Overview of case law
on basic income support, social assistance, asylum seekers' benefits law, citizen's allowance, and employment promotion law
Last updated: June 28, 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 NRW, decision of 08.06.2026 – L 7 AS 670/26 B ER / L 7 AS 671/26 B –
Subject:
On the granting of the standard benefit rate in expedited proceedings when the 23-year-old plaintiff (under 25) forms a household with her father.
The remaining slight shortfall of between 4 and a maximum of around 50 euros, taking into account the care allowance and pocket money, appears unlikely to trigger an existential emergency.
Decision:
The 7th Senate denies the grounds for the order, because a minor shortfall of between 4 and a maximum of around 50 euros appears to the Senate to be unsuitable for triggering an existential emergency.
A shortfall in coverage of this amount is acceptable for a temporary period and, particularly given that a preliminary ruling is not intended to prejudge the main issue, does not require the issuance of an interim injunction (see, in this regard, the Senate's decision of 20 September 2023 – L 7 AS 1171/23 B ER –; see also LSG NRW, decision of 30 November 2012 – L 2 AS 2150/12 B –).
The applicant should instead be referred to the main proceedings for a final clarification of her claim.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.2 – LSG NRW, decision of 22.05.2026 – L 6 AS 735/26 B ER –
The issue
of expedited proceedings is already inadmissible due to violations of mandatory formal requirements.
Decision:
Submitting an application for preliminary legal protection via email-to-fax or web-to-fax is not sufficient to comply with the formal requirements (see LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 11.01.2024 – L 7 SO 3301/23 B –).
Documents transmitted via email-to-fax do not comply with the written form requirement if the document only shows the sender's email address but not their fax number.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support / citizen's allowance
2.1 – SG Gelsenkirchen, decision of 06.08.2025 – S 33 AS 1151/25 ER –
Subject:
Rejection of the interim order due to lack of need for assistance under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), because of lack of cooperation – submission of all bank statements, especially current ones.
Job center: No citizen's allowance if the evidence is unclear – submission of current bank statements is required
Decision:
The chamber denies the urgency and need for assistance under Section 9 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), due to the lack of submission of current bank statements and thus due to unclear evidence.
Submitting only outdated bank statements does not provide the court with a sufficient basis for its decision. And failing to respond to a court's notification risks having your application rejected – regardless of whether you are actually in need of assistance.
The burden of proof lies with the applicant – not with the job center.
For claims to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (§§ 7 para. 1, 9 para. 1 SGB II), the applicant bears the burden of proof. They must present the facts establishing their claim in a comprehensible and verifiable manner. This is not a special feature of expedited proceedings, but a general principle.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
3. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG Saxony, decision of 05.02.2026 – L 3 AL 86/25 B ER –
Subject:
The applicant seeks, by way of preliminary legal protection, the granting of unemployment benefits not on the basis of the general regulations, but according to the seamless transition rule.
Guiding principles
- To ensure the right to be heard, a court is obligated to adhere to the deadline it has set itself. An exception applies only if a party has submitted a final statement before the deadline expires and no further statements are to be expected under the circumstances.
- The so-called seamless transition rule merely presumes sufficient earning capacity in the sense of the ability to work as defined in Section 138 Paragraph 1 No. 3, Paragraph 5 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III). All other eligibility requirements for receiving unemployment benefits must, however, be met.
- The question of whether, in the specific case, there is objective availability according to the general provisions of Section 138 Paragraph 1 No. 3, Paragraph 5 No. 1 SGB III or whether it is fictitiously assumed via Section 145 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB III, concerns only the justification of the approval decision.
- In the case of a mandatory decision, there is generally no right to a change solely in the reasoning without the revocation or amendment of the administrative act itself, because the court must review the ruling from every conceivable legal perspective. An exception may apply only if the reasoning itself constitutes an infringement of subjective rights.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 26.06.2025 – L 7 SO 2899/23 –
Topic:
Must welfare recipients accept outdated heating technology?
Social welfare recipients living in their own homes must accept the use of outdated heating technology.
Decisions regarding
measures to bring a heating system up to a new, state-of-the-art condition are not to be considered as necessary expenses for the accommodation, as this is a value-enhancing renovation measure.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Comment by Detlef Brock:
A different view on the SGB II
Benefit recipients who live in their own property can claim reimbursement of repair costs for their heating system from the job center in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Recipients of aid are not required to install outdated heating technology (SG Magdeburg, decision – file no. S 14 AS 1925/15 ER).
5. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – LSG Bayern, decision of 15.06.2026 – L 8 AY 43/26 B ER –
The issue of
exclusion from benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 AsylbLG is not unconstitutional.
Guiding principles
The exclusion from benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is not contrary to the constitution or European law in the case where there are no procedural obstacles to a reasonable departure of a person entitled to protection in Greece.
Transfer of the case law of the Federal Social Court (judgment of 29.03.2022 – B 4 AS 2/21 R) on the referral of Union citizens without a right of residence, for whom departure is reasonable and possible, to the use of social benefits in their home country as an expression of self-responsible self-help.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note from the Court:
In its decision of June 4, 2026, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed the incompatibility with EU law of the restriction of benefits under Section 1a Paragraph 7 of the former Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for so-called "Dublin III cases." This applies at least until the entry into force of the new version by Directive (EU) 2024/1346 on June 12, 2026. The Senate reached this conclusion primarily because the applicant in that case, during the period still in dispute, fell within the scope of application of this directive as described in Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Reception Directive.
This is different in the present procedure according to § 1 para. 4 sentence 1 no. 1 AsylbLG, because here the applicant is no longer an applicant within the meaning of the Reception Directive.
A refugee who has already been granted international protection by another EU Member State is generally no longer subject to the Reception Directive 2013/33/EU. According to Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/33/EU, this directive applies only to persons who have submitted an application for international protection that has not yet been finally decided upon (“applicants”). Anyone who has already been recognized as a refugee is no longer an “applicant” within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2013/33/EU.
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.
