Published:

Tacheles Legal Case Law Ticker Week 32/2026

Overview of case law
on basic income support, social assistance, asylum seekers' benefits law, citizen's allowance, and employment promotion law

Last updated: August 9, 2026
Editor: Detlef Brock
Publisher: Tacheles Legal News Ticker

1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on social assistance

1.1 – BSG, Judgment of 06.08.2026 – B 8 SO 3/25 R –

Legal question:
Does a minor, capable of working and entitled to benefits, after reaching the age of 15, have a right to subsistence assistance under Chapter Three of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), in the amount of the actual costs of accommodation, if she lives in a foster family due to the mother's exercise of custody rights?

BSG: Referral to LSG

Decision

  1. The State Social Court failed to take into account that, from the age of fifteen, benefits for subsistence are excluded for the employable plaintiff in accordance with Section 21 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII).
  2. For the period from January 19, 2018, to January 20, 2022, the Senate cannot decide, based on the findings of the State Social Court to date, whether the plaintiff was entitled to higher subsistence assistance, taking into account an individual need that deviates from the standard rates, pursuant to Section 27a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). Although the plaintiff was placed in a "different family" within the meaning of the provision, the decisions of the Youth Welfare Office are irrelevant.

However, sufficient findings regarding the actual costs of accommodation are lacking. Only such findings allow the state social court to review the appropriateness of the costs as stipulated by law.

Source:
Federal Social Court
www.bsg.bund.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 Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 09.07.2026 – L 1 AS 664/26 ER –

Subject:
Application for a stay of execution by a job center pursuant to Section 199 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG).

Guiding principle

  1. For an application for a stay of execution by a job center pursuant to Section 199 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), filed immediately with the appeal, the need for legal protection may be lacking if the plaintiff's intention to enforce the judgment is not apparent.
  2. In favor of benefit providers not included in the scope of Section 154 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), which, like job centers, are not insurance providers in this sense, the purpose of this provision, according to which legal remedies effect a postponement in disputes concerning claims that exclusively relate to the past, can be taken into account in the balancing of interests and consequences.
  3. A third-country national is not entitled to basic income support benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), due to a lack of EU long-term residence rights, if he later becomes a Union citizen but had already lost his previous right of residence by deregistering abroad (reference to ECJ, judgment of 21 December 2011 – C-424/10 and C-425/10 – and BVerwG, judgment of 31 May 2012 – 10 C 8.12 –).

Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de

2.2 – LSG NRW, decision of 06.02.2026 – L 19 AS 1636/25 B ER –

Theme

  1. No advance payment will be granted in accordance with Section 42 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I) if there is no ground for the order / no need for assistance.
  2. The transmission of documents via an email-to-fax service does not constitute a legally valid written submission.

Decision

  1. Grounds for an order were denied due to lack of credibility, because income from gambling winnings constitutes assessable income within the meaning of Section 11 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
  2. The transmission of documents via an email-to-fax service does not constitute a legally valid written submission, even if the document is received by the court via fax (LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of January 11, 2024 – L 7 SO 3301/23 B –; LSG NRW, decisions of February 15, 2023 – L 6 AS 661/22 NZB – and of April 8, 2021 – L 12 AS 311/21 B ER –). Therefore, both the application to the Social Court and the appeal to the Higher Social Court are formally invalid and thus inadmissible.

Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de

2.3 – LSG NRW, decision of 27.07.2026 – L 2 AS 926/26 B –

Issue
of housing costs without prior approval for a 17-year-old applicant – loss of housing costs for those under 25 without prior approval – granting of legal aid

Basic income support:
If a 17-year-old moves without prior approval from the job center, not only is there a risk of a rent reduction, but the move will lead to the complete loss of housing and heating costs.

