Court, judgment of May 29, 2019 – B 8 SO 8/17 R – juris para. 14 and of April 20, 2016 – B 8 SO 5/15 R – juris para. 10 with further references). Such a special need in the sense of an unnamed or atypical need situation does not exist if a specific need situation is covered by the standard benefit. This also applies if it is taken into account when determining the standard benefit rate pursuant to Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), but has not been deemed necessary by the legislator to secure the minimum subsistence level and has therefore not been included in the calculation. This is the case here – as already explained – with regard to the expenses associated with keeping animals (similarly, the decision of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia of June 1, 2015 – L 12 SO 20/15 NZB – juris para. 10).
2.
However, a claim for an order regarding benefits for social participation under Part 2 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) has been substantiated. This claim arises from Sections 99 and 113 in conjunction with Section 84 Paragraph 2 of the SGB IX.
a)
The respondent is materially and geographically responsible for granting these benefits pursuant to Section 14, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX). Section 14 SGB IX provides for a special procedure for determining responsibility when applying for participation benefits as defined in Sections 4 and 5 SGB IX. If participation benefits are applied for, the rehabilitation provider determines within two weeks of receiving the application whether it is responsible for the benefit under the applicable benefit legislation. If, upon examination, it determines that it is not responsible for the benefit, it forwards the application immediately to the rehabilitation provider it considers to be responsible (Section 14, paragraph 1, sentence 1, clauses 1 and 2 SGB IX). If the application is not forwarded, the rehabilitation provider determines the rehabilitation needs immediately and comprehensively and provides the benefits (providing rehabilitation provider; cf. Section 14, paragraph 2, sentence 1 SGB IX).
The application for (regular) financial assistance to cover the maintenance costs of the assistance dog Yuma concerns a benefit for participation within the meaning of Sections 4 and 5 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX). These benefits include, among other things, the necessary social services to prevent, eliminate, or reduce a disability, regardless of its cause, to prevent its worsening, or to mitigate its consequences (Section 4, Paragraph 1, No. 1 SGB IX). For participation in society, services for medical rehabilitation and social participation are provided, among other things (Section 5, Nos. 1 and 5 SGB IX). The trained assistance dog supports the applicant, among other things, in managing panic attacks or migraines, but also helps her in general everyday life. As an assistive device in the legal sense, it can therefore serve several purposes, not only the curative-therapeutic effect on an illness, but also the compensation of an existing disability (cf. regarding the differentiation according to the functionality of an assistive device BSG, judgment of 7 May 2020 – B 3 KR 7/19 R – juris Rn. 15 ff.; regarding the provision of a PTSD dog, e.g. SG Karlsruhe, judgment of 17 March 2025 – S 5 KR 2092/24 – juris Rn. 46). The dispute concerns the distinctions between services for medical or social rehabilitation and (curative) medical treatment (here in the sense of the provision of assistive devices pursuant to Section 33 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book V), which under certain circumstances may not even constitute a participation benefit within the meaning of Sections 4 and 5 of the German Social Code, Book IX (see, regarding this distinction, the fundamental decisions of the Federal Social Court, judgment of March 15, 2018 – B 3 KR 18/17 R – juris para. 23 et seq.; Federal Social Court, judgment of March 8, 2016 – B 1 KR 25/15 R – juris para. 17; Social Court Ulm, decision of August 6, 2025 – S 13 SO 2014/25 ER – juris para. 31; Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of June 22, 2023 – L 12 R 89/20 – juris para. 22). (See, e.g., the judgments of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia of May 15, 2025 – L 9 SO 177/24 – juris para. 30 et seq.; the Senate judgments of January 28, 2016 – L 8 SO 385/12 – juris para. 27 and of May 4, 2022 – L 8 SO 82/18 – not published), but are not decisive in the context of clarifying jurisdiction under Section 14 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX). In accordance with the principle of most-favored-nation treatment, this is also an application for rehabilitation services. The protective mechanism of Section 14 SGB IX must not be undermined by an overly narrow interpretation of the term "medical rehabilitation services" (Federal Social Court, judgment of March 8, 2016 – B 1 KR 25/15 R – juris para. 16).
