Overview of case law
on basic income support, social assistance, asylum seekers' benefits law, citizen's allowance, and employment promotion law
Last updated: May 24, 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)
1.3 – LSG Hessen, Judgment of 22.04.2026 – L 6 AS 167/24 –
Topic:
Additional needs allowance for single parents even if the husband has a severe physical disability and care level 4?
No entitlement to additional needs allowance for single parents in the case of a person in need of assistance who lives in a household with her minor children and her severely disabled husband.
Guiding principles:
The situation of a caregiver receiving benefits differs from that of a single parent if the spouse, despite their health limitations, can participate in raising the child and the spouse's income is available as financial relief, which precisely compensates for the additional needs that single parents typically have to meet due to managing the household alone.
Legal note:
Opinion: Social Court Ulm, judgment of 14 July 2010 – S 8 AS 3142/09 –
1.4 – LSG Saxony, Judgment of 20.04.2026 – L 7 AS 98/22 –
Subject:
Withdrawal of benefits after denial of benefits by another agency (here: pension insurance) – proper notification of legal consequences – necessity of a discretionary decision by the job center
Guiding principles:
- Proper notification of the legal consequences of withdrawing benefits to secure subsistence after the refusal of benefits from another provider is not provided if it suggests that the SGB II benefit provider has no discretion in the matter.
- The withdrawal of benefits to secure subsistence after the refusal of benefits from another provider requires a discretionary decision (selection discretion) with regard to the extent of the withdrawal, taking into account the right to benefit reductions as well as the subsistence-securing nature of the benefits.
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock:
The Jobcenter's withdrawal notice is unlawful because, firstly, not all withdrawal requirements according to § 5 para. 3 sentence 3 SGB II were met, and secondly, the notice suffers from a complete lack of discretion.
Especially with regard to the amount of the withdrawal (or refusal), the SGB II benefit providers must take into account all circumstances of the specific individual case.
In such a discretionary decision, the so-called sanction decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 05.11.2019 – 1 BvL 7/16 – must also be taken into account.
1.5 – LSG Saxony, Judgment of 20.04.2026 – L 7 AS 10/24 –
Subject:
On the voluntary donation in the form of school fees for attendance at a state-approved private school by a grandfather to his grandchild
Decision:
Monthly voluntary contributions from the grandfather for his child's attendance at a Waldorf school do not constitute income to be considered. The job center, however, is demanding a change of school, thereby demonstrating, in the opinion of the 7th Senate, a significant lack of legal knowledge regarding the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Guiding principles:
In individual cases, voluntary contributions in the form of school fees for attending a state-approved substitute school by a grandfather to his grandchild are exempt from being considered as income under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), due to gross unfairness, especially if otherwise a change of school would be forced shortly before the completion of secondary school.
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock:
A remarkable decision by the Saxony State Social Court and clear words against the job center, which held the completely unfounded view that the citizen's allowance was a tax-financed benefit and therefore moving was the better solution.
The job center completely misunderstands the effect of Section 11a Paragraph 5 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which refers to the failure to achieve the intended purpose of an objectively defined grant and not to the tax-financeability of benefits to secure subsistence.
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support / citizen's allowance
2.1 – SG Freiburg, Judgment of 17.02.2026 – S 15 AS 2542/25 –
Topics:
Formal invalidity of a lodged objection – Job center's duty to provide information
Claim against an heir by administrative act in the form of a "liability notice"
Guiding principles:
- If an objector is not immediately informed by the authority of the formal invalidity of his objection – here raised by simple email – and is thereby deprived of the opportunity to raise a formally correct objection within the current objection period, he is generally entitled to reinstatement to his previous status.
- The German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), does not contain a legal basis for holding an heir liable by administrative act in the form of a "liability notice". Instead, the basic income support provider has the general enforcement procedure at its disposal to enforce a legally established claim for reimbursement as a liability of the estate.
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Legal note:
In such cases, the job center is not authorized to determine the heirship status of surviving relatives and the enforceability of an estate debt by means of a "liability notice" (see also LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of 12.12.2017 – L 7/12 AL 27/16 –).
3. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, Judgment of 28.11.2025 – L 7 AL 3/23 –
Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court (BSG), file number: B 11 AL 5/25 R
Subject:
Exclusion of parental income from consideration when the child's whereabouts are unknown – Application of the principles established by the Federal Social Court (BSG) regarding when a child does not know the whereabouts of their parents pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the Federal Child Benefit Act 1996 (BKGG 1996) – Obligation of the applicant to cooperate
Decision:
The 7th Senate establishes a clear principle and allows the appeal.