Decision

  1. Legal aid was granted because the application of the 17-year-old applicant, to compel the job center by way of an interim injunction to issue a guarantee for the move to the new apartment and to promise to cover the resulting accommodation costs, offered a certain prospect of success.
  2. The granting of a (final) assurance in preliminary legal protection proceedings can – exceptionally – take place despite the associated anticipation of the main issue, if it can be established with a high, if not near certainty, probability already in the preliminary legal protection proceedings that the prerequisites for this are met.
  3. Moving without the required assurance would not only result in a rent reduction, but would also lead to the complete loss of housing and heating costs. In contrast to the assurance under Section 22 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the assurance under Section 22 Paragraph 5 of the SGB II is a substantive requirement for the granting of benefits (Piepenstock/Senger in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB II, 5th edition, Section 22 [as of July 15, 2025], marginal note 225).

Source:
LSG NRW

2.4 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, Judgment of 22.01.2026 – L 35 AS 379/22 –

Topic:
Costs for pest control – bed bugs – landlords

  1. Costs for pest control, including bed bug and other pest control, can be included in the accommodation costs, even if the measures are not arranged by the landlord but imposed on the tenant.
  2. Pest control costs are not covered by standard benefits. A loan under Section 24 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) is not permitted.

Guiding principle

  1. The costs of accommodation expenses may also include the costs of measures to eliminate vermin, especially bed bugs, if the measures are not arranged by the landlord but imposed on the tenant.
  2. The fact that the expenses for pest control can be considered accommodation costs under Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), is irrelevant regardless of whether the specific tenancy agreement contains provisions relating to an infestation of vermin, because the elimination of defects in the rented property is a contractual obligation arising from the tenancy relationship pursuant to Section 535 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
  3. The tenant's right to self-entry under Section 536a of the German Civil Code (BGB) and the existing urgent need preclude initially referring the tenant to civil proceedings to enforce the landlord's obligations.
  4. Under social security law, it is required that self-help measures be both effective and cost-efficient, and tenants receiving social security benefits are advised to seek advice from the job center.
  5. Claims for damages by the landlord against the tenant for damage to the rented property are not considered necessary accommodation costs.
  6. The mutual obligations of consideration within the tenancy agreement (§ 242 of the German Civil Code) stipulate that the rectification of defects must be reasonable for the tenant, although the tenant has no right to demand the landlord's optimal approach. The tenant may have the right to take action themselves if the landlord's approach is unreasonable and the tenant requests the landlord to take reasonable action, possibly by formally notifying the landlord of their default.

Source:
LSG Berlin-Brandenburg

Note by Detlef Brock

  1. The landlord is generally obligated to eliminate a pest infestation. If the landlord fails to comply with the tenant's request, these costs must be covered by the job center according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Due to the tenant's claim against the landlord, this can constitute a transfer of the claim under Section 33 of the SGB II.

The 14th Senate of the LSG Berlin-Brandenburg currently holds a different view, file number: L 14 AS 237/22:

  1. The costs for pest control in an apartment infested with bed bugs are not considered housing costs if the recipient of benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) is not contractually obligated to cover such costs.
  2. Recipients of basic income support are not entitled to have the costs of pest control covered as accommodation costs, as a loan, as initial equipment or as an additional hardship allowance.

3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support / citizen's allowance under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)

3.1 – SG Aurich, Judgment of 23.06.2026 – S 25 AS 390/23 –

Topic:
Assurance according to § 22 para. 4 SGB II – high heating costs – cost reduction procedure

  1. The job center must cover the actual costs of accommodation and heating, because within the framework of the assurance procedure according to § 22 para. 4 sentence 1 SGB II, an assurance may not be refused solely on the grounds of high heating costs.
  2. If only the projected heating costs are unreasonable, the assurance may not be refused on such grounds.

Decision:
The job center may not refuse a commitment solely on the grounds of high heating costs within the framework of the commitment procedure according to § 22 para. 4 sentence 1 SGB II.

