Overview of case law
on basic income support, social assistance, the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act, basic income support/citizen's allowance, and employment promotion law
Last updated: August 2, 2026
Editor: Detlef Brock
Publisher: Tacheles Legal News Ticker
1. Decisions of the State Social Courts on the New Basic Income Support/Citizen's Allowance (SGB II)
1.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, Judgment of 08.05.2025 – L 14 AS 237/22
Topic:
Cost coverage in case of bed bug infestation – pest control
Decision
- Recipients of basic income support have no claim for the assumption of the costs of pest control
- as costs of accommodation,
- as a loan
- as initial equipment or
- as additional hardship needs.
- A bed bug infestation generally constitutes a defect in the rented property , which, according to § 535 para. 1 sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB), is generally to be remedied by the landlord.
Guiding principles
- The costs for pest control in an apartment infested with bed bugs are not to be covered either as a loan as a special unavoidable need included in the standard needs allowance, nor as a special need for the initial furnishing of the apartment, nor as an unavoidable ongoing need.
- Under the legal situation of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), which was in effect until 2021, there was no entitlement to the assumption of one-off, unavoidable needs.
- Pest control costs do not constitute accommodation costs if the beneficiary is not contractually obligated to bear these costs.
- If there is a civil law claim against the landlord for the removal of the pest infestation, it is not constitutionally required to necessarily cover the costs as a benefit under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
- The constitutional right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living is not violated if the beneficiary can take out a private loan to finance pest control.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock
- Destroyed furniture as a result of a bed bug infestation must be covered by the job center or social welfare office as initial equipment (§ 24 para. 3 sentence 1 no. 1 and sentence 2 SGB II as well as § 31 SGB XII; LSG Hamburg, judgment of 05.04.2024 – L 4 AS 153/23 D).
- According to other case law, pest control costs are generally considered part of the accommodation costs (SG Reutlingen, decision of 13.11.2019 – S 4 AS 2464/19 ER; Berlit in: Münder/Geiger/Lenze, SGB II, 8th ed. 2023, § 22 Rn. 54; SG Berlin, judgment of 10.02.2022 – S 100 AS 6480/19).
- According to the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, the costs of pest control must be covered by the social welfare office at least in the form of a loan , or alternatively as benefits to overcome special social difficulties (§§ 67, 68 and § 37 SGB XII; Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 17.03.2020 – L 8 SO 7/20 B ER).
1.2 – LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, Judgment of 11.09.2025 – L 9 AS 466/24
BSG
rejected legal aid (decision of 29.12.2025 – B 4 AS 242/25 BH)
Theme
- The refusal decision was lawful because the plaintiff was obliged, within the framework of his duty to cooperate (§ 60 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB I), to submit proof of ownership of the occupied house property as well as bank statements for the accounts revealed by account inquiry.
- No legal protection against a refusal notice after it has been resolved in another way (§ 39 para. 2 SGB X).
Decision
- The appeal against the refusal notice was inadmissible because the administrative act had become moot.
- A subsequent rejection notice, against which a combined action for annulment and performance must be brought, does not become the subject of the proceedings against the refusal notice pursuant to Section 96 of the Social Court Act (SGG). Rather, the issuance of the rejection notice renders the refusal notice ineffective (see Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB I, 4th ed. 2024, Section 66, para. 77).
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock:
The refusal notice was rendered moot by the subsequent rejection notice pursuant to Section 39 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X). Therefore, there was no legal interest in bringing an action against the refusal notice from the outset (cf. Federal Social Court, Judgment of February 15, 2023 – B 11 AL 39/21 R).
1.3 – LSG Hessen, Judgment of 03.06.2026 – L 6 AS 363/25
Subject:
Decision to refuse benefits pursuant to Section 66 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) – Resolution pursuant to Section 39 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X).
Guiding principles
- For the assumption of a continuing interest in a declaratory judgment, it is not sufficient that a possible violation of fundamental rights or human dignity is always at stake in the case of a failing or negative decision on subsistence-securing benefits.
- Due to the limited scope of a refusal notice pursuant to Section 66 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I), this is superseded by a subsequent decision on the merits – regardless of whether this decision is favorable or unfavorable.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock
- Due to its limited scope, a refusal decision pursuant to Section 39 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) becomes moot as soon as the benefit provider subsequently decides on the matter – regardless of whether the decision is favorable or unfavorable (see Higher Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of May 23, 2023 – L 2 AS 128/23 B ER; Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony-Bremen, judgment of September 11, 2025 – L 9 AS 466/24; Voelzke in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB I, 4th edition, Section 66 SGB I, as of February 4, 2026, marginal note 65; Schmitt, SGb 2023, 87 et seq.; Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, judgment of November 27, 2024 – L 3 AS 2341/23).
