Overview of case law
on basic income support, social assistance, asylum seekers' benefits law, citizen's allowance, and employment promotion law
Last updated: June 21, 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 18.06.2026 – B 4 AS 22/25 R –
Legal question:
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 per capita principle justified with regard to the costs for the repair of a heating system when there is an existing right of residence free of charge?
BSG
According to the legal situation in force since January 1, 2011, a cost reduction procedure is not required with regard to unavoidable maintenance and repair expenses for owner-occupied residential property.
According to the wording and internal structure of Section 22 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), unreasonably high expenses fall within the scope of application of Sentence 2. Reference is not made to the reasonableness provision in Paragraph 1, which was contained in Sentence 3 during the period in dispute.
There is no need for this, because Section 22 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) contains an independent regulation on the provision of benefits in the case of unreasonable maintenance and repair expenses.
The special regulation would be largely ineffective if the municipal authority were only entitled to limit its services for these typically one-off expenses after conducting a cost-reduction procedure.
Furthermore, requiring a cost-reduction request would contradict the purpose of paragraph 2.
This regulation ensures equal treatment of owners and tenants. No subsidies will be granted for expenses exceeding the needs recognized for tenants. The possibility of a supplementary loan adequately addresses the constitutional requirement of ensuring a dignified existence.
Source:
www.bsg.bund.de
Comment by Detlef Brock:
Not a happy verdict from the 4th Senate.
This means that in cases of unreasonable maintenance and repair expenses, such as roof repairs or heating system maintenance for owner-occupied residential property, the job center is only required to cover costs exceeding the reasonable amount by providing a loan. A prior request to reduce costs is not necessary.
Example:
Repairing an oil heating system
The job center provides a maximum grant of €4,000. Any costs exceeding this amount – for example, an additional €3,500 – are only granted as a loan and must be repaid by offsetting 5 percent of the standard benefit rate.
The job center can declare the offset even before the loan decision becomes legally binding.
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 18.06.2026 – B 4 AS 10/25 R –
Legal question
: Does the mere fact that the immigration authorities have determined the termination of the right of free movement under the Freedom of Movement Act/EU for a foreigner who has lived in Germany for more than five years lead to the termination of their habitual residence within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), or to the application of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Half-Sentence 2 of the SGB II, or must the determination of loss be legally binding or at least enforceable?
BSG
A British national is not entitled to either citizen's allowance or benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
The determination of loss of residency by the immigration authorities means that the residence of an EU citizen is no longer considered permanent. Therefore, there is no entitlement to citizen's allowance.
The exception under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Half-Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) based on a five-year habitual residence in the federal territory does not apply in favor of the plaintiff, because the loss of the right to freedom of movement in the Federal Republic of Germany has been established with respect to him.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) clarifies (previously controversial):
Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Half-sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which blocks the exception to the right of return, requires only the effectiveness of the determination of loss, but not its enforceability or even its legal force.
The standard focuses solely on the determination of the loss of the right under Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Freedom of Movement Act/EU.
The determination is made by the administrative act governing residence rights as soon as it becomes externally effective. This interpretation is confirmed by the legislative materials.
The legislator does not focus on whether and to what extent the effects of the loss determination can be implemented, but solely on the fact of the loss determination itself.
Just as the exception in Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Half-Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not linked to a legal position, but merely to a longer period of established residence, Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Half-Sentence 2 of the SGB II reacts solely to the factual circumstance that the determination of loss by the immigration authority leads to the residence no longer being established.
Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the determination of loss is confirmed or overturned in administrative court proceedings.
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 Saxony, Judgment of 23.04.2026 – L 3 AS 419/25 –
Subject
: Application for citizen's allowance when documents are incomplete.
The job center's refusal notice is unlawful if the application for citizen's allowance is incomplete, because the job center must first request cooperation under threat of legal consequences.
Guiding principles
No preclusion rule can be derived from § 67 SGB I.
If an applicant submits documents in the course of a new application from which their need for assistance for a past period can be readily established, the job center is obliged to substantively examine the applicant's benefit claims for the past period with regard to a non-final rejection decision based on a previous application.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock:
A failure to request cooperation from the job center renders a refusal notice unlawful (SG Hamburg, decision of 13.11.2015 – S 34 AS 4077/15 ER –, not published).
