Overview of case law
on basic income support, social assistance, asylum seekers' benefits law, citizen's allowance, and employment promotion law
Last updated: June 7, 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 03.06.2026 – B 7 AS 1/25 R
Legal question:
Can school-provided afternoon care programs also be considered appropriate learning support according to § 28 para. 5 SGB II?
Decision of the Federal Social Court (BSG):
Following a procedural instruction from the Senate, the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit.
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 03.06.2026 – B 7 AS 2/25 R
Legal question
: Are expenses for language courses considered needs for participation in social and cultural life in the community according to § 28 para. 7 sentence 1 SGB II?
Decision of the Federal Social Court (BSG)
: 1. Recipients of citizen's allowance are not entitled to reimbursement of the costs for afternoon school care in a private school according to § 28 para. 5 SGB II.
2. Job centers must also cover foreign language courses (§ 28 para. 7 SGB II).
Reasoning:
According to the Federal Social Court (BSG), Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), according to its wording, only covers offers of extracurricular learning support.
Learning support is intended to supplement primary school-based services, i.e., those offered by the school in its capacity as an educational institution. The afternoon care provided by the plaintiff's private school as part of a full-day school program is therefore structurally excluded from the scope of Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
A claim cannot be based on Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (additional needs in cases of hardship), because further needs to be covered by Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) are excluded in the context of learning support.
Section 28, paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) constitutes a more specific and therefore exhaustive regulation, as the explanatory memorandum to the law makes clear. The fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living, enshrined in Article 1, paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20, paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law (GG), does not require a different interpretation. A tuition-free state school system already provides a public service.
If individual support through learning assistance is nevertheless required and the school's offering as an educational provider is insufficient or entirely lacking, Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) applies as a secondary measure. Further needs to be covered under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the SGB II are therefore excluded in the context of learning assistance.
Fees for language courses can justify a need for participation according to § 28 para. 7 SGB II.
The regulation pursues the overarching goal of integrating children and young people into existing club and community structures and intensifying contact with peers in order to promote the experience of community, develop social competence and actively participate in shaping social life.
It encompasses all guided cultural education programs, not just in artistic subjects.
This also includes language courses.
Neither the fact that such courses serve the individual acquisition of knowledge, nor the fact that foreign languages are also taught in schools, excludes language courses from the scope of application of Section 28 Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGB II.
Source:
www.bsg.bund.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 08.05.2026 – L 1 AS 516/26 B ER, L 1 AS 517/26 ER
Topic
: Substantiating a claim for initial housing furnishings in expedited proceedings.
Decision:
No claim for initial apartment furnishings in expedited proceedings if the applicant refuses to cooperate in clarifying the facts.
Contrary to the lower court, the Social Court of Berlin, denies the applicant's claim for initial furnishing of the apartment has been substantiated, because the applicant did not allow an inspection of the apartment and refused to cooperate in clarifying the facts, which must be held against her, at least in the preliminary injunction proceedings.
Despite the explicit instruction that the "affidavit" contained no statements regarding the furnishings of the accommodation and the request to list the existing and non-existing furnishings, she merely made other statements.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.2 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 15.12.2025 – L 7 AS 1065/25 B ER / L 7 AS 1066/25 B
The issue is that
the job center bears the objective burden of proof for the adverse decision to withdraw or revoke benefits in cases of suspected cohabitation – which is unlawful in this case.
Decision:
Before issuing the revocation decision, the job center was obliged to conduct the necessary investigations into the income and assets to be taken into account and the resulting consequences for the need for assistance of the members of the household, for which it might have had to initiate proceedings against the partner pursuant to Section 60 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (see Federal Social Court, judgment of June 25, 2015 – B 14 AS 30/14 R).
Since the job center neither determined the partner's income or assets nor initiated a request for information against him pursuant to Section 60 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the contested revocation decision is unlawful, at least according to the summary review standard required in preliminary legal protection proceedings. Success of the action before the Gelsenkirchen Social Court (S 53 AS 1796/25) is highly probable.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.3 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 19.12.2025 – L 12 AS 2161/25
Topic
: Regarding the right to new clothing for himself and his daughters due to wear and tear and court appearances.
Decision:
High-quality clothing for court appearances must be financed by recipients of citizen's income from their standard benefits.
A special need according to § 24 para. 3 sentence 1 no. 2 SGB II is excluded because it is not an initial outfitting for clothing.