The applicant already submitted the application with her initial application of June 28, 2018, for subsistence benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). For the period up to December 31, 2019, the Federal Employment Agency (BA) is considered the responsible rehabilitation provider under Section 14 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) (Section 6, Paragraph 1, No. 2 SGB IX), because, according to Section 6a, Sentence 1 SGB IX (in the version applicable until December 31, 2019, dated March 29, 2017, Federal Law Gazette I, p. 626, old version), it is responsible for benefits for participation in working life for disabled persons capable of working, and the respondent, as an approved provider within the meaning of Section 6a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), was responsible for decisions regarding these benefits (Section 6a, Sentence 4 SGB IX old version, so-called benefit responsibility), also with regard to the clarification of responsibility under Section 14 SGB IX (see in detail Federal Social Court, Judgment of April 4, 2019 – B 8 SO 12/17 R – juris). (Paragraphs 19 et seq.). On the other hand, the respondent accepted the application for benefits not only as an authorized provider pursuant to Section 6a of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), but also as the local social assistance provider (Sections 1 and 2, sentence 1 of the Lower Saxony Law Implementing the German Social Code, Book XII (Nds. AG SGB XII) – in the version applicable until December 31, 2019) and thus as the rehabilitation provider more appropriately equipped for (social assistance) benefits for social participation within the meaning of Section 6, paragraph 1, no. 7 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) (in the version of December 23, 2003, Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2848, last amended by the Law of April 12, 2012, Federal Law Gazette I, p. 579). However, the determination of which rehabilitation provider is (or became) responsible for this period can be reserved for the appeal proceedings pending before the Higher Social Court (LSG) (L 11 AS 75/24). It is also not decisive whether the jurisdiction of the Federal Employment Agency (BA) or the respondent under Section 14 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) ended with the entry into force of Part 2 of the SGB IX on January 1, 2020, and the introduction of integration assistance as a new and independent benefit (as held by the Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of December 18, 2024 – B 8 SO 14/22 R – juris para. 16 et seq.; BSG, judgment of January 28, 2021 – B 8 SO 9/19 R – juris para. 19; BSG, decision of June 24, 2021 – B 8 SO 19/20 B – juris para. 4; contra: Senate judgment of June 1, 2023 – L 8 SO 223/18 – juris para. 22; Frerichs in Hauck/Noftz, SGB IX, 4th ed.). 2025, § 94 para. 40 ff.). For the determination of jurisdiction pursuant to § 14 SGB IX, the decisive factor is the submission of the (initial) application for subsistence benefits under SGB XII on January 26, 2022, because the applicant, with the granting of an indefinite pension due to total incapacity for work (decision of the German Pension Insurance (DRV) dated January 20, 2022), has been permanently excluded from working life and thus a significant change in the rehabilitation case has occurred (cf. regarding the departure from the principle of so-called continuity of benefits, Frerichs, loc. cit., para. 47). With this application, the applicant (also) claimed "financial support" for the therapy dog from the respondent, who is not only the (local) social welfare provider responsible for basic income support benefits for the supra-regional social welfare provider (State of Lower Saxony) (see Section 46b Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in conjunction with Section 2 Paragraphs 1 and 3, Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1, Section 8 Sentence 1 of the Lower Saxony Law Implementing the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) and Book XII (SGB XII) – Nds. AG SGB IX/XII – of October 24, 2019, Lower Saxony Law Gazette, p. 300, last amended by the Law of June 30, 2022, Lower Saxony Law Gazette, p. 426), but also the (local) provider of integration assistance (Section 94 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) in conjunction with Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Lower Saxony Law Implementing the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) and Book XII (SGB XII)). 1 and 2 sentence 1 Nds. AG SGB IX/XII) Rehabilitation provider within the meaning of § 6 para. 1 no. 7 SGB IX. In this capacity, he did not forward the application for benefits to another rehabilitation provider within two weeks, with the consequence of (comprehensive) responsibility for the rehabilitation case according to § 14 SGB IX.
b)
The applicant meets the personal requirements under Section 99 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) for mandatory integration assistance. According to Section 99, paragraph 1, alternative 1 of the SGB IX, integration assistance is provided to people with disabilities as defined in Section 2, paragraph 1, sentences 1 and 2 of the SGB IX who are significantly restricted in their equal participation in society (significant disability), if and as long as, based on the specific circumstances of the individual case, there is a prospect that the objective of integration assistance under Section 90 of the SGB IX can be achieved. According to Section 99, paragraph 4 of the SGB IX, the Federal Government may, by statutory instrument with the consent of the Federal Council, issue provisions specifying the eligibility criteria for integration assistance (sentence 1). Because such a statutory instrument has not yet entered into force, Sections 1 to 3 of the (previous) Integration Assistance Ordinance, as amended on December 31, 2019, currently apply accordingly (see sentence 2). The prerequisites for granting integration assistance as a mandatory benefit are undoubtedly met in the case of the plaintiff, who has a significant mental disability (see Section 3 of the Integration Assistance Ordinance).