- With the subsequent substantive decision, the benefit provider no longer invokes the obstacle to a decision arising from a lack of cooperation, but rather concludes the administrative procedure definitively. This eliminates the regulatory effect of the refusal notice.
3. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)
3.1 – LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, Judgment of 09.02.2026 – L 9 AL 44/25
Appeal pending before the Federal Social Court (BSG)
B 11 AL 5/26 R
Topic:
Unemployment Benefit I: Is the disregard of partial billing periods when calculating unemployment benefit constitutional?
Decision
- The North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court ruled in its judgment of February 9, 2026 (L 9 AL 44/25) that a sales consultant in the field is not entitled to a higher unemployment benefit I.
- Just as with the assessment rule of Section 150 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB III, partial billing periods are also not to be taken into account when examining whether a fictitious assessment is to be carried out in accordance with Section 152 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB III (similarly LSG Hessen, judgment of 15.11.2019 – L 7 AL 73/18).
- Despite the sometimes considerable financial consequences of not taking into account a partially billed month, the 9th Senate considers this regulation constitutionally justified. The court thus does not the opinion of the Social Court of Dortmund (judgment of July 16, 2024 – S 23 AL 633/22).
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
4. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)
4.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 30.06.2026 – L 24 SO 148/26 B ER
The
application for mobility benefits in integration assistance requires a sufficiently specific request for benefits.
Decision:
The LSG Berlin-Brandenburg has ruled that a 16-year-old disabled student not entitled to a wheelchair-accessible vehicle including a wheelchair ramp in expedited proceedings if his application for these services is not sufficiently specific.
Guiding principles
- A permissible procedure for preliminary legal protection under Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG) requires that a clear, enforceable regulation can be established for the period until the main decision.
- The subject of the proceedings must be a specific claim. The isolated clarification of individual claim requirements (so-called element determination) is inadmissible.
- Provisional monetary payments or provisional assumption of costs do not, in principle, constitute an inadmissible anticipation of the main issue, as long as a claim for reimbursement is not excluded.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Comment by Detlef Brock:
The application did not aim at a sufficiently specific entitlement to benefits. It could also not be specified through interpretation. The applicant merely sought an abstract clarification of the personal requirements for mobility services in the form of a motor vehicle with a transfer ramp. Without concrete information about a specific vehicle and the desired additional equipment, neither suitability nor cost-effectiveness and appropriateness could be assessed.
4.2 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 24.03.2026 – L 2 SO 85/26 ER-B
Topic:
No initial equipment for a tumble dryer in the case of replacement due to wear and tear
Decision
- The court rejected the application for an interim injunction. It concerned a replacement purchase for which there is no entitlement to a subsidy.
- Subsidies for household appliances are legally provided exclusively as part of initial equipment purchases. The costs for replacing larger household appliances (so-called "white goods"), such as washing machines, tumble dryers, dishwashers, or ironing machines, must be covered by the standard allowance after a defect due to age or wear and tear.
- Even for larger household appliances, benefit recipients must save from their standard allowance for a later replacement. This does not violate constitutional law.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock:
An electric clothes dryer is not among the furnishings and household appliances that are essential for orderly household management. Granting a loan also requires an unavoidable need (cf. Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, judgment of June 20, 2023 – L 9 AS 3069/21 – regarding citizen's income).
4.3 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 22.05.2026 – L 24 SO 125/26 B ER
Topic:
Communication assistance with sign language skills for a deaf three-year-old child as a social participation service.
Decision:
The integration assistance provider was ordered in expedited proceedings to grant a three-year-old deaf child integration assistance in the form of communication support for attending daycare and a home sign language course.
Guiding principles
- Provisional monetary payments or provisional assumption of costs do not, in principle, constitute an anticipation of the main issue, as long as a claim for reimbursement is not excluded.
- In the area of participation benefits, it must be taken into account that thwarted participation regularly means a prejudgment of the main issue, because it cannot be subsequently rectified.
- A procedural error pursuant to Section 42 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) exists if the authority makes a decision without the overall plan that is mandatory under Sections 117 and 121 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX).
- Bilingual support for deaf people (spoken and sign language) corresponds to the current state of scientific knowledge.