In addition to the events explicitly mentioned in the legal regulations (pregnancy, childbirth), initial clothing provision may be considered in exceptional circumstances, such as after imprisonment, in cases of homelessness, significant weight fluctuations, or exceptional growth. The decisive factor is the emergence of an initial need for clothing due to these special circumstances.
In contrast, the costs for the ongoing purchase and maintenance of clothing are covered by the standard benefit.
No such special circumstances exist here. Insofar as the plaintiffs are requesting the replacement of their existing clothing with new, high-quality clothing, for example for court appearances, this does not constitute a special need that deviates significantly from the average need, but rather costs for the ongoing purchase, replacement, and maintenance of clothing, which must be covered by the standard benefit.
No entitlement to benefits for integration into work.
There is also no entitlement to reimbursement of the costs for new clothing within the framework of benefits for integration into work, in particular according to § 16f para. 1 sentence 1 SGB II.
Because there is no connection whatsoever between the coveted clothing – especially with regard to the appearances in court cited by the father and with regard to the two daughters, who are each pursuing studies – and a possible integration into employment.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.4 – LSG Schleswig-Holstein, decision of 30.04.2026 – L 3 AS 91/26 B ER
Topic:
Simply denying the existence of a community of mutual support and responsibility is not sufficient to refute the presumption.
Guiding principles
- The presumption of a community of responsibility and mutual support under Section 7 Paragraph 3a No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not refuted simply by asserting a strict equal division of costs. The longer the cohabitation lasts, the greater the requirements for refutation become.
- According to Section 60 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the partner of a person receiving benefits is obligated to provide substantive information regarding the origin of significant inflows of funds into their account (however, there is no obligation to submit supporting documents), insofar as this is necessary for the provision of benefits. If they definitively refuse to do so, this constitutes a qualified refusal to cooperate, which entitles the benefits agency to make a decision based on the existing file.
- If, due to the partner's refusal to cooperate, significant uncertainties remain regarding their income and assets, these are to the detriment of the applicant according to the principle of proximity of the burden of proof, regardless of whether they have legal influence over the partner.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Comment by Detlef Brock:
Hammer decision on the question of whether the job center may demand bank statements from the partner due to high cash deposits into their account when a household is suspected to be in need.
The origin of cash deposits from unknown third parties into a private account is structurally inaccessible to official investigation by the job center.
There is currently no legal basis for this.
The Federal Social Court has left this question open to this day.
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support / citizen's allowance
3.1 – SG Leipzig
Topic:
No obligation to search for an apartment without gaps.
Decision:
The Leipzig Social Court strengthens the rights of recipients of citizen's allowance who are housed in emergency shelters or communal accommodations.
The four chambers of the Leipzig Social Court have ruled in four preliminary injunction proceedings that the fees charged by the city of Leipzig for the use of communal accommodations must, as a rule, be covered by the Leipzig Job Center in their actual amount as part of the benefits for securing subsistence under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
In the court's view, there is no obligation to search for accommodation. A deviation from the standard procedure does not occur simply because the benefit recipient cannot demonstrate a continuous, active search for accommodation.
Atypical cases:
According to the 7th Chamber, costs do not have to be fully covered only in exceptional cases, for example, if the beneficiary refuses to accept a reasonable housing offer without justification.
Key message:
If the official concept for determining the appropriateness of housing costs according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) stipulates that, as a rule, the actual costs are to be recognized in the case of so-called irregular accommodation (for example, in communal accommodation), a deviation from the rule does not exist simply because no continuous active search for housing has been proven.
decisions
- Social Court Leipzig, decision of 03.11.2025 – S 15 AS 1165/25 ER
- Social Court Leipzig, decision of 16.02.2026 – S 19 AS 187/26 ER
- Social Court Leipzig, decision of 24.03.2026 – S 7 AS 402/26 ER
- Social Court Leipzig, decision of 30.03.2026 – S 28 AS 295/26 ER
Source:
Press release from SG Leipzig
3.2 – SG Karlsruhe, Judgment of 11.04.2024 – S 3 AS 1443/23
income
violate their duty to cooperate if they fail to submit a health questionnaire and a medical confidentiality waiver to the job center to clarify their ability to work?
Decision:
If a health questionnaire and a medical confidentiality waiver are not submitted, the job center may refuse benefits under Section 66 SGB I by up to 30%, whereby it must exercise discretion.
A benefit recipient may violate their duty to cooperate if they fail to submit a health questionnaire and a medical confidentiality waiver to the job center.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 – None available
5. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 25.06.2025 – L 7 SO 1343/25 ER-B
Issue
of granting standard benefits only up to 80% of the standard needs for single persons in cases of unclear assets within the community of heirs.