c)
According to Section 113 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), benefits for social participation are provided to enable or facilitate equal participation in community life, insofar as they are not provided under Chapters 3 to 5 of Part 2 of the SGB IX. According to Paragraph 2 of the provision, benefits for social participation include, in particular, assistive devices (No. 8). The benefits are determined according to Sections 77 to 84 of the SGB IX (here, according to Section 84 of the SGB IX), unless otherwise stipulated in Part 2 of the SGB IX (cf. Section 113 Paragraph 3 of the SGB IX).
(aa)
The priority of benefits under Chapters 3 to 5 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) does not preclude an entitlement to benefits for social participation under Chapter 6 of the SGB IX; this applies in particular to medical rehabilitation benefits (Chapter 3). According to Section 109 of the SGB IX, medical rehabilitation benefits include, in particular, the benefits specified in Section 42, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Section 64, paragraph 1, numbers 3 to 6 of the SGB IX (paragraph 1). They correspond to the rehabilitation benefits provided by statutory health insurance (paragraph 2). The delimitation of medical rehabilitation within the meaning of Section 109 of the SGB IX from other health services or other areas of rehabilitation is thus primarily governed by the provisions of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V); this is also expressly provided for by the reservation of deviating regulations in Section 7, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the SGB IX. According to the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG), medical rehabilitation services are generally limited to the rehabilitation services provided for in the law as a separate type of benefit (§ 11 para. 2 sentence 1, §§ 40 et seq. SGB V; cf. BSG, judgment of 17 December 2013 – B 1 KR 50/12 R – juris para. 9 et seq.; BSG, judgment of 8 March 2016 – B 1 KR 25/15 R – juris para. 17; left open by BSG, judgment of 22 March 2012 – B 8 SO 30/10 R – juris para. 11; cf. also Senate decision of 10 April 2014 – L 8 SO 16/14 B ER – juris para. 20 as well as Senate judgments of 28 January 2016 – L 8 SO 385/12 – juris para. 27, of 25 February 2016 – L 8 SO 366/14 – juris para. 40 and of 24 January 2019 – L 8 SO 229/15 – not published
Whether the applicant is entitled to medical rehabilitation services within the framework of assistive device provision pursuant to Section 27 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Section 33 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) (including maintenance, Section 33 Paragraph 1 Sentence 5 SGB V) can remain unanswered in the preliminary injunction proceedings. Both the respondent and the health insurance fund joined as a party in the appeal proceedings deny any such entitlement, because the procurement procedure was not followed and the use of the assistance dog must be assessed as a new treatment method within the meaning of Section 135 Paragraph 1 SGB V, but a corresponding recommendation from the Federal Joint Committee is lacking (see also the judgment of the Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg of October 21, 2024 – L 4 KR 1714/21 – juris para. 36 et seq.). Medical rehabilitation services are therefore not readily available to the applicant in the sense of a "readily available resource" (cf. Section 113 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX: "must be provided"; see also Luthe in jurisPK-SGB IX, 4th edition 2023, Section 113, marginal note 51, and regarding the previous legal situation, Federal Social Court, judgment of May 19, 2009 – B 8 SO 32/07 R – juris marginal note 20). In this respect, the (general) subsidiary nature of integration assistance pursuant to Section 91 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX, does not apply.
(bb)
Services for social participation are provided to enable or facilitate equal participation in community life. This includes empowering or supporting eligible individuals to lead lives that are as self-determined and independent as possible in their own homes and social environment (§ 113 para. 1 sentences 1 and 2 SGB IX). These services include, among other things, assistive devices necessary to compensate for limitations on equal participation in community life caused by a disability (§ 113 para. 2 no. 8, para. 3 in conjunction with § 84 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB IX). The services also include necessary instruction in the use of assistive devices as well as their necessary maintenance or modification (§ 84 para. 2 SGB IX).
