Overview of case law
Basic income support · Social assistance · Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act · Citizen's allowance · Employment promotion law
Last updated: February 22, 2026
Editor: Detlef Brock
Publisher: Tacheles Legal News Ticker
1. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
1.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 22.01.2026 – L 13 AS 161/26 ER-B –
Topic:
On the entitlement to citizen's allowance during part-time studies
Decision:
The 13th Senate of the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court (LSG) changes its legal opinion in accordance with the current case law of the Federal Social Court (BSG, file no.: B 7 AS 11/22 R) to the effect that there is generally no entitlement to citizen's allowance in the case of part-time studies, with the exception of Section 27 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Key messages:
- In principle, training is eligible for funding under the BAföG (Federal Training Assistance Act) if, among other things, it generally fully utilizes the trainee's labor (abstract funding requirement, Section 2 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 No. 2 BAföG).
- If a trainee reduces their full-time studies to part-time for individual reasons (here, due to caring for relatives), this generally does not change their eligibility for funding. They are excluded from benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), pursuant to Section 7, Paragraph 5, Sentence 1 of the SGB II – with the exception of Section 27 of the SGB II (see Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of June 21, 2023 – B 7 AS 11/22 R –).
- The court here assumed a hardship pursuant to Section 27 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which is based on the fact that the security of the subsistence minimum is jeopardized and the reduction of studies is due to the short-term care of close relatives (Section 27, Paragraph 3, Sentence 1 of the SGB II).
Source: LSG Baden-Württemberg
Detlef Brock's comment:
The 13th Senate of the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court (LSG) is the first court to establish that part-time studies generally preclude eligibility for citizen's income support.
Just a short time ago, the Bayreuth Social Court (case no.: S 13 AS 453/21 ER) ruled that even part-time students ineligible for BAföG (Federal Training Assistance Act) funding could claim unemployment benefit II (following the decision of the Hesse State Social Court, dated December 15, 2020 – L 9 AS 535/20 B ER –).
The fact that the job center must grant a so-called hardship loan for those caring for relatives is only a secondary point raised by the court. The core issue, however, is the exclusion of benefits for part-time students.
1.2 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, Judgment of 27 January 2026 – L 11 AS 56/24 –
Topic:
No citizen's income for enrolled students
Decision:
The 11th Senate of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court (LSG) ruled that enrolled students are excluded from receiving citizen's allowance even if they are not actually studying.
Key messages:
- Enrolled students are excluded from receiving citizen's income even if they are not actually studying. This also applies – as in the plaintiff's case – to a second degree program.
- Nevertheless, the man does not have to pay back the money, because the breach of the duty to cooperate pursuant to Section 60 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB X was neither intentional nor grossly negligent.
Source: LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen
1.3 – LSG Hamburg, Judgment of 22.01.2026 – L 4 AS 288/24 –
Topic:
Socially unacceptable behavior within the meaning of Section 34 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), in the case of termination due to personal use
Decision:
The Senate orders the plaintiff to repay approximately €2,700 to the job center due to socially unacceptable behavior. The plaintiff had provoked his dismissal from his employer and thus created the conditions for receiving citizen's income support.
Key messages:
- Provocative behavior towards the employer is generally considered socially unacceptable behavior.
- Failure to take up employment without a valid reason constitutes socially unacceptable behavior within the meaning of Section 34 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
- Leaving a job without good reason, resulting in a need for assistance due to a waiting period, is socially unacceptable if no subsequent employment was concretely in sight.
- The obligation to provide compensation also arises if a person in need of assistance creates the conditions for receiving benefits through attributable behavior without good reason.
- If a recipient of citizen's income has deliberately acted in breach of contract and thereby provoked the termination of the employment relationship, the tendency of their behavior is directed towards the elimination of the earning opportunity.