A prerequisite for a lawful refusal is the prior request for cooperation from the authority.
2.2 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 06.05.2026 – L 7 AS 927/26 ER-B –
Topic:
Is a balance in a Swiss vested benefits account considered as an asset for the purposes of basic income? (47,500 euros)
Guiding principles
The credit balance of a person entitled to benefits within the meaning of Section 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), in the vested benefits account held with the Federal Pension Fund (BVG) Foundation pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Swiss Federal Law on the Free Movement of Persons in Occupational Old-Age, Survivors' and Disability Benefits (FZG) in conjunction with Article 60, paragraph 5 of the Swiss Federal Law on Occupational Old-Age, Survivors' and Disability Benefits (BVG), constitutes assets within the meaning of Section 12, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
A mere freedom of movement account is not an active insurance relationship and therefore does not fall under Section 12 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 3 SGB II.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.3 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 02.03.2026 – L 14 AS 1405/25 B ER –
Topic:
When can claiming employee status for an EU citizen be considered an abuse of rights and lead to exclusion from benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)?
Guiding principle:
Invoking employee status can be an abuse of rights if an EU citizen's own efforts are clearly not aimed at establishing and expanding permanent employment in Germany in order to contribute, within the scope of their reasonable possibilities, to reducing the family's need for assistance.
This is particularly the case if a fully employable EU citizen rejects his employer's offer to work more than ten hours per week without good reason, or if he concludes an employment contract, informs the court of this to substantiate his entitlement to benefits and then immediately terminates the employment relationship without good reason.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.4 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 30.04.2026 – L 1 AS 416/26 B ER –
The issue of
partial withdrawal of citizen's allowance is unlawful if the authority demands something "impossible" within the framework of the obligation to cooperate – namely, the submission of documents from third parties.
Decision:
The court has doubts about the partial withdrawal of benefits under Sections 60 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 3, 66 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB I, because the applicant, despite being requested to cooperate, did not submit the requested approval notice for her mother under SGB XII including the calculation sheet.
The job center may not demand anything subjectively or objectively impossible under Section 60 of the German Social Code, Book I (see Higher Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of June 16, 2022 – L 29 AS 520/22 B ER –). The applicant would actually have to be in possession of such a notice from her mother.
Furthermore, the request for a basic income support certificate from the mother is likely to contradict the job center's own investigations at the district office's housing benefit office.
Finally, there must be a causal link between the failure to comply with the obligations to cooperate under Sections 60 to 62 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I), and a significant impediment to the investigation of the facts (see Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of November 26, 2020 – B 14 AS 13/19 R –).
However, the job center should be able to request the mother's requested SGB XII approval notice – provided such a notice exists and not merely a housing benefit notice (see Section 7 Paragraph 1 WoGG) – itself by way of official assistance without significant administrative effort.
Source:
LSG Berlin-Brandenburg
Legal notice
LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 16.06.2022 – L 29 AS 520/22 B ER –
If a person entitled to benefits is required to do something subjectively impossible, there is no obligation to cooperate within the meaning of Section 60 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I).
In that case, the plaintiff had not received her father's utility and heating bill because he had not given it to her.
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support/citizen's allowance
3.1 – SG Altenburg, decision of 20.03.2026 – S 16 AS 178/26 ER –
Topic
: The right to compensation for use as costs of accommodation according to § 22 para. 1 SGB II in the absence of written confirmation from the landlord.
Confirmation from the landlord that the apartment is still occupied is not a prerequisite for the reimbursement of expenses.
Guiding principles
- The prerequisite for the assumption of compensation for use due to late return of living space as accommodation costs pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is that a corresponding civil law claim of the landlord has arisen and that the accommodation is actually still being used for residential purposes by the benefit recipient.
- Confirmation from the landlord that the apartment is still occupied is not a prerequisite for the expenses to be reimbursed.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
3.2 – SG Altenburg, Judgment of 19 January 2026 – S 42 AS 492/25 –
Subject:
Assurance of the assumption of costs for the classification measurement of a wood-burning stove in owner-occupied property according to § 22 para. 1 SGB II.