A 53 m² apartment, occupied by the owner and inherited from the estate of the community of heirs, is considered protected assets.
The realization of a share in an inheritance community can constitute a particular hardship according to § 90 para. 3 SGB XII.
Decision:
The lower court, the Social Court of Konstanz (case no. S 3 SO 496/25 ER), granted the plaintiff only 80% of the standard benefit rate for single persons due to unresolved assets within the community of heirs. The assets to be considered under Sections 90 and 91 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), are currently unresolved and cannot be fully clarified within the timeframe required for the expedited court proceedings.
The social welfare office's appeal to the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court was unsuccessful, as the applicant currently has no assets that can be used.
It should be noted that the estate includes the 53 m² apartment occupied by the applicant, which should generally be protected from liquidation pursuant to Section 90 Paragraph 2 No. 8 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). There is no doubt as to the appropriateness of the apartment, given its size of 53 m², for a single-person household.
Since the applicant's share of the entire estate is roughly equivalent in value to the apartment she occupies, the realization of which should not be required under Section 90 Paragraph 2 No. 8 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), there is much to suggest that her share of co-ownership in the estate should be treated as protected assets, or at least that the realization of her share in the community of heirs could constitute a particular hardship under Section 90 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5.2 – SG Konstanz, Judgment of 16 December 2025 – S 6 SO 435/22
Donations
can jeopardize eligibility for integration assistance – no granting of renovation subsidies for donations from friends and third parties such as associations.
Decision:
Donations can be considered as assets when calculating integration assistance benefits, thereby reducing or excluding entitlement to benefits.
This applies at least if the funds can be used to cover the same need for which the social benefit is being requested.
Donations must be used for apartment renovations. Funds managed by an association and only paid out conditionally, on the other hand, were not considered immediately available assets.
Source
https://anwaltauskunft.de
6. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
6.1 – Social Court Magdeburg, decision of 04.06.2026 – S 25 AY 65/26 ER
Subject
: Granting of the standard benefit level 1.
Decision
to grant benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at the standard benefit level 1.
Source:
anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
6.2 – Stuttgart Social Court, decision of 06.05.2026 – S 9 AY 678/26 ER
opinion
that there is no legal basis for standard benefit level 1.
Act
(AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1. The court is convinced that the entitlement arises from the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of October 19, 2022 (Case No. 1 BvL 3/21).
Source:
anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
6.3 – Stuttgart Social Court, decision of 06.05.2026 – S 9 AY 855/26 ER
Topic:
Granting of standard benefit level 1.
Decision
: See Stuttgart Social Court, decision of 06.05.2026 – S 9 AY 678/26 ER.
Source:
anwaltskanzlei-adam.de
6.4 – ECJ, Judgment of 4 June 2026 – C-621/24
The issue of
benefit cuts in Germany for rejected asylum seekers violates EU law.
Decision:
The European Court of Justice has ruled that restrictions on benefits for asylum seekers in so-called Dublin cases must not lead to a reduction in the required minimum standard of living.
ECJ: Clothing and cash benefits indispensable.
The Luxembourg court ruled in favor of an Afghan national. The judges clarified that both clothing and cash benefits are essential for an adequate standard of living within the meaning of the Reception Directive.
Without clothing and financial assistance, daily needs cannot be met. Clothing, along with shelter, food, and personal hygiene, is among the most basic necessities.
Furthermore, cash benefits to cover daily needs are essential to enable the affected individuals to maintain a minimum level of self-determination. These benefits allow them to purchase additional everyday necessities and household goods beyond accommodation, food, and clothing.
Furthermore, this ensures a minimum level of participation in social and cultural life. Financial benefits thus contribute to securing the applicant's livelihood and protecting their physical and mental health.
Impact on German law:
The German benefit reduction regulation, which was the specific subject of the Court of Justice, was further tightened in 2024. According to Section 1 Paragraph 4 No. 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (formerly Section 1a Paragraph 7 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act), benefits can now be completely excluded after it has been determined that another Member State is responsible for an asylum seeker and that the seeker must leave the country.
Even after the CEAS reform, the minimum standard remains mandatory.
The ECJ ruling refers to the Reception Directive 2013/33/EU. However, from 12 June 2026, the new Reception Directive (EU) 2024/1346 will apply as part of the reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS).
The new directive also continues to require the guarantee of an adequate standard of living in accordance with EU law. This includes, in particular, compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Source:
www.lto.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 information are not permitted.