Source:
SG Aurich

Note by Detlef Brock

  1. Before the housing costs covered can be reduced to the level deemed appropriate by the benefit provider, a so-called cost reduction procedure must be carried out, according to established and correct case law of the social courts. The job center did not conduct such a cost reduction procedure in this case.
  2. The job center was not entitled to base its calculations for the period in question solely on reasonable housing costs due to an unauthorized move. The reasonableness of anticipated heating costs is expressly irrelevant in the approval process. Therefore, only the net or gross rent excluding utilities is relevant, not the gross rent including heating.
  3. If only the projected heating costs are unreasonable, the guarantee cannot be refused on this basis. Any actual excessive heating costs must be addressed within the regular framework of a cost reduction procedure.
  4. For energy cost prepayments that tenants pay directly to the energy supplier, verification within the assurance procedure is impossible. These prepayments are generally unknown before the conclusion of the supply contract and therefore cannot be verified within the assurance procedure.
  5. Another reason why the benefit approval process cannot be based on heating costs deemed excessive by the benefit provider is that heating costs are always individually determined. For example, previous tenants of an apartment may have incurred significantly higher energy costs than the benefit recipients now seeking the approval, due to above-average or even just high heating requirements.

4. Decisions on employment promotion law (SGB III)

4.1 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of 13.03.2026 – L 8 AL 657/24 –

Topic:
Offsetting unemployment benefit I against contribution claims – Sections 52, 51 para. 2 SGB I

Unemployment benefit I of a homeless person may be offset against contribution claims up to half if the applicant fails to prove need for assistance within the meaning of the German Social Code, Book II or Book XII.

Guiding principles

  1. The deadline set in accordance with Section 73 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 of the Social Courts Act (SGG) is not a preclusive deadline, so the power of attorney can still be submitted until the end of the oral hearing.
  2. Regarding the requirements for offsetting unemployment benefits against contribution claims in accordance with Sections 52 and 51 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I).

Source:
LSG Baden-Württemberg

Note by Detlef Brock

  1. Unemployment benefits received by a homeless person may be offset against contribution claims up to half the amount.
  2. A homeless person is not entitled to additional needs benefits under Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), because the plaintiff, or homeless people in general, do not incur certain standard needs-related expenses. In light of this, the Senate cannot see that there is still an unavoidable monthly need that must be taken into account and that is not offset by these savings (cf., for example, the decision of the Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg of May 3, 2021 – L 9 AS 534/21 ER-B –).
  3. In the cases referred to in Section 51 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I), there is – unlike in the cases referred to in Section 51 Paragraph 1 of the SGB I – no obligation to observe the attachment limits according to Section 54 Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the SGB I.
  4. According to Section 25 of the German Social Code, Book IV (SGB IV), claims for contributions become statute-barred four years after the end of the calendar year in which they became due. Claims for intentionally withheld contributions become statute-barred thirty years after the end of the calendar year in which they became due.
4.2 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 28 May 2026 – L 11 AL 25/25 – Appeal allowed to the Federal Social Court

The issue
of early retirement from a pension fund suspends the entitlement to unemployment benefit I.

Unemployed and yet receiving no unemployment benefits: A lawyer who already receives an early retirement pension from a pension fund is subject to the exclusion from benefits or the suspension rule for unemployment benefit I.

Decision

  1. The court ruled that such a pension from a pension fund is comparable to a statutory old-age pension.
  2. The entitlement to unemployment benefits is suspended according to § 156 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 4 SGB III, since the pension from the pension fund is equivalent to a statutory old-age pension.
  3. The Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court classifies old-age pensions from pension funds as public-law benefits similar to a statutory old-age pension.
  4. The legislator wants to prevent those affected from receiving both unemployment insurance benefits and a pension at the same time.
  5. Whether the pension is based on mandatory contributions or voluntary payments does not change the suspension of the entitlement.

Guiding principles

  1. An early retirement pension granted by the lawyers' pension fund of Lower Saxony is a public-law benefit similar to the statutory old-age pension within the meaning of Section 156 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 4 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), which leads to the suspension of the entitlement to unemployment benefits.
  2. Such an early retirement pension does not constitute a partial pension or similar benefit of a public-law nature within the meaning of Section 156 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 3 Letter a of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III), even if the (future) retirement provision of the lawyer in question consists not only of the early retirement pension but also of a pension from the statutory pension insurance that has not yet been granted.
  3. There are no constitutional concerns regarding the suspension provision of Section 156 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 4 SGB III.