If discretion is reduced to zero, the job center must cover the costs for the classification measurement of a wood-burning stove in owner-occupied property as accommodation costs according to § 22 para. 1 SGB II.
Guiding principles
- If no special statutory provision exists for the request for the issuance of an assurance to cover specific expenses within the meaning of Section 22 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), Section 34 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) shall be applied as a general provision.
- The costs of accommodation and heating within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), also include, in the case of self-occupied residential properties, the expenses for a classification measurement of a fireplace operated with solid fuels, as required by the First Ordinance for the Implementation of the Federal Immission Control Act (1st BImSchV).
- The examination of appropriateness within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) includes not only the amount of reimbursable accommodation costs but also the question of whether individual expenses related to the use of the currently occupied accommodation are appropriate in nature during the period of benefit receipt under the SGB II.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
3.3 – SG Heilbronn, decision of 05.06.2026 – not legally binding
Appeal pending before the State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg under file number L 9 AS 2010/26 ER-B
Regarding
the entitlement to citizen's allowance in the case of an inheritance of €130,000 and its whereabouts:
The job center is not obligated to grant citizen's allowance if the whereabouts of the inheritance are not credibly demonstrated.
Decision:
The court held that there was initially no need for legal protection through the preliminary injunction application because the applicant could achieve his legal objective – the granting of citizen's income – more easily and quickly by submitting the documents requested by the job center. A court hearing was therefore unnecessary.
According to Section 9 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), an entitlement to benefits requires a need for assistance, which has not been credibly demonstrated here.
The inheritance constitutes assets that must be taken into account, exceeding the relevant allowances and requiring use to secure the applicant's livelihood. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of how the inheritance was used.
The few invoices from MediaMarkt by no means proved the use of the total sum of €130,000. The bank statements showing the cash withdrawals were also insufficient, as they did not provide proof of how the withdrawn cash was used.
Source
https://socialcourt-heilbronn.justiz-bw.de
4. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 – SG Darmstadt, Judgment of 30.03.2026 – S 8 AL 1/24 –
The purpose of
Section 145 Paragraph 2 Sentence 5 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) is to sanction the withdrawal of rehabilitation applications or the waiver of rehabilitation measures within the framework of the SGB III.
Withdrawal of unemployment benefits in case of lack of cooperation in determining employability.
Guiding principles
- Pursuant to Section 145 Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), the pension insurance institution must expressly determine that the unemployed person has violated a duty to cooperate.
- The element of "conduct" within the meaning of Section 145 Paragraph 2 Sentence 5 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), does not require that the unemployed person has violated a duty to cooperate. A violation of the duty to cooperate through implied conduct is already covered by Section 145 Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 of the SGB III. Otherwise, Section 145 Paragraph 2 Sentence 5 of the SGB III would have no independent scope of application.
- This interpretation also corresponds to the purpose of the provision. Section 145, paragraph 2, sentence 5 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III) aims to sanction the withdrawal of rehabilitation applications or the waiver of rehabilitation measures. Systematically, this corresponds to the fact that, after being requested to apply for rehabilitation measures, the unemployed person's right to dispose of their situation is restricted, and the consent of the Federal Employment Agency is required for a withdrawal or waiver.
- With regard to costs, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply, unless the Social Courts Act contains more specific regulations.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 14.01.2026 – L 8 SO 27/25 B ER –
Topic:
The amount of the hourly wage to be taken into account for an assistant within the framework of the personal budget depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
In expedited proceedings, a higher personal budget cannot be enforced if there is no acute emergency (here: the existence of assets and a budget account as well as a lack of cooperation from the disabled person).
Guiding principles
- The personal budget must be calculated in such a way that the individually determined needs are covered and the necessary advice and support can be ensured (§ 29 para. 2 sentence 6 SGB IX).
- The hourly wage for an assistant to be considered within the framework of the personal budget depends on the circumstances of the individual case. The hourly wage is based on the remuneration as defined in Section 612 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) for comparable assistance services, taking into account the type, scope, and requirements of the specific needs and the regional labor market situation. A claim based on relevant collectively agreed wages is therefore appropriate.
