Overview of case law
on basic income support, social assistance, asylum seekers' benefits law, citizen's allowance, and employment promotion law
Last updated: June 14, 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 Lower Saxony-Bremen, Judgment of 10.09.2025 – L 6 AS 614/24 –
Regarding
COVID-19 needs – masks are generally eligible for additional support under the law governing basic income support for job seekers according to § 21 para. 6 SGB II.
Decision:
In principle, it is incompatible with the nature of the additional needs allowance under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as a benefit for special needs situations in individual cases, to use flat rates instead of determining the actual additional needs allowance (Federal Social Court, Judgment of December 17, 2024 – B 7 AS 17/23 R).
If the plaintiff only makes flat-rate claims (“at least 30 euros per month”), which he justifies by arguing that the need for protective masks is insufficiently taken into account in the standard allowance, there is no entitlement.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.2 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 19.11.2024 – L 13 AS 187/22 –
Topic
: Deductibility of maintenance payments according to § 11b para. 1 sentence 1 no. 7 SGB II.
deduct
voluntary maintenance payments from earned income. The job center is not obligated to pay for poverty agreed upon in contractual agreements.
In cases where a legal obligation to pay maintenance is clearly absent, the social security agencies responsible for benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) and the courts are authorized to review the question of such an obligation (Lower Saxony-Bremen Higher Social Court, judgment of April 17, 2018 – L 11 AS 1373/14). Such an obvious absence of a legal obligation to pay maintenance is assumed if, based on the case file alone, it is clear that no such obligation exists.
In this sense, it is obvious that the plaintiff was not subject to any statutory maintenance obligation under § 1361 BGB (maintenance in the case of separation of spouses) towards his separated wife and towards his son under § 1601 BGB.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.3 – LSG Schleswig-Holstein, decision of 02.06.2026 – L 3 AS 122/26 B ER –
Topic:
Is the job center allowed to fictitiously assume a right of retention or reduction under the Heating Costs Ordinance for the benefit recipient?
Guiding principles
- If a tenant owes the landlord advance payments for heating costs due to a valid tenancy agreement, the basic income support requirement under Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) exists in the full amount of the agreed advance payment, as long as this is actually paid and not reduced.
- The benefit provider may not fictitiously assume that the beneficiary has a right of retention or reduction under the Heating Costs Ordinance.
- A proper cost reduction procedure requires that the benefit provider gives qualified advice to the beneficiary, i.e., informs him specifically which heating costs are recognized as reasonable, and enables him, through a directive, to assert his rights against the landlord.
- The mere reference to a right of retention under tenancy law does not meet these requirements.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Legal notice
LSG Schleswig-Holstein, decision of 22.08.2024 – L 6 AS 46/24 B ER –
A mutually agreed rent increase – in this case between landlord (mother) and benefit recipient (son) – must be accepted by the job center even if it considers it invalid.
According to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), needs for accommodation and heating are recognized in the amount of the actual expenses, provided these are reasonable. According to this regulation, the actual expenses of the person in need are eligible for consideration as rent, insofar as they are based on an agreement made with the landlord and are actually paid by the employable person in need.
The actual expenses are not limited by the fact that the agreement in question, which led to the rent increase, may be invalid under civil law.
1.4 – LSG Hessen, decision of 10.06.2026 – L 9 AS 308/26 B ER –
Topic
: Regarding accommodation benefits according to § 22 para. 5 SGB II, if the 21-year-old daughter does not want to move to the village together with her mother.
Job centers are not allowed to require under-25s to move in with their families
Principle:
A move within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not occur if the person under 25 remains in the apartment and only the other members of the household move out. The provision is also not applicable by analogy in this situation.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.5 – LSG Rheinland-Pfalz, Judgment of 07.10.2025 – L 3 AS 60/23 –
Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court (BSG), file number: B 4 AS 22/25 R
Is
it necessary to first conduct a cost reduction procedure in order to limit the recognition of unavoidable expenses for maintenance and repair of owner-occupied residential property as a need within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), to reasonable expenses?
Is an exception to the head-share principle justified with regard to the costs for the repair of the heating system if there is a gratuitous right of residence?
Decision:
The job center must provide the repair of the oil heating system as a grant and not merely as a loan.
Reducing benefits for accommodation and heating from the amount of actual expenses to the costs deemed appropriate by the job center requires the implementation of a cost reduction procedure.
A request to reduce costs is also required for one-off expenses for accommodation and heating (see BSG, judgment of 18.09.2014 – B 14 AS 48/13 R).
These principles were developed for the legal situation prior to the entry into force of Section 22 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) on January 1, 2011. However, they also apply to the law in force since January 1, 2011.
An exception to the principle of equal shares is justified with regard to the costs for the repair of the heating system if there is a gratuitous right of residence (BSG, judgment of 29.11.2012 – B 14 AS 36/12 R).
Source:
Juris and www.bsg.bund.de
1.6 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 20.05.2026 – L 2 AS 1639/25 B –
Topic:
Applicability of the four-year exclusion period when reviewing final assessment notices pursuant to Section 44 SGB X in conjunction with Section 40 Paragraph 1 SGB II and consideration of Corona emergency aid as income.
