Overview of case law
on basic income support, social assistance, asylum seekers' benefits law, citizen's allowance, and employment promotion law
Last updated: March 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, decision of 12.01.2026 – L 2 AS 1/26 ER-B –
Subject:
On the existence of a community of need in the case of an applicant under 25 years of age who lives together with her parents in a household (§ 7 para. 3 no. 2 SGB II).
Decision:
The Senate is of the opinion that the applicant forms a household community with her parents pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 3 No. 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
For a household community to be considered "sharing finances," a shared bank account is not the sole determining factor; other circumstances must also be considered, such as joint purchasing and consumption of everyday necessities and the shared use of household furnishings.
The Senate is of the opinion that the applicant lives in a shared household with her parents.
Key finding:
The court assumes the existence of a household community pursuant to Section 7 Paragraph 3 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Therefore, pursuant to Section 9 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the SGB II, the income and assets of the applicant's parents must be taken into account.
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.2 – LSG NRW, decision of 05.03.2026 – L 7 AS 143/26 B ER –
Subject:
The applicant, who is pursuing full-time university studies, is subject to the exclusion from benefits stipulated in Section 7 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
She is not entitled to basic income support under the SGB II due to enrollment in an eligible university course of study because the maximum funding period has been exceeded.
Decision:
The court concludes that the full-time student is enrolled at a German university and is excluded from citizen's income and that the conditions for an exception are not met (§ 7 para. 6 number 2 SGB II).
The fact that she ultimately receives no BAföG benefits due to exceeding the maximum funding period according to § 15a BAföG is irrelevant.
Key message:
- It is consistent with the established case law of the relevant specialist senates of the Federal Social Court that the decisive factor for the question of whether the exclusion of benefits applies is the specific training and its abstract eligibility for funding.
- Individual reasons for failure in the context of educational support are generally disregarded (cf. most recently BSG of 06.06.2023 – B 4 AS 86/21 R – ).
- No constitutional concerns regarding the exclusion of benefits (cf. Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 08.10.2014 – 1 BvR 886/11 –; most recently also Federal Social Court, judgment of 12.03.2025 – B 7 AS 5/24 R – ).
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Legal note:
Federal Social Court (BSG) judgment of June 21, 2023 – B 7 AS 11/22 R
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support / citizen's allowance
2.1 – SG Darmstadt, judgment of 26.01.2024 – S 1 AS 32/23 – confirmed by LSG Hessen, judgment of 04.03.2026 – L 6 AS 76/24 –
Subject:
Must the job center cover the costs of renting a garage because there is insufficient parking in the plaintiff's city?
Decision:
The First Chamber denies the claim because the plaintiff's rental agreement does not include any costs for garage rental.
Neither Section 22 Paragraph 1 nor Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) applies in this case.
Furthermore, the applicant's claim was inadmissible, as a separate claim for expenses related to renting a garage is already impermissible. The Higher Social Court of Hesse upheld the legal opinion of the Social Court of Darmstadt.
Key message:
- The granting of expenses for renting a garage cannot be the subject of separate legal proceedings, as the regulations governing ongoing benefits to secure subsistence (with the exception of costs for accommodation and heating) cannot be legally divided into further matters of dispute (see Federal Social Court, judgment of May 26, 2011 – B 14 AS 146/10 R).
A separate claim for expenses for renting a garage is therefore inadmissible. - Furthermore, the plaintiff lacks standing to sue.
He neither claims to have rented a garage nor specifies the amount of the garage rental costs. The plaintiff also fails to demonstrate any connection between his current tenancy and a garage (presumably yet to be rented).
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
3. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Saxony, Judgment of 26.02.2026 – L 3 AL 53/24 –
Subject:
Section 83 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), which states that benefits can be paid directly to the provider of the measure insofar as costs are incurred directly by the provider, contains a third-party benefit provision.
Decision:
The Senate is of the opinion that the plaintiff's rights were not violated.
A participant in a training course is not, under any legal aspect, violated or even affected in their own rights by the setting of course fees payable to the training provider, provided that the amount of the set course fees corresponds to the amount of course fees invoiced by the training provider.
Key message:
- A participant in a training course, in this case the plaintiff, is not infringed upon or even affected in any legal respect by the determination of course fees payable to the course provider if – as in the present case – the amount of the determined course fees corresponds to the amount of the course fees invoiced by the course provider.
- In such a case, the participant in the measure does not have to face the risk of being held liable by the measure provider for part of the course costs that are not covered by the Federal Employment Agency.
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 29.01.2026 – L 2 SO 4027/25 ER-B –
Topic:
Disabled people do not receive unlimited reimbursement from the social welfare office for disability-related additional costs for a holiday trip
Decision:
- The court confirms that benefits for participation in community life can also include the additional costs for a holiday trip due to disability, if the expenses for the trip are reasonable compared to the expenses of an "average citizen" for holiday trips.
- However, this is not the case for a three-week flight to Japan, which costs approximately €4,000 for a non-disabled person and €50,000 in additional costs for assistance staff due to disability.
Key messages:
- The assumption of necessary additional costs due to disability for appropriate leisure activities of the disabled person can also be part of the integration assistance benefit, i.e. those costs that arise due to the nature and severity of the disability and that are necessary and suitable if they are required to achieve the participation goal (with reference to BSG, judgment of 19.05.2022 – B 8 SO 13/20 R – and judgment of 11.09.2020 – B 8 SO 22/18 R – ).
- The lower court of the Social Court of Konstanz and the Higher Social Court are convinced that the planned trip to Japan is not appropriate within the meaning of Section 104 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book IX.
- The right of the person concerned to express their wishes is limited by Section 9 Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), according to which the social assistance provider should generally not comply with wishes whose fulfillment would involve disproportionate additional costs.
- This regulation also reflects the principle of efficiency and economy (see BSG, judgment of 19.05.2022 – B 8 SO 13/20 R referring to BSG, judgment of 11.09.2020 – B 8 SO 22/18 R – ).
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Legal notice:
Federal Social Court (BSG) judgment of January 28, 2021 – B 8 SO 9/19 R
5. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – SG Freiburg, decision of 18.03.2026 – S 7 AY 1413/24 –
Topic:
Cost decision in an action for failure to act
Decision:
The chamber ordered the authority to reimburse the plaintiff's necessary extrajudicial costs.
Key messages:
- The action for failure to act was also not inadmissible on the grounds of lack of legal interest or abuse of rights, because anyone who files an objection is entitled to a decision on their objection and – even if it would be sensible and efficient – is not legally obliged to agree to a stay of proceedings pending expected decisions by the highest court on the disputed legal issue (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 24 April 2025, file no. 1 BvR 1902/24).
- The plaintiff was also not obligated to consult with the defendant regarding the status of the case or to clarify that he sought a decision as soon as possible before filing the action for failure to act. Generally, such a "preliminary warning" is not required before filing an action for failure to act (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of February 8, 2023, case no. 1 BvR 311/22).
Source: Attorney Sven Adam
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.
