Overview of case law
– basic income support, social assistance, Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act and citizen's income –
Last updated: March 15, 2026
Editor: Detlef Brock
Publisher: Tacheles Legal News Ticker
1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
1.1 – BSG, judgment of 03/12/2026 – B 4 AS 8/25 R
Legal question
regarding the deductibility of tuition fees for attending a private vocational school as a necessary expense related to income generation within the meaning of Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), from the educational assistance benefits to be considered as income.
Decision:
Clear statement from the 4th Senate of the Federal Social Court: Private school fees are not deductible from income.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) emphasizes that trainees at private, fee-based vocational schools who receive supplementary unemployment benefit II in addition to benefits under the Federal Training Assistance Act (BAföG) cannot deduct school fees incurred from this income.
Tuition fees paid for attending a private educational institution are not a necessary expense related to generating income within the meaning of Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Therefore, they do not increase the entitlement to benefits from the job centers.
If students choose to attend a private school that charges tuition, they must therefore bear the associated additional costs themselves.
Source:
Press release from the Federal Social Court (BSG) dated March 13, 2026
www.bsg.bund.de
1.2 – BSG, judgment of 03/12/2026 – B 4 AS 16/25 R
Legal question
regarding the deductibility of tuition fees for attending a private vocational school as a necessary expense related to income generation within the meaning of Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), from the educational assistance benefits to be considered as income.
Decision
In case B 4 AS 16/25 R, the plaintiffs withdrew their claims after the decision in the present case.
1.3 – BSG, judgment of 03/12/2026 – B 4 AS 24/24 R
Legal question:
Is a waiver of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), declared by a self-employed person due to an expected increase in income, or a partial withdrawal of an application, irrelevant if this is intended to shorten the benefit period stipulated in the preliminary benefit award in order to control the consideration of income in the benefit calculation?
Decision:
Benefit recipients are not authorized to interfere with the legal situation by withdrawing or restricting their application.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) has ruled that the job center was entitled to demand the submission of a declaration of income from self-employment with complete information.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) leaves open the question of whether the plaintiff's corresponding declaration constitutes a partial withdrawal of his benefit application or a waiver within the meaning of Section 46 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I).
However, the BSG emphasizes:
Neither a withdrawal of the application nor a waiver will change the approval period over which the income from self-employment is to be distributed.
The application process has legal consequences regarding benefits, without granting the potentially eligible recipient any options for shaping the process.
Source:
Report on the Federal Social Court's (BSG) hearing of March 13, 2026
Note by Detlef Brock:
The need for assistance should not be created solely through a legal disposition by the applicant, at least if, with the application as a "door opener", he has already internally entered into the regime of the SGB II and income is received after the start date of benefits determined by him, according to the jurisprudence of the Fourth Senate of the BSG (cf. BSG of 24.04.2015 – B 4 AS 22/14 R).
1.4 – BSG, judgment of 03/12/2026 – B 4 AS 26/24 R
Legal question
regarding the consideration of one-off municipal energy cost subsidies (here: resident energy money – EEG – of the city of Kassel to mitigate financial burdens due to increased energy supply costs during the winter half-year 2022/2023) as income pursuant to Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II.
The decision
that the city of Kassel's resident energy allowance is eligible income.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) ruled that the residents' energy allowance from the city of Kassel constituted assessable income. It was to be considered as a one-time payment. The payments reduced the need for assistance of all six plaintiffs in the following month.
A preferential treatment of income according to § 11a para. 3 sentence 1 SGB II is already ruled out due to the identity of purpose.
The residents' energy allowance was intended to mitigate the financial burden on the residents of Kassel caused by the increased costs of energy supply during the winter half-year 2022/2023.
The costs of energy supply, such as heating costs or household energy costs, are also included in the benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
The payments of the resident energy allowance are also not benefits that another party has provided to the plaintiffs without a legal or moral obligation within the meaning of Section 11a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
The city of Kassel was legally obligated to pay the requested resident energy allowance to the plaintiffs. Since Section 11a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is contingent on another party "providing" a benefit, the relevant point in time for assessing whether the city had a legal or moral obligation to pay the resident energy allowance cannot be either the resolution of the city council or the enactment of the funding guidelines.
Source:
Report on the Federal Social Court's (BSG) hearing of March 13, 2026
1.5 BSG, judgment of 03/12/2026 – B 8 SUN 8/24 R
Legal question
: Regarding the consideration of the wish of spouses to be buried side by side, within the framework of the examination of the necessity of funeral costs according to § 74 SGB XII.