Decision
In such a favorable proceeding (against final assessment notices that grant lower benefits than a previous preliminary decision), the (shortened) one-year limitation period of Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II in conjunction with Section 44 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 SGB X does not apply, but rather the four-year limitation period of Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 1 SGB II in conjunction with Section 44 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB X (cf. Federal Social Court, judgment of 13 July 2022 – B 7/14 AS 57/21 R).
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support / citizen's allowance
2.1 – SG Detmold, Judgment of 26.02.2025 – S 19 AS 1062/18 – confirmed by LSG NRW, Decision of 17.03.2026 – L 7 AS 497/25
Topic:
No exclusion from citizen's income for EU citizens employed below the minimum wage.
Decision
: A short weekly or monthly working time, a wage that does not provide a living wage, or a shortfall below the statutory minimum wage does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the activity is completely subordinate or insignificant.
If an EU citizen cares for her sister and receives €316 per month for a total monthly effort of 14 hours, she is entitled to supplementary citizen's allowance.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock:
Remuneration below the minimum wage does not preclude EU citizens from receiving citizen's income.
Remuneration below the minimum wage (here: €5.24 instead of €8.84 in 2018) does not preclude the existence of employee status within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU if – as in this case – the conditions for a not entirely subordinate and insignificant employment relationship are met (established case law of the Senate, see, for example, decisions of January 31, 2023 – L 7 AS 1652/22 B ER, paragraphs 28 et seq. [October/November 2022 – hourly wage €10.45 with a minimum wage of €12] and of May 26, 2017 – L 7 AS 510/17 B ER).
In the specific case, the person worked as a caregiver for a relative for 14 hours per week (LSG NRW, decision of 17.03.2026 – L 7 AS 497/25 –, Tacheles case law ticker KW 13/2026).
2.2 – Social Court Hannover, decision of 05.05.2026 – S 7 AS 334/26 ER – (not legally binding)
Topic:
On the assumption of a permanent separation and the presumption of a community of need for a mother receiving citizen's allowance and her four children.
Decision:
Separate apartments, but no separation: Social Court affirms shared household of spouses.
For the assumption of a permanent separation, physical separation is not the decisive factor. Rather, the crucial point is whether at least one spouse rejects the marital relationship and whether this is outwardly apparent. No evidence of this has been found in the present case.
The evidence presented has shown that the spouses have no intention of separating and continue to live their marriage.
Source
Sozialgericht-hannover.niedersachsen.de
3. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Thüringen, Judgment of 10.12.2025 – L 10 AL 204/23 –
Topic
: Granting a bonus for successfully passing an intermediate examination – here, the answer is no.
Guiding principles
§ 131a para. 3 no. 1 SGB III, § 81 SGB III, Art. 3 GG
Professional development – further training bonus – intermediate examination – internal performance review by the provider – no regulation in federal or state law – no admission requirement for the final examination – equal treatment in injustice.
Section 131a paragraph 3 number 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) clearly refers to the terminology of the Vocational Training Act for vocational training with the term "intermediate examination" as well as with the term "final examination" in number 2 (following the Federal Social Court's ruling of November 3, 2021 – B 11 AL 2/21 R).
The bonus scheme of Section 131a Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), in the version applicable until June 30, 2023, does not apply to performance reviews that are exclusively internal to the provider.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – SG Frankfurt, Judgment of 02.02.2026 – S 30 SO 233/20 –
Subject:
Regarding the assumption of funeral costs within the meaning of Section 74 of the German Social Code, Book XII (here rejected due to reasonable self-help, for example through an installment payment agreement or application for a deferral).
Guiding principles
- The burden of funeral costs is generally considered unreasonable for the person obligated to arrange the funeral if it leads to a state of need in the sense of social welfare law.
- However, due to the subsidiary nature of social assistance, this only applies if the deceased had no income or assets that could be used for funeral expenses, or if the need could not be avoided by concluding an installment payment agreement.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock:
An installment payment agreement is a suitable means of upholding the principle of subsidiarity of social assistance according to Section 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). Social assistance providers often require that those obligated to pay first request a deferral or installment payment from the funeral home in order to avert or reduce their need for assistance.
According to the jurisprudence of the Federal Social Court (BSG), the assumption of funeral costs can only be claimed if immediate payment is unreasonable. If the individual's own resources are insufficient in the month the costs are due, deferrals or installment payments are generally considered reasonable options (BSG, judgment of April 4, 2019 – B 8 SO 10/18 R).
4.2 – SG Lüneburg, Judgment of 13.03.2025 – S 38 SO 97/24 –
Topic:
On special needs trusts and the fictitious imputation of income by the social welfare office.
A special needs trust prevents the social welfare office from accessing the inheritance
Decision:
If a recipient of assistance inherits while simultaneously appointing an executor, the inherited assets cannot be taken into account to the extent that they do not actually accrue to her.
However, if the executor of the will pays out sums of money, these must be taken into account as income.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4.3 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 14.04.2026 – L 7 SO 616/26 ER-B –
issue
: No inheritance for the district for the time being.
