Overview of case law
on basic income support, social assistance, asylum seekers' benefits law, citizen's allowance, and employment promotion law
Last updated: July 19, 2026
Editor: Detlef Brock
Publisher: Tacheles Legal News Ticker
1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on the New Basic Income Support / Citizen's Allowance under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
1.1 – BSG, judgment of 03/05/2026 – B 7 AS 15/24 R
Legal question
regarding the scope of application of Section 212 Paragraph 1 Number 1 of the German Civil Code (recommencement of the limitation period) in the context of the reimbursement of benefits wrongly provided pursuant to Section 50 of the German Social Code, Book X.
- The Federal Social Court (BSG) ruled that
installment payments and the admission of debts to the job center trigger a 30-year limitation period for reimbursement claims under Section 52 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X). - A legally binding decision granting the debtor the option of payment in installments (deferral notice) converts the normal limitation period into a 30-year period.
- The payment of installments constitutes an act equivalent to acknowledgment of debt (pursuant to Section 212 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the German Civil Code). This means that even if a shorter limitation period were to apply, the limitation period for the total debt begins anew with each installment payment.
- Implications for those affected: Installment payments made to the job center for debt settlement prevent claims for reimbursement from becoming prematurely time-barred.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.2 – BSG, Judgment of 05.03.2026 – B 7 AS 11/24 R
Legal question:
Does the Office for Educational Support have a claim for reimbursement against the Job Center under Sections 102 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), if it continued to pay the previously granted educational support under the Federal Training Assistance Act (BAföG) to the trainee due to his unreported deregistration from his studies, but the Job Center simultaneously granted him benefits to secure his livelihood under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), taking the BAföG benefits into account as income?
Decision of the Federal Social Court
- A claim for reimbursement under Section 105 SGB X between the training promotion office and the job center existed only in the amount of 702 euros.
- In particular, the material congruence or comparability necessary for a claim for reimbursement under Section 105 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), exists between educational assistance benefits under the Federal Training Assistance Act (BAföG) and unemployment benefit II. Both essentially serve to secure the livelihood.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
1.3 – BSG, judgment of 03/12/2026 – B 4 AS 8/25 R
Legal question
regarding the deductibility of tuition fees for attending a private vocational school as a necessary expense related to income generation within the meaning of Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 5 SGB II from the educational assistance benefits to be considered as income.
Decision of the Federal Social Court (BSG)
: Clear statement from the 4th Senate of the Federal Social Court: Private school fees are neither deductible from BAföG (Federal Training Assistance Act) nor from earned income.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) has established the following:
- The plaintiff's school fees are not deductible from the student financial aid she receives under the Federal Training Assistance Act (BAföG). The latter must be considered as income and reduced, among other things, by the deductions pursuant to Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), even if the monthly BAföG payments do not exceed 400 euros in individual cases.
- Tuition fees for attending a private educational institution are not considered necessary expenses related to generating income. This is because the element of necessity is lacking. Section 11b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 5 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) must be interpreted narrowly in light of the principle of subsidiarity (Section 2 Paragraph 2 SGB II) (Federal Social Court [BSG] judgment of June 15, 2016 – B 4 AS 41/15 R). The element of necessity serves as a corrective in this context (Federal Social Court [BSG] judgment of September 27, 2011 – B 4 AS 180/10 R).
- Likewise, the plaintiff's expenses for school fees cannot be deducted from her earned income (cf. the fact that each income must be adjusted separately, because otherwise an unauthorized loss offset could take place, e.g. BSG of 17.02.2016 – B 4 AS 17/15 R).
- Within the framework of the BAföG (Federal Training Assistance Act) for educational support, the tuition fees payable for attending private schools do not increase the need, because the need of trainees is calculated as a lump sum.
- The non-deductibility of school fees does not violate the general principle of equal treatment (Art. 3 para. 1 GG) in any respect.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on the New Basic Income Support / Citizen's Allowance under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 25.02.2026 – L 2 AS 2284/25 and L 2 AS 2285/25
Topics
: Regarding the legally enforceable rent claim in rental agreements between relatives
Regarding the additional needs according to § 21 para. 5 SGB II in the case of type 2 diabetes mellitus
Decision of the LSG
- Type 2 diabetes requires a balanced diet, which is already factored into the standard healthcare allowance.