- A concrete application is simultaneously a request within the meaning of Section 8 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX). If this request is justified and appropriate, the authority's discretion in selection is reduced to zero.
- The claim for an injunction and the grounds for the injunction are interrelated: the higher the chances of success in the main proceedings, the lower the requirements for the grounds for the injunction – and vice versa.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock
- The integration assistance provider made its decision without drawing up the legally required overall plan. Therefore, the decision was already unlawful for procedural reasons (§§ 117, 121 para. 1 SGB IX).
- While integration assistance benefits are generally not subject to a time limit (see Federal Social Court [BSG], judgment of January 28, 2021 – B 8 SO 9/19 R; similarly, Higher Social Court [LSG] Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of February 19, 2026 – L 24 SO 116/25), in preliminary legal proceedings the obligation was initially limited to the end of the calendar year. The necessary urgency for an obligation extending beyond this period was lacking.
Legal tip from the editor:
Sections 113 para. 2 no. 6 and 82 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX do not provide a legal basis for the reimbursement of costs for a home sign language course for foster parents of a deaf child (LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 01.06.2026 – L 7 SO 1227/26 ER-B).
4.4 – LSG Hessen, decision of 22.07.2026 – L 4 SO 129/26 B ER
Topic:
Coverage of the costs of air-conditioned hotel accommodation during a heat wave that poses a health risk
Decision:
The Higher Social Court of Hesse has ruled that in narrowly limited exceptional cases , the social welfare office may be obliged to cover the costs of air-conditioned hotel accommodation in accordance with Section 35a Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII, if staying in one's own apartment poses a concrete health risk.
In this specific case, however, the urgent application was rejected because the prerequisites were not credibly demonstrated.
Decision sentences
- During a heat wave, the possibility of meeting accommodation needs through an existing, adequate but un-air-conditioned apartment is eliminated only in very limited exceptional cases. Heat is fundamentally a general risk to life.
- The need for accommodation is no longer met only if the person entitled to benefits cannot create a situation that allows for sufficiently long and healthy sleep – especially at night – using the means available to them (e.g., shading, ventilation, or evaporative cooling), or if they cannot leave their home for a reasonable period of time due to health reasons and therefore their presence in the home poses a concrete health risk. These conditions were not met in the case at hand.
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
5. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)
5.1 – LSG Bayern, decision of 22.06.2026 – L 8 AY 52/26 B ER
The issue
of preliminary legal protection against a continued restriction of entitlements under Section 1a Paragraph 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) was successfully addressed.
Principle:
A further restriction of benefits beyond the initial temporary restriction, based on the grounds of Section 1a Paragraph 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), is unlawful. This also applies if the further restriction does not directly follow the first (following the decision of the Bavarian State Social Court (BayLSG) of November 11, 2024 – L 11 AY 37/24 B ER, not published).
Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note by Detlef Brock
- A literal interpretation of Section 1a Paragraph 2 in conjunction with Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) does not constitute a sanction for a failure to cooperate that could still be rectified. Rather, the provision establishes a repressive sanction. It exclusively sanctions conduct that occurred in the past, namely entering the country for the purpose of receiving benefits (cf. already Bavarian State Social Court, decision of February 19, 2026 – L 8 AY 1/26 B ER, not published).
- While a motive may persist over time, the act of entering the Federal Republic of Germany, which is disapproved of under Section 1a Paragraph 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), does not. Therefore, there is no continuing or ongoing breach of duty within the meaning of Section 14 Paragraph 2 of the AsylbLG.
- It should also be noted that the Senate's previous case law stipulates that Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) must be interpreted restrictively with regard to the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living (Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law) and the principle of proportionality (BayLSG, decision of November 11, 2024 – L 11 AY 37/24 B ER, not published).
6. Miscellaneous
6.1 – Federal Court of Justice (BGH), Judgment of 14 July 2026 – X ZR 71/25
ruling
strengthens donors' rights to reclaim gifts amounting to several thousand euros
Decision
- Due to the statute of limitations having expired, the social welfare office is left with the nursing home costs.
- The right to reclaim a gift due to the impoverishment of the donor is generally subject to the regular three-year limitation period (§ 195 BGB). A longer limitation period applies only if a specific legal provision applies, for example, in the case of the reclaim of a gifted property (§ 196 BGB).
Source
www.rechtrecht-im-internet.de
Note on citation style
Unpublished judgments or comments may only be quoted with attribution to the respective source:
- Case Law Ticker: 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.