According to the case law of the two senates of the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court responsible for integration assistance, a claim for settlement pursuant to Section 2042 of the German Civil Code (BGB) against the co-heirs is transferable (Section 141 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX)).
Guiding principles
- A claim for settlement pursuant to Section 2042 of the German Civil Code (BGB) against the co-heirs is transferable pursuant to Section 141 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX).
- A prerequisite for a transfer of benefits under Section 141 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), is that the provider of integration assistance grants integration assistance benefits. The prevailing opinion holds that these benefits must be granted as a subsidy; a loan is insufficient.
- The transfer of a claim must be effected by written notification to the debtor or opposing party of the transferred claim. The law prescribes written form in this respect (§ 141 para. 1 sentence 1 and para. 3 sentence 1 SGB IX; § 126 BGB). Only written notification to the debtor or third party results in the transfer of the claim.
- If the requirements of Section 141 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) are met, the provider of integration assistance may, at its discretion, effect the transfer of the claim. In this case, errors of discretion were found.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock
on integration assistance: No inheritance for the district for the time being.
In its decision L 7 SO 616/26 ER-B of April 14, 2026, the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court ruled that social welfare agencies may not automatically transfer inheritance claims of severely disabled benefit recipients. However, the right to inheritance settlement can be transferred under strict conditions.
See:
LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 14.04.2026 – L 2 SO 617/26 ER-B –
Transfer notification: Social welfare agency may not simply assume inheritance claims.
Regarding the legal requirements for the transfer of a claim for settlement of the community of heirs pursuant to Section 2042 of the German Civil Code (BGB) due to the loan-based granting of integration assistance in the form of benefits for social participation.
The decision of the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court of April 14, 2026 (Case No. L 2 SO 617/26 ER-B) strengthens the rights of social assistance recipients. It clarifies that integration assistance providers may not automatically assume inheritance claims by means of a transfer notification pursuant to Section 141 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), as long as the heirship is disputed.
4.4 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 03.02.2026 – L 2 SO 56/26 ER-B –
Regarding
integration assistance: For the time being, no adapted car from the social welfare office – taxis and buses are sufficient.
Decision:
The Baden-Württemberg State Social Court has ruled in an expedited proceeding that there is no entitlement to a car adapted for disabled persons via integration assistance if mobility can instead be ensured by public transport, taxis or driving services.
The (provisional) granting of a motor vehicle allowance as a benefit for social participation by way of an interim order is only warranted if the applicant cannot bridge the time until the decision in the main proceedings with his own resources or with reasonable assistance from third parties.
In the opinion of the Second Senate, it was reasonable to expect the applicant to use public transport, taxis, and, if necessary, other transport services offered by the respondent, with the assistance of third parties if required. This was particularly true because the only specific leisure activities mentioned were visits to Europa-Park with his grandchildren.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – SG Nuremberg, Judgment of 31.01.2025 – S 11 AY 94/23 –
Topic
: On the abusive manipulation of the duration of stay within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) by failing to obtain an Iranian passport.
Suppression and failure to obtain a passport constitutes an abuse of rights
Guiding principles
- The suppression of a passport and the refusal to obtain a valid passport constitute a significant abuse of rights, at least when this continues for several months. (Paragraph 31) (Editorial note)
- Obtaining an Iranian passport did not require submitting a so-called declaration of voluntary return, i.e., a declaration stating a willingness to return to Iran voluntarily. (Paragraph 30) (Editorial note)
- Voluntarily handing over one's passport to a smuggler for safekeeping constitutes culpable conduct that affects the length of stay. (Paragraph 32) (Editorial note)
Source:
www.gesetze-bayern.de
6. Miscellaneous
6.1 – BSG, Judgment of 12.03.2026 – B 4 AS 24/24 R –
Legal question:
Is a waiver of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), or a partial withdrawal of an application by a self-employed person due to an expected increase in income disregarded 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:
The Federal Social Court (BSG) has ruled that the job center was entitled to demand the submission of a declaration regarding 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 withdrawing nor waiving an application will change the benefit period over which income from self-employment is to be allocated. Submitting an application has legal consequences regarding benefits, without granting the potentially eligible recipient any options in this respect.
Comment by Detlef Brock:
Withdrawing an application for citizen's allowance can be very expensive for the self-employed.
Neither a valid (partial) withdrawal of the application nor a valid waiver changes the period over which income from self-employment is to be allocated. The Federal Social Court (BSG) has already ruled that a subsequent disposition regarding the structure of the social benefit relationship is generally only permissible insofar as it concerns unilateral rights and benefits of the beneficiary (BSG, Judgment of April 24, 2015 – B 4 AS 22/14 R).
This means that in the present case, neither a restriction of the application nor a waiver will change the period relevant for the calculation of the monthly average income according to Section 3 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the former version of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Legal tip:
Benefit entitlement cannot simply be terminated by waiving or deregistering if this serves to circumvent the crediting of income (Saxony State Social Court, judgment file no.: L 3 AS 1036/19).
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.