The decision
regarding the costs of a family grave is a necessary funeral expense – the social welfare office must take into account the grave wishes of married couples.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) in Kassel has ruled that costs for a family grave are funeral expenses according to § 74 SGB XII.
The wish of married couples to be buried side by side is, in principle, justifiable because marriage enjoys constitutional protection under Article 6 of the Basic Law even after the death of one spouse. Nevertheless, the case was remanded to the Higher Social Court.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) explicitly emphasizes that reservation costs are not funeral costs.
However, the request should only be considered if it appears genuinely feasible and the resulting additional costs are not disproportionate. This is the case here.
The wish appears feasible because the costs for the plaintiff's future burial site, which are not part of the husband's funeral expenses, have already been paid.
Although the costs for the husband's grave are higher than for a single grave, the additional costs are not disproportionate in individual cases.
However, the State Social Court left open the question of the heir status after the deceased husband.
Such findings are necessary because, when assessing the unreasonableness of bearing the costs, it must be taken into account whether the incurred costs can be easily enforced against a prior-ranking heir.
Source:
Report of the Federal Social Court (BSG) dated March 13, 2026
2. Decisions of the state social courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (citizen's allowance)
2.1 – LSG Saxony, Judgment of 18.12.2025 – L 3 AS 745/21
Topic:
Unavoidable expenses for maintenance and repair of owner-occupied residential property – Section 22 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 SGB II – Assumption of higher costs for paving or securing the yard.
Decision:
The court concluded that the plaintiff was only entitled to reimbursement of €2,293.83 for maintenance and repair costs (yard repairs). The remainder of the claim was dismissed. The plaintiff had refused to take out a loan to cover the difference between the cost of the alternative and the most economical option for paving the yard.
Key messages
- The decisive factor for the claim under Section 22 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is not the physical need, in this case the paving of the yard, but rather the associated financial expenditure. Only the financial expenditure is to be covered by a job center in accordance with the statutory provisions.
- There is no legal interest in an appeal if a plaintiff who claims a higher need for maintenance and repair than that granted to him by the social court does not explain how he intends to cover the difference (here approximately 70% to 75% of the costs).
- There is no legitimate interest in being awarded benefits by a court decision when the legislative purpose associated with the legal basis for the claim – in this case, maintenance and repair of owner-occupied residential property pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) – cannot be achieved.
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Legal
note: Contrary opinion: Social Court Magdeburg, file no. S 16 SO 70/16.
Costs for paving the courtyard are not costs to be covered by the basic income support provider, because these costs are not costs necessary for living in or inhabiting a house.
2.2 – LSG NRW, judgment of November 20, 2025 – L 6 AS 976/24
Topic:
Exclusion from benefits for students in full-time studies.
Decision:
The court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is excluded from citizen's allowance (§ 7 para. 5 SGB II).
A fully enrolled, full-time master's student is not entitled to basic income support benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). The exclusion under Section 7 Paragraph 5 of the SGB II is constitutional.
Key messages
- Attendance at a training institution exists as long as a trainee is legally affiliated with such an institution and is actually pursuing their training there. In the case of higher education, the trainee establishes their affiliation with the university through matriculation. Matriculation thus constitutes rebuttable evidence of attendance or actual study.
- Exceeding the maximum funding period is only a so-called individual reason for refusal, which does not fundamentally affect eligibility for funding.
- The fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living (Art. 1 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 20 para. 1 GG) is also not violated.
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Case law references
Court (BSG), judgments of 22 March 2012 – B 4 AS 102/11 R – and of 2 December 2014 – B 14 AS 261/14 B –
Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of 6 June 2023 – B 4 AS 86/21 R –
Note by Detlef Brock:
The Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court (LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen) has ruled that enrolled students are excluded from receiving citizen's income even if they are not studying (LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, judgment of 27.01.2026 – L 11 AS 56/24 –).
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support / citizen's allowance
3.1 – None available
4. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 – None available
5. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – LSG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Judgment of 27.11.2025 – L 9 SO 58/23 –
Subject:
Entitlement to reimbursement of costs for the purchase of a motor vehicle as integration assistance
Decision:
The court is of the opinion that the severely disabled person is entitled to social participation by way of motor vehicle assistance.
The social welfare office must cover the costs of a suitable, i.e., sufficiently large, motor vehicle for the permanent participation in community life of a severely disabled person with the recognized disability markers B, G, aG, H and a determined care level 5, who is changed seven times a day due to incontinence, within the framework of integration assistance.