- In any case, during the initial phase of a personal budget, budget counselling within the meaning of Section 29 Paragraph 2 Sentence 6 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) may be necessary. Its duration depends on the specific circumstances of the individual case.
- There is no acute emergency if the applicant can cover their needs from funds in their budget account and their assets.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5.2 – SG Altenburg, Judgment of 21.01.2026 – S 21 SO 1010/23 –
The topics
covered by assistance services pursuant to Sections 76 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2, 78 Paragraph 1 SGB IX also include assistance with financial and official matters.
Integration assistance benefits should not be subject to a time limit.
Guiding principles
In cases of repeatedly granted integration assistance benefits on a temporary basis, a legitimate interest in a declaratory judgment pursuant to Section 131 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG) in the form of the risk of recurrence regularly comes into consideration (see Federal Social Court, judgment of 28 January 2021 – B 8 SO 9/19 R –).
Assistance services pursuant to Sections 76 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 and 78 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) also include help with financial and administrative matters. In the relationship between legal guardianship and enabling integration assistance services, legal guardianship is considered subsidiary.
In the case of a permanent need, there is no basis for limiting the duration of assistance services provided.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock:
Assistance services cannot simply be limited in time. This was also recently confirmed by the Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court in its judgment of February 19, 2026 – L 24 SO 116/25 –.
The German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), does not provide for automatic time limits.
5.3 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, Judgment of 03.09.2024 – L 9 SO 330/24 – Appeal allowed
Topic:
Does the regulation in Section 82, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) concerning old-age provision raise constitutional concerns?
The Senate does not ultimately share the constitutional concerns raised against the restriction of the recognition of an additional allowance to the forms of old-age provision specified in Section 82 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (see in detail Ruland, SGb 2022, 389 ff.; Brosius-Gersdorf, DRV 2020, 45 ff.).
Decision:
The Senate is convinced that, notwithstanding these constitutional concerns, the provisions of Section 82 Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) do not violate the general principle of equality under Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG).
The general principle of equality requires that all people be treated equally before the law.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5.4 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 04.11.2024 – L 9 SO 165/24 B ER –
Subject:
Obligation of the authority to grant a personal budget of €269,463 annually in expedited proceedings.
Decision:
A higher personal budget can be granted in expedited proceedings if it is unreasonable to expect the disabled person to wait for the outcome of the main proceedings because the current need for support staff must be met.
For this to happen, she must be competitive in the labor market, which is achieved through the preliminary calculation of the personal budget.
An unsigned target agreement does not preclude the claim.
In preliminary injunction proceedings, the Senate calculates the personal budget based on the collectively agreed wage for nursing assistants, including the collectively agreed annual special payment and the collectively agreed supplements for Sunday, public holiday and night work (see also LSG Saxony, decision of 11.11.2021 – L 8 SO 39/21 B ER –).
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5.5 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of 15.05.2026 – L 9 SO 39/26 B –
Subject:
No entitlement to the issuance of a certificate by the basic income support provider for submission to the broadcasting fee service for the purpose of exemption from the obligation to pay the broadcasting fee.
Decision:
In connection with exemption from the broadcasting fee obligation, a pensioner is not entitled to the issuance of a notice or certificate regarding his social assistance needs, irrespective of the assertion of a claim for benefits.
Such a claim is not provided for by law (as already stated by LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of 17.09.2015 – L 31 AS 574/15 –).
Without an application for benefits, the responsible authority – in this case the social welfare office – is not obliged to issue a decision.
The plaintiff is required to assert the hardship case he claims to have within the meaning of Section 4 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 RBStV in the legal proceedings before the Administrative Court.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
6. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
6.1 – SG Karlsruhe, decision of 09.06.2026 – S 12 AY 1835/26 ER –
The issue is
the granting of standard benefit level 1 due to constitutional concerns regarding standard benefit level 2.