The assistance dog xxx is, in a legal sense, a suitable and necessary aid (also) for social rehabilitation pursuant to Section 84 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX). According to the case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG), which is applicable to the new law on integration assistance, (other) aids within the meaning of social rehabilitation are those that go beyond a purely medical purpose and contribute to compensating for the deficiencies and limitations caused by the disability (BSG, Judgment of May 19, 2009 – B 8 SO 32/07 R – juris para. 16).<Hörgerätebatterien> This purpose inevitably overlaps with the functions of assistive devices in the context of medical treatment or rehabilitation (Section 27 Paragraph 1 Sentences 1 and 2 No. 3, Section 33 Paragraph 1 Sentence 5 SGB V; Section 42 Paragraph 2 No. 6, Section 47 Paragraph 1 SGB IX). Unlike these, however, assistive devices for social rehabilitation serve the overall management of daily life; their purpose is to enable disabled persons to have contact with their environment, not only with family and neighbors, as well as to participate in public and cultural life, and thereby promote interaction and contact with non-disabled people. In this respect, their effect is always limited to addressing the consequences of a disability (cf. BSG, loc. cit., para. 17). A social rehabilitation aid can also be a dog specially trained to meet the individual needs of a person with disabilities, which, due to its abilities and learned assistance skills, is intended to enable or facilitate this person's self-determined participation in social life or to compensate for disadvantages caused by the disability (cf. the legal definition of an assistance dog in Section 12e Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Disability Equality Act (BGG)). This also applies, and in particular, to an assistance dog that does not meet the requirements for a medical aid within the meaning of Section 33 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) (inference from Section 12e Paragraph 6 of the German Disability Equality Act (BGG); correctly held by the Social Court of Karlsruhe, judgment of March 17, 2025 – S 5 KR 2092/24 – paragraphs 45 et seq.; Luthe in jurisPK-SGB IX, 4th edition 2023, Section 84 paragraph 9.1; Schaumberg in Hauck/Noftz, SGB IX, 4th supplement 2025, Section 84 paragraph 16).
The suitability and necessity of an assistance dog, specifically the assistance dog Yuma, to help the applicant cope with her illness and manage daily life is documented by various medical statements, including the official medical certificate from Dr. Schönmann dated October 16, 2014 (in principle), the certificate from Dr. Flachsbart-Neuland, specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy as well as internal medicine at the Asklepios Specialist Clinic Göttingen, dated March 22, 2021, and the report from psychotherapist Dr. Scarpinato-Hirt dated October 26, 2021. The applicant has a comprehensive mental health condition, including diagnoses of complex PTSD (ICD-10: F43.1), recurrent depressive disorder (ICD-10: F33.1), and emotionally unstable personality disorder (ICD-10: F60.31). According to the detailed report by Dr. Scarpinato-Hirt dated October 26, 2021, the applicant exhibits severe states of tension with irritability and impulse control disorder (eating disorder), very low resilience due to heightened stress sensitivity, low frustration tolerance with particular difficulties in social situations, and difficulty establishing and maintaining relationships with others. She has few social contacts overall. Her mental illness is characterized by severe mood swings, including recurring periods of depression, accompanied by rumination, difficulty concentrating, a negative self-image, and a lack of motivation, interest, and pleasure. She also experiences flashbacks, intrusions, and strong avoidance behavior, as well as derealization and depersonalization, and diffuse anxiety. From the psychotherapist's perspective, the use of an ESD (Emotional Freedom Techniques) dog is absolutely essential for the applicant's survival and long-term mental stability, as it provides her with a purpose, encouraging her to be active and take responsibility for her own life. The dog plays a significant role in the applicant's management of her depressive illness, as well as in coping with everyday life. Regarding the support provided by the assistance dog, the applicant stated, among other things (see the written submission from her legal representative dated July 14, 2025), that Yuma provides her with security during visits from strangers in her home due to her learned behavior (observing from a distance) and during other contact with people through physical proximity (sitting between her legs on command) or by so-called blocking (sitting between people). She can lie on command, particularly during panic attacks or migraine attacks (with aura), and can provide assistance in overcoming dissociative states through tactile stimulation (licking and/or giving her paw) on command. Furthermore, Yuma supports her independently or on command through physical contact (nudging/resting her head/accompanying her to sleep) in everyday situations, such as guiding her through crowds (on the verbal command "Go"). Unlike a (common) pet or, in legal terms, an "object of daily use" within the meaning of Section 33 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) or Section 47 Paragraph 1 Number 3 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) (see, for example, the Senate judgment of January 24, 2019 – L 8 SO 229/15 – not published).<Tierarztkosten> The dog is specifically trained to support the applicant, among other things, during panic attacks or migraines (from September 2020 to May 2021) and is certified as a tested ESD dog (2023). At the end of March 2025, she was additionally recognized as an assistance dog within the meaning of Section 12a Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 No. 4 of the German Disability Equality Act (BGG). She forms a human-assistance dog partnership with the applicant (decision of the intervener dated March 31, 2025). Due to the finality of the recognition, the respondent's objection that it was unlawful and should not have been granted because of the dog's illness is unfounded. The applicant cannot be successfully held against her for failing to have the dog's health suitability examined in accordance with Section 5 of the Assistance Dog Ordinance (AHundV).