Key messages:
- Benefits for social participation also include motor vehicle assistance, §§ 102 para. 1 no. 4 SGB IX, 113 para. 2 no. 7 SGB IX. This mobility benefit is provided to those entitled to benefits under § 2 SGB IX for whom the use of public transport is unreasonable due to the nature and severity of their disability, § 83 para. 2 sentence 1 SGB IX.
- According to Section 83 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), the prerequisite is that the beneficiaries are able to drive the motor vehicle or that it is ensured that a third party drives the motor vehicle for them and that services for transport according to Paragraph 1 No. 1 (in particular a transport service) are not reasonable or economical.
- The necessary additional equipment is also included according to § 83 para. 3 SGB IX, whereby the assessment of benefits is based on the Motor Vehicle Assistance Ordinance (KfzHV), of which §§ 6 and 8 do not apply (cf. § 114 no. 2 SGB IX).
- Excursions such as visiting the zoo, ice cream parlor, friends, or swimming are age-appropriate and typical destinations for social integration. Part of community life also includes visiting family members, relatives, friends, and acquaintances. People with disabilities should not be excluded from the activities of their non-disabled peers, who not only receive relatives and friends at home but also visit them regularly.
- The Federal Social Court (BSG) has clarified that "dependence" does not require a time limit in the sense that the disabled person must be dependent on the motor vehicle on a daily basis.
- The mobility needs cannot be met in a reasonable manner by public transport, because the fecal and urinary incontinence with the associated regular need for diaper changes precludes the use of public transport (cf. already the Senate's judgment of 26.09.2024 – L 9 SO 28/20 –).
Case law references:
Court (BSG), judgment of 12 December 2014 – B 9 SO 18/12 R –
Higher Social Court (LSG) Baden-Württemberg, judgment of 17 April 2019 – L 2 SO 2287/18 –
6. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
6.1 – SG Magdeburg, decision of 27.02.2026 – S 31 AY 33/26 ER –
Topic:
Granting of higher benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), in particular the granting of benefits according to standard benefit level 1.
Decision:
The chamber grants the provisional benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at the standard benefit level 1.
Key message:
- The Chamber has come to the conclusion that the consideration of the Federal Constitutional Court of 19 October 2022 – 1 BvL 3/21 – must also be applied to the parallel provisions for beneficiaries in collective accommodations pursuant to Section 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), since it is highly probable that Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2b AsylbLG or Section 3a Paragraph 2 No. 2b AsylbLG are also unconstitutional.
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
6.2 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 05.02.2026 – L 7 AY 5/26 ER-B –
Subject:
Temporary assumption of ongoing health and long-term care insurance contributions
Decision:
The State Social Court concludes that the appeal is unfounded, because the Social Court correctly rejected the application for preliminary legal protection with the aim of covering the ongoing contributions to health and long-term care insurance as well as the contribution debts.
Regarding the assumption of the contribution burden for the so-called mandatory follow-up insurance pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) as a supplementary benefit, no grounds for an injunction have been credibly demonstrated. The mere accumulation of contribution arrears does not, in itself, lead to the conclusion that awaiting the main proceedings would be unreasonable. There is no urgent need within the meaning of grounds for an injunction.
Key statement:
A claim under Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for the granting of other benefits that are essential in individual cases to secure the livelihood, which should not seem far-fetched in the case of contributions to the mandatory follow-up insurance, is conceivable (cf. Senate decision of 05.08.2025 – L 7 AY 1344/25 ER-B –).
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
6.3 – SG Karlsruhe, decision of 11.02.2026 – S 12 AY 434/26 ER –
Subject:
Passport procurement costs according to § 73 SGB XII – Notification § 18 SGB XII
Decision:
The 12th Chamber denies the issuance of a preliminary injunction, because the applicant has neither demonstrated a claim to an injunction nor an urgent need for action with regard to the allegedly incurred credit obligations to finance the unsuccessful passport procurement.
Key messages:
- Under current law, the applicant cannot claim a subsidy for his loan liabilities because the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act does not serve to secure the claims of third-party creditors, but rather to ensure the livelihood of asylum seekers.
- The applicant is not entitled to reimbursement of the passport procurement costs he claimed in the amount of 147.73 euros pursuant to Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
- The court leaves open the question of whether the requirements of Section 73 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) are met.
In any case, a claim for reimbursement of costs fails due to Section 18 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). Here, the applicant only subsequently asserts a special, one-off need for assistance, which was not known to the respondent before its occurrence, nor should have been known to them.
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
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.