- Resigning from a job without securing subsequent employment is generally considered a socially unacceptable act.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Case law references:
SG Aurich, judgment of 02.09.2020 – S 55 AS 386/18 –
LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of 22.04.2013 – L 19 AS 1303/12 –
LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of 19.01.2017 – L 31 AS 1858/16 –
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support / citizen's allowance
2.1 – Social Court Freiburg, Judgment of 22 November 2025 – S 7 AS 1540/25 – legally binding
Topic:
Housing costs for a person under 25 years of age – Section 22 Paragraph 5 SGB II
Decision:
The court finds that the exclusion of benefits for housing and heating costs under Section 22 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for young adults under 25 years of age does not apply to young people who moved out of their parents' home for the first time before becoming eligible for benefits under SGB II.
A commitment within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 5 SGB II is unnecessary, regardless of the existence of compelling social reasons that support the young adult's move into their own apartment, if individuals under 25 years of age are not receiving or have not applied for benefits under SGB II at the time of moving out, and no other legal relationship exists between them and the future benefit provider, even if securing their future livelihood after moving out is unclear and uncertain.
Guiding principles:
- The exclusion of benefits for the costs of accommodation and heating pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for young adults under 25 years of age does not apply to young people who have already moved out of their parents' household for the first time before entering into the receipt of benefits under the SGB II.
- A young adult's independent living arrangements, achieved before receiving benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), cannot be lost through a temporary return to their parents' home. If a young adult has already achieved independent living arrangements (at least once) without any support from the SGB II or SGB XII benefit system, they are no longer subject to Section 22 Paragraph 5 of the SGB II.
- It is irrelevant whether the young adult supported themselves during the independent living phase from their own earned income and/or assets or from other sources of income outside of the German Social Code Book II and Book XII, such as maintenance payments from parents, other social benefits (e.g. BAföG, unemployment benefit) or scholarships.
- The application of Section 22 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) after already achieving independence is only possible if the (renewed) move-out and the (renewed) independence are carried out with the intention of bringing about the eligibility requirements for benefits under the SGB II (Section 22 Paragraph 5 Sentence 4 SGB II).
- An intention pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 5 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) must – beyond simple intent – be expressly directed towards triggering an entitlement to benefits under the SGB II by moving out of the parental household.
- A young adult who holds German citizenship or a right of residence in the Federal Republic of Germany cannot be required under Section 22 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) to live in their parents' household if the parents' household is located outside the Federal Republic of Germany.
- A commitment within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is unnecessary, irrespective of the existence of serious social reasons that support the young adult becoming independent in their own apartment, if persons under the age of 25 are not receiving or have not applied for benefits under the SGB II at the time of moving out and there is no other legal relationship between them and the future benefit provider, even if the securing of their future livelihood after moving out is unclear and uncertain.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.2 – SG Braunschweig, Judgment of December 12, 2025 – S 44 AS 155/24 –
Topic:
Exercise of discretion in a refusal decision pursuant to Section 66 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I)
Decision:
The chamber concludes that the job center's refusal notice was unlawful due to a lack of discretionary power.
Key message:
If a job center has previously rejected benefits from a person seeking assistance due to unproven need, and subsequently chooses to issue a refusal decision in relation to that person under the same circumstances, the job center must justify its choice of action within the framework of its discretionary decision.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.3 – SG Darmstadt, Judgment of 27.03.2025 – S 28 AS 118/16 –
Subject:
On the acceptance of a handwritten utility bill from the landlord according to § 22 para. 1 SGB II.
Decision:
The court concludes that handwritten utility bill demands that do not comply with the requirements of Section 259 of the German Civil Code (BGB) are not to be accepted by the job center, as they are invalid. This is because they lack all necessary information about the rental property and the relationships between the rental apartments.
Key messages:
- The authority is not required to accept completely ineffective additional cost claims pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
- The operating cost statement must comply with the requirements of § 259 BGB, so that the tenant is able to verify the landlord's statement both conceptually and arithmetically.