An abuse of rights by deliberately concealing the whereabouts of the parents, according to the principles developed by the Federal Social Court (BSG) regarding when a child is unaware of the whereabouts of their parents within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the Federal Child Benefit Act 1996 (BSG, Judgment of December 14, 2023 – B 10 KG 1/22 R –), exists if the trainee, when calculating income for vocational training assistance pursuant to Section 67 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), claims that the whereabouts of a parent are unknown, even though they were apparently able to contact the parent easily and quickly via Facebook in the past for the purpose of renting an apartment.
Guiding principles:
A child is considered to be abusing the opportunity to avoid knowing the whereabouts of its parents if it fails to use a readily available and obvious means of obtaining this information, which requires neither special costs nor special effort and whose use can therefore be expected, in particular, of a child searching for its parents.
This includes the use of modern and almost universally available communication options, especially mobile telephony and the internet, also with the help of third parties such as family members or friends.
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 17 November 2025 – L 7 SO 1162/25 –
Subject:
School transport costs for the son's attendance at a Free Evangelical School (§ 28 para. 4 SGB II)
Decision:
No student transportation costs for attending a substitute school.
Guiding principles:
A primary school that is recognized as a substitute school under independent sponsorship as an Evangelical denominational school does not constitute the nearest school of the chosen educational program within the meaning of Section 28 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), if it was chosen not on the basis of its profile in terms of a special content-related or organizational design of the lessons, but because of the Christian-biblical concept that exists alongside the lessons.
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4.2 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 15.12.2025 – L 15 SO 61/25 B ER –
Subject:
Applicant claims a "nest egg" of €13,500 in expedited proceedings to settle debts
Decision:
The lower court, the Social Court of Oldenburg, as well as the 15th Senate, ruled that neither grounds for an order nor a claim to an order had been substantiated.
There is simply no legal basis under social law for the disbursement of an "emergency fund".
Therefore, no claim for an injunction is apparent. Likewise, no grounds for an injunction exist, since the applicant is not claiming an immediate emergency, but rather wishes to set aside funds for future expenses or use them to pay off debts.
Source:
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 15 April 2026 – 1 BvL 5/21 –
Subject:
Basic benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act in the period from 01.09.2018 to 20.08.2019 are essentially compatible with the Basic Law.
Guiding principles:
- The objective obligation under Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law to guarantee a dignified minimum standard of living corresponds to an entitlement to receive material support in cases of need. This entitlement extends to those resources that are absolutely necessary to maintain a life of human dignity (following BVerfGE 163, 254).
- a) In fulfilling its obligation to guarantee a dignified minimum standard of living, the legislature has a margin of discretion in assessment, evaluation, and design, which extends in particular to the type and amount of benefits. This margin of discretion is narrower insofar as the legislature specifies what is necessary to secure a person's physical existence, and broader insofar as it concerns the type and extent of opportunities for participation in social life.
b) Within this margin of discretion, the legislature may also make value judgments regarding needs, provided these are comprehensible and not unreasonable. Legislative judgments may also be linked to a short period of residence associated with residency status, if this can be plausibly justified. - When designing benefits to guarantee a dignified minimum standard of living, legislators must assess the corresponding needs of those requiring assistance in a timely and realistic manner. The considerable discretion afforded to legislators in calculating subsistence-level benefits necessitates keeping the calculation criteria up-to-date to prevent the security of subsistence from being jeopardized by interim changes.
Source:
bundesverfassungsgericht.de
6. Miscellaneous
6.1 – Note and comment on 1.3 LSG Schleswig-Holstein, decision of 11.05.2026 – L 6 AS 175/25 B ER, L 6 AS 212/25 B PKH –
Topic:
Citizen's benefit recipient in Kiel wins higher accommodation costs, as the current rent ceiling of the state capital Kiel for 1-person households is likely too low.
Published in the latest case law ticker.
Note:
I made a mistake here:
I recommend that all single-person households in Kiel who have only been granted reasonable housing costs of €474.50 by the job center file an objection to their decision or submit a review application pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), because the current rent ceiling of the state capital Kiel for single-person households is likely to be too low.
According to the 6th Senate of the Schleswig-Holstein State Social Court, the actual reasonable rent is €502.50. That is €28 more per month.
Note:
The last legal news ticker mistakenly stated the amounts of €574.50 and €602.50. The correct amounts are €474.50 and €502.50.
We wish all our readers a happy Pentecost!
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 information are not permitted.