(cc)
The entitlement to assistive devices extends, pursuant to Section 113 in conjunction with Section 84 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), to necessary maintenance, i.e., all measures that keep the assistive device in a functional condition. This includes, among other things, the reimbursement of operating costs, such as the costs of mandatory insurance (see Social Court Karlsruhe, Judgment of March 17, 2025 – S 5 KR 2092/24 – juris para. 57 with further references). The applicant has estimated the costs for dog food at €113.37 per month and the premiums for dog liability insurance at €4.99 per month. The amount of the food costs is primarily determined by the food intolerance or intestinal disease of the assistance dog, Yuma. She requires hypoallergenic food or a special diet (see the certificates from the veterinary practice of Dr. Wystub dated March 17, 2021, and December 4, 2024, and from the Veterinary Institute of the University of Göttingen dated August 19, 2025). Contrary to the position of the Social Court and the respondent, the Senate considers the specific maintenance costs required to be eligible for consideration because they concern the preservation of the specific assistive device. The recognition as an assistance dog pursuant to Section 12a Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 No. 4 of the German Disability Equality Act (BGG) refers to the dog Yuma; she forms an individual human-assistance dog partnership with the applicant. Against this background, it is already doubtful to assume a fault or defect in the assistive device; its functionality in a rehabilitative sense remains—as far as can be seen—largely unaffected by the food intolerance. Regardless, the provision of a functioning assistive device to the applicant would in any case be the responsibility of the respondent (cf., for example, Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of 12 November 2024 – L 5 KR 457/20 – juris para. 64 on § 33 SGB V).
However, the main proceedings still require a final clarification as to whether the food used by the applicant ("Hill's Prescription Diet," "Platinum Menu Turkey plus Salmon," or "Hermanns Selection Adult Organic Beef") is absolutely necessary or whether more affordable alternatives exist. The applicant stated in this regard (enclosed with the brief from her legal representative dated July 14, 2025) that the premium food she uses, which is well-tolerated, is precisely labeled, and that with cheaper food, e.g., from Aldi at a monthly cost of approximately €60.00, the individual ingredients are often unknown. She added that she is also willing to use cheaper food if the dog tolerates it. The examination of the food costs required under the principle of economic efficiency has not yet taken place in the administrative proceedings and cannot be definitively transferred to the preliminary injunction proceedings.
3.
In accordance with the aforementioned criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction based on a balancing of interests pursuant to the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, which gives particular consideration to the applicant's fundamental rights, the respondent is ordered to grant the applicant, provisionally from the filing of the application for preliminary relief with the Social Court until a final and binding decision is reached on the application of January 26, 2022, integration assistance for the upkeep of her assistance dog Yuma in the amount of €65.00 per month. The Senate considers the interplay between the applicant's claim for an injunction and the urgency of the matter (grounds for the injunction). Based on the above explanations, there is a very high probability that the applicant is entitled to benefits for the animal's upkeep costs (food, insurance) at least in this amount pursuant to Sections 99, 113 in conjunction with Section 84 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX). Furthermore, the applicant has credibly demonstrated the particular urgency of the matter. The fact that she has covered the costs from her own resources in recent years – even after her successful lawsuit before the Social Court at the end of 2023 (judgment of December 15, 2023 – S 26 AS 816/20, appeal pending under L 11 AS 75/24) – does not preclude this. Based on her statements regarding her financial circumstances, the use of the care allowance (passing it on to a caregiver), the lack of previous animal feed donations, and the bank statements she submitted (see the brief from her legal representative dated July 2, 2025, including attachments), it is sufficiently credible that the applicant, who relies on basic income support to secure her livelihood, is in a situation of existential hardship that justifies the issuance of a preliminary injunction. She lives in precarious circumstances. A contribution towards the costs of services under Section 92 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) is out of the question from the outset, pursuant to Section 138, Paragraph 1, Number 8 of the SGB IX. In order not to unduly burden the respondent, the order is additionally limited in time until June 30, 2026.
The decision on costs is based on § 193 SGG.
This decision is final and cannot be appealed, § 177 SGG.