Legal note:
LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 14.08.2012 – L 5 AS 454/12 B –
3. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Judgment of 17.12.2025 – L 2 AL 31/22 –
Subject:
Cancellation and reimbursement of unemployment benefit I is unlawful if no hearing has been held
Decision:
The Senate concludes that the cancellation and reimbursement order issued by the Employment Agency is unlawful due to the lack of a hearing (§ 24 SGB X).
Key messages:
- The plaintiff's claim for annulment arises from Section 42 Paragraph 1 Sentences 1 and 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), according to which the annulment of an administrative act can be claimed solely because the required hearing was omitted or not effectively carried out subsequently.
- Relevant to the decision within the meaning of Section 24 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) are all facts that contributed to the outcome of the administrative decision, i.e., those on which the administration also relied (Federal Social Court, Judgment of November 9, 2010 – B 4 AS 37/09 R –).
- However, the hearing here is limited solely to the objective facts of the breach of the duty to report. This is insufficient.
- In cases where the allegation under Section 48 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), is made that the person concerned intentionally or grossly negligently failed to comply with their prescribed notification obligation, the authority must, during the hearing, provide facts relating to both the objective and subjective elements of the offense. On the subjective side, therefore, the facts on which the allegation of intent or gross negligence is based must be stated.
- However, neither the hearing notice nor the revocation notice makes it clear or apparent that the question of whether the plaintiff acted with gross negligence or intentionally is also relevant to the decision; moreover, information on the subjective grounds for revocation under Section 48 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) is completely lacking.
Source: LSG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
4. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – SG Ulm, decision of 06.08.2025 – S 13 SO 2014/25 ER –
Topic:
Right to participation – School support for a primary school child with diabetes mellitus
Decision:
The court concludes that forwarding an application for school support for a child with diabetes attending primary school may be an abuse of rights or ineffective.
Guiding principle:
On the distinction between medical rehabilitation and curative medical treatment: Home nursing care fulfills at least a dual role in children with diabetes mellitus, which does not allow for a clear objective in the direction of medical treatment, but in the opinion of the Chamber has at least an equivalent rehabilitative character.
The difficult task of defining the objective of the requested measure must not be shifted to the jurisdictional review under Section 14 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX).
A rehabilitation provider within the meaning of Section 14 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) is anyone who can be a provider of medical rehabilitation services, regardless of whether the provider is materially responsible in the individual case (see Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of 21 August 2008 – B 13 R 33/07 R –, juris para. 28).
The forwarding of an application for school support for a child with diabetes pursuant to Section 14 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), from the health insurance fund to the integration assistance provider may be an abuse of rights or at least ineffective if there are no indications of additional problems faced by the child and the initially contacted service provider has already recognized its own responsibility for part of the service (here: medication administration or insulin injections and, if applicable, fixed times for blood sugar checks).
The application for home nursing care cannot be artificially split into two benefit applications in accordance with Section 15 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX).
Source: SG Ulm
Legal note:
Who is responsible for paying for school support for a primary school child with diabetes?
Social Court Frankfurt am Main, decision of November 3, 2025 – S 14 KR 445/25 ER –
Health insurance must pay for the support of a child with diabetes at school.
5. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – SG Speyer, decision of 09.02.2026 – S 16 AY 119/25 ER –
Legal provisions: Section 2 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), Section 3 AsylbLG
Keywords: Cooperation, specification by the immigration authority, analogous benefits, City of Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Social Court Speyer
Subject:
Granting of benefits according to § 2 AsylbLG
Decision:
The court concludes that the applicant's conduct was not to be considered an abuse of rights. Therefore, provisional benefits were to be granted in accordance with Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with the provisions of Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII).
Key messages:
- The term "abuse of rights" within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is not defined in the AsylbLG.
- The burden of proof for the existence of an abusive stay lies with the authority.