- According to current Supreme Court rulings, a genuine obligation to pay rent between relatives must actually be in place – this was denied in this case.
- Even though it is not uncommon among close relatives for no legal consequences to be imposed and arrears to be tolerated in the event of outstanding payments due to the special close relationship (especially between parents and children) (cf. Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of 09.12.2024 – L 16 AS 538/21), the time frame and the amount of the outstanding claim must be taken into account here.
- The plaintiffs are currently in arrears with rent payments totaling €41,224.00. For over two and a half years, the son has failed to take any legal action that any landlord is entitled to under the German Civil Code (BGB). Since the son, as landlord, was actually dependent on the rental income to finance the house, such action would have been expected. The seriousness of the obligation to pay rent has therefore not been proven (distinction from a sham transaction under Section 117 of the German Civil Code).
Note by Detlef Brock
: See also LSG BW, judgment of 25.02.2026 – L 2 AS 2283/25.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.2 – LSG Hamburg, Judgment of 30.04.2026 – L 4 AS 165/24 (Appeal allowed)
Topic
: The treatment of a BAföG (Federal Training Assistance Act) back payment as income. A BAföG back payment must be considered as income in the month it is received (§ 11 para. 3 sentence 1 SGB II).
Decision of the LSG
- A BAföG back payment reduces the ALG II / Bürgergeld (unemployment benefit II / citizen's allowance) as income.
- The treatment of BAföG back payments as income according to the general rules of § 11 SGB II aF corresponds to the will of the legislator and the systematic structure of the law (cf. BSG, judgment of 11 November 2021 – B 14 AS 33/20 R).
- The BAföG back payment – like back payments of wages, back payments of sick pay, back payments of transitional allowance, back payments of pensions or income tax refunds – is to be taken into account as a one-off cash payment within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the former version of the German Federal Training Assistance Act (BAföG) in the month in which it is received, even if it was made for past periods.
Comment by Detlef Brock
: See LSG BB, case no. L 24 SO 148/26 B ER (appeal allowed). By analogy to Section 11 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (in the version applicable until June 30, 2023), it follows that income received as a back payment for the month in which it is received is not considered a one-off payment, but rather a recurring payment.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.3 – LSG Saxony, decision of 12.02.2026 – L 7 AS 512/25 B ER
Topic:
Regarding the assumption of illness-related electricity costs as an additional need. In cases of extremely high electricity costs due to illness, recognition of an additional need according to § 21 para. 6 SGB II may be considered.
Decision of the LSG
- The job center has to pay around 370 euros per month in electricity costs as a hardship allowance for a sick recipient of basic income support.
- This need is atypical in the applicant's individual case. While the standard allowance does include household energy (excluding heating and hot water), this portion amounts to only €45.69 per month in the relevant standard allowance level 1.
- This atypical additional need for electricity costs is unavoidable insofar as it exceeds the share included in the standard allowance (§ 21 para. 6 sentence 2 SGB II; cf. BSG v. 17.12.2024 – B 7 AS 17/23 R).
- Limitation: The inevitability is not absolute. The applicant must switch off any additional mobile heating devices during daily ventilation instead of leaving them running (to avoid uneconomical behavior).
Conclusion: The job center must pay increased electricity costs as an unavoidable, special additional need according to § 21 para. 6 SGB II if the costs are caused by an illness, deviate significantly from the average costs and cannot be covered by savings.
Source:
LSG Saxony 7th Senate from 2026
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support / citizen's allowance
3.1 – None available
4. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of April 17, 2026 – L 12 AL 167/24
Topic:
Unemployment benefits – Suspension of other social benefits – Old-age pension – Comparability of the old-age benefit of a Swiss pension fund – Higher entitlement to unemployment benefit I because there is no additional tax deduction for Swiss old-age pensions.
Decision of the LSG
- The benefit provided by a Swiss employer's pension fund is a benefit comparable to the German old-age pension within the meaning of Section 156 Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III).
- The term "benefit awarded" (§ 156 para. 3 SGB III) must be interpreted in a manner consistent with EU law (cf. ECJ, judgment of 8 March 2011 – C-240/09) such that mandatory contributions to German statutory health and long-term care insurance levied on the benefit must be taken into account. The suspension of benefits therefore only applies to the amount of the foreign pension actually awarded for payment, reduced by these contributions.