Decision:
The 12th Chamber concludes that the special needs levels applied by the authority in the applicant's case so far pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 Letter b AsylbLG and Section 3a Paragraph 2 No. 2 Letter b AsylbLG are likely unconstitutional according to what is now probably the unanimous opinion of the social court jurisprudence and legal literature (cf., for example, Frerichs in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 4th edition, Section 3a AsylbLG, marginal note 40 with further references).
Until the likely unconstitutional provisions are rejected, the Federal Social Court believes it is appropriate to grant benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) on the basis of standard benefit level 1 (BSG, judgment of 11.08.2022 – B 8/7 AY 1/21 R –).
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
6.2 – SG Hamburg, decision of 09.06.2026 – S 61 AY 301/26 ER –
Topic:
Constitutional concerns regarding the complete exclusion of benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 AsylbLG.
Guiding principles
- A person subject to an enforceable deportation order who has already been granted international protection by another Member State of the European Union and whose protection continues to exist, can in principle be referred to departure to the Member State granting protection as an expression of self-responsibility, because it can generally be assumed that he or she can directly avoid or reduce his or her need for protection there through actually available, suitable, necessary and reasonable opportunities.
- There are constitutional concerns regarding the complete exclusion of benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), because the minimum subsistence level is not guaranteed by Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 6 of the AsylbLG if a return is not possible in a particular case. Benefits under Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 and Section 6 of the AsylbLG cannot be granted as bridging benefits even through a constitutionally compliant interpretation.
- A decision of inadmissibility pursuant to Section 29 Paragraph 1 No. 2 of the Asylum Act does not have any legal effect on an exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Asylum Benefits Act.
A person subject to an enforceable deportation order who has been granted international protection in Greece and whose protection continues cannot, in principle, be referred to Greece as an expression of self-help, because it must be assumed that those entitled to protection are excluded from state benefits and the legal labor market there for a longer period of time.
Source:
SG Hamburg
6.3 – SG Hamburg, decision of 09.06.2026 – S 28 AY 428/26 ER –
Topic:
On the legality of an exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 AsylbLG when subsidiary protection is granted in Greece.
Guiding principles
- There are no fundamental objections to excluding persons who have been granted international protection by another Member State of the European Union and for whom voluntary return is generally possible and reasonable at any time from subsistence benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
- The unreasonableness of voluntary return, which constitutes a particular hardship within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 6 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), is to be assumed in a constitutionally compliant interpretation if persons entitled to international protection are effectively excluded from all social benefits in the event of voluntary return and do not have unimpeded access to the labor and housing markets in order to directly reduce or avert their need.
- The scope of benefits to be granted by way of bridging benefits includes the basic benefits according to §§ 3, 3a AsylbLG (standard needs level 1).
Source:
SG Hamburg
6.4 – SG Hamburg, decision of 11.06.2026 – S 28 AY 471/26 ER –
Topic:
On the legality of an exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 AsylbLG when subsidiary protection is granted in Greece.
Guiding principles
- There are no fundamental objections to excluding persons who have been granted international protection by another Member State of the European Union and for whom voluntary return is generally possible and reasonable at any time from subsistence benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
- The unreasonableness of voluntary return, which constitutes a particular hardship within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 6 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), is to be assumed in a constitutionally compliant interpretation if persons entitled to international protection are effectively excluded from all social benefits in the event of voluntary return and do not have unimpeded access to the labor and housing markets in order to directly reduce or avert their need.
- The scope of benefits to be granted by way of bridging benefits includes the basic benefits according to §§ 3, 3a AsylbLG (standard needs level 1).
Source:
SG Hamburg
Note by Detlef Brock:
The decisions are not yet legally binding. Further urgent proceedings with comparable facts are pending before the Hamburg Social Court.
Source
https://justiz.hamburg.de
6.5 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 20.04.2026 – L 8 AY 39/25 B ER –
Subject:
Regarding the cessation of benefits according to § 1 para. 4 AsylbLG.
Guiding principle:
The constitutionally guaranteed right to a dignified minimum standard of living is not upheld if the benefit provider discontinues all benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and then, by exercising its discretion, only provides in-kind benefits for accommodation, electricity, heating and food until the transfer to another EU member state (here: Greece).
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 information are not permitted.