- The court could not determine that the applicant had the financial means to arrange for the Egyptian state to issue a new passport, since, according to the applicant's as yet uncontested statements, this would cost €7,000.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.2 – SG Magdeburg, decision of 13.02.2026 – S 31 AY 22/26 ER –
Legal norms: Section 3 Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), Section 3a AsylbLG, Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 Social Court Act (SGG)
Keywords: Standard benefit level 1, Standard benefit level 2, Benefits according to Section 3 AsylbLG, Benefits according to Section 3a AsylbLG, Altmarkkreis Salzwedel, Magdeburg Social Court
Topic:
Granting of higher benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), in particular benefits according to standard benefit level 1
Decision:
The Chamber grants benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at the standard benefit level 1, since Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and Section 3a Paragraph 2 No. 2b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) are unconstitutional.
Key messages:
- Taking into account the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 19 October 2022, the applicant is entitled to benefits in the amount of the standard benefit level 1.
- The Chamber has come to the conclusion that these considerations of the Federal Constitutional Court also apply to the parallel provisions for beneficiaries in collective accommodations pursuant to Section 3a AsylbLG, since it is highly probable that Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2b AsylbLG and Section 3a Paragraph 2 No. 2b AsylbLG are also unconstitutional.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
5.3 – SG Magdeburg, decision of 23.01.2026 – S 31 AY 87/25 –
Legal norms: Section 88 SGG, Section 193 SGG
Keywords: Action for failure to act, decision on costs, burden of costs, alleged inadmissibility of the objection, State of Saxony-Anhalt, Magdeburg Social Court
Subject:
Reimbursement of extrajudicial costs in an action for failure to act
Decision:
The court orders the authority to bear the plaintiff's extrajudicial costs. The action for failure to act was admissible and well-founded. It would have been successful if the court had been required to rule on it by judgment at the time the matter was otherwise resolved.
Key messages:
- The objection procedure must generally be formally concluded by means of a decision.
- In view of the fundamental obligation of the authority to issue a decision, even with regard to inadmissible or unfounded applications or objections, the dismissal of an action for failure to act as inadmissible due to a lack of legal interest is the absolute exception.
- An abuse of rights would exist, for example, if the plaintiff, through his conduct, had created a legitimate expectation with the authority, and the authority, based on the circumstances, was justified in believing that the plaintiff no longer had an interest in pursuing legal action. However, no such legitimate expectation existed here.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
Legal references:
Schleswig-Holstein Higher Social Court, judgment of 28 April 2021 – L 9 SO 1/21 –
North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Social Court, decision of 9 May 2011 – L 7 AS 218/11 B –
6. Miscellaneous
6.1 – Hamburg Regional Court, Judgment of 16 October 2025 – 307 S 8/25 –
Topic:
Job center's right to reimbursement from landlord in cases of excessive rent
Decision:
The 7th Civil Chamber of the Hamburg Regional Court (Case No.: 307 S 8/25) ruled that a basic income support provider's claim for repayment of overpaid rent arises from Section 812 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Alternative 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with Section 138 Paragraph 1 of the BGB and Section 33 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if the transaction was contrary to public policy. This requires a striking disparity between performance and consideration, as well as other circumstances that indicate reprehensible intent on the part of the landlord.
If the agreed rent exceeds the local comparative rent by more than 100%, a striking disparity between performance and consideration is always present.
An incorrectly stated living area and the failure to properly assess the appropriateness of the rent further indicate reprehensible intent on the part of a commercial landlord, who must be familiar with local market conditions.
Source: Hamburg Justice Department
Note on citation style
Unpublished judgments or comments may only be quoted with attribution to the source:
- Source: Tacheles Case Law Ticker Week XX/2025 – Author: Detlef Brock
- Newsletter: Thomé Newsletter 12/2025 from April 6th, 2025 - Author: Harald Thomé
- License: Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0
Quotations without source attribution are a violation of copyright law.
Author: Detlef Brock, editor of Tacheles.
Source: Tacheles legal news ticker, week 8/2026