- Since no additional tax deduction is made from German old-age pensions, such a deduction may not be made additionally for the Swiss old-age pension (see also LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of 30.06.2017 – L 8 AL 242/16).
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 23.02.2026 – L 2 SO 3556/25
Topic
: On the assumption of costs for the purchase of a vehicle adapted for people with disabilities within the framework of integration assistance for social participation.
Key message:
No disabled-friendly car from the social welfare office – public transport or the disabled transport service is reasonable in individual cases even for a severely disabled person with the markers "aG" and care level 4.
Decision of the LSG
- The plaintiff is not entitled to mobility benefits under the integration assistance scheme as a social participation benefit. A vehicle adapted for people with disabilities must be absolutely essential for the applicant (see Federal Social Court, judgment of March 8, 2017 – B 8 SO 2/16 R)
- Referring the individual to the use of public transportation or a ride-hailing service is reasonable. It is not apparent that acquiring a private vehicle is the only means of social participation. A blanket rejection of public transportation is insufficient grounds for deeming it unreasonable.
- The claim also fails due to the requirements of Section 114 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX). According to the explanatory memorandum to the law, a person is considered permanently dependent on a motor vehicle only if they need one regularly and not just occasionally. The Federal Association of Supra-Regional Social Welfare Agencies (BAGüS) considers two to three trips per week necessary for this. Such a permanent dependency could not be proven.
- A claim for vehicle assistance cannot be based on journeys to doctors or hospitals. Due to the principle of subsidiarity (§ 91 SGB IX), the use of integration assistance funds is generally not considered for medically necessary journeys (see LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of 10.12.2014 – L 2 SO 4058/13).
Note by Detlef Brock
: See LSG BW, decision of 03.02.2026 – L 2 SO 56/26 ER-B: As long as journeys can be made using public transport, a ride service or taxi rides, the financing of a private car is secondary.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
6. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
6.1 – LSG Hamburg, decision of 06.07.2026 – L 4 AY 24/26 B ER
The provision in
Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is compatible with the fundamental right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living in accordance with human dignity, as enshrined in Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG).
Guiding principles of the Senate
- The Senate has no serious doubts about the constitutionality of Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 AsylbLG with regard to the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living.
- The legislature may make subsistence benefits contingent upon the fulfillment of obligations in order to prevent or reduce need (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of October 19, 2022 – 1 BvL 3/21). This principle of subsidiarity, as an expression of self-reliance, also includes avoiding need by leaving the federal territory.
- Affected individuals can return to the EU Member State responsible for their case at any time and claim the social benefits to which they are entitled there. Upon recognition of international protection, social assistance benefits must be granted in the protecting state as if they were nationals (at least core benefits for those granted subsidiary protection) (Art. 31 Regulation (EU) 2024/1347). This obligation does not exist in other countries – the exclusion from benefits is lawfully based on this fact.
- The German Basic Law does not prohibit assigning responsibility for the minimum subsistence level, in accordance with EU law, to the state that has already provided protection. EU law is based on the mutual trust that Member States will effectively protect fundamental rights (see ECJ, Judgment of 19 March 2019 – C-163/17).
- Furthermore, the constitutionality of the law is supported by the entitlements to bridging benefits (sentences 2 to 5) and hardship benefits (sentence 6) enshrined in Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). The latter allow for consideration of special personal circumstances such as high vulnerability or limitations due to inability to travel.
- The regulation is also in accordance with EU law. The ECJ ruling of 4 June 2026 (C-621/24) on the inadmissibility of benefit reductions applies exclusively to asylum seekers in ongoing Dublin procedures. For persons who have already been granted legally binding protection in another Member State, however, the Qualification Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 applies, which clearly assigns the obligation to provide benefits to the state granting protection.
Note by Detlef Brock
: See also LSG Munich, decision of 15.06.2026 – L 8 AY 43/26 B ER. (Exclusion of benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 AsylbLG for persons granted protection in Greece in the event of reasonable return).
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/2026 – Author: Detlef Brock
- Newsletter: Thomé Newsletter 12/2026 from April 6th, 2026 - Author: Harald Thomé
- License: Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0
Quotations without source information are not permitted.