Source:
LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen

5. Decisions on social assistance (SGB XII)

5.1 – SG Gelsenkirchen, decision of 22.07.2026 – S 2 SO 199/26 ER –

Topic:
School support / integration assistant – systemic school assistance – actual needs assessment – ​​revocation of an approval under § 48 SGB X for the future

In the event of alternative coverage of actual needs, the social welfare provider may revoke an approval for school support or integration assistance for the future in accordance with Section 48 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), if individual 1:1 support is no longer necessary and the need can be met by systemic school assistance.

Decision

  1. The chamber considers systemic school assistance for the disabled applicant to be reasonable, because the applicant's needs will most likely be met in the near future by others within the meaning of Section 91 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX.
  2. If other services are actually provided, the provision functions as an independent exclusion rule (Federal Social Court, judgment of March 22, 2012 – B 8 SO 30/10 R –). The principle of necessity also applies in this respect, meaning that the specific need must be considered (Federal Social Court, judgment of February 23, 2023 – B 8 SO 4/22 R –).
  3. The applicant is indisputably among those potentially entitled to benefits pursuant to Section 99 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX). However, the provision of an integration aide as one-on-one support during school attendance is, with a high degree of probability, not necessary within the meaning of Section 4 Paragraph 1 of the SGB IX.
  4. The standard for justified wishes, i.e., appropriate wishes that correspond to the purposes and objectives of the law (§ 8 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB IX) or disproportionate additional costs (§ 104 para. 2 sentence 2 SGB IX), is the needs of a non-disabled person who is not in need of social assistance (established case law: LSG NRW, judgment of 15.05.2025 – L 9 SO 177/24 –).

The applicant indisputably requires support from assistants during school attendance. However, he is referred to the systemic school assistance program established at the I. school from August 2026. The court sees no shortfall in the provision of such support.

Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de

5.2 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 15.06.2026 – L 2 SO 1685/26 ER-B –

Topic:
Granting a "one-off crisis bonus" in addition to benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) from April 2026

The granting of a one-off crisis bonus of 800 euros in addition to the benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) from April 2026 onwards is not constitutionally required.

Decision:
The standard rates for covering the standard needs in standard needs level 1 (RBS 1) are not evidently insufficient and life-threatening for the year 2026.

Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de

5.3 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 22.04.2026 – L 2 SO 2580/25 –

Topic:
Benefits for social participation in the form of a motor vehicle allowance for a 59-year-old disabled recipient of benefits who is dependent on a wheelchair.

A walking disability alone does not justify an entitlement to a vehicle adapted for people with disabilities within the framework of integration assistance.

Decision

  1. There is no entitlement to benefits for social participation in the form of a motor vehicle allowance if the need is partially covered in other ways or if the claimant can reasonably be referred to the use of public transport and other transport services.
  2. According to Section 83 Paragraph 1 Number 2 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX), the costs for a motor vehicle claimed by the plaintiff, in this case the operating costs, can in principle also be covered as part of integration assistance. However, according to Paragraph 2 of this provision, a prerequisite for this is that the use of public transport is unreasonable for the person concerned due to the nature and severity of their disability.
  3. The specific conditions of the locally available transport infrastructure are also relevant. Furthermore, the nature and severity of the disability must be the direct cause of the unreasonableness; infrastructural disadvantages are therefore irrelevant. The law itself thus indicates that the legislator intends the requirements for granting a motor vehicle or transport service to be interpreted restrictively.
  4. This regulation implies that benefits for a motor vehicle are subordinate to benefits for transportation. With regard to the criterion of necessity, which must be examined for every integration measure (§ 4 para. 1 SGB IX), this can only be affirmed if the motor vehicle, as a fundamentally suitable integration measure, is indispensable for achieving the integration goals (BSG, judgment of 12.12.2013 – B 8 SO 18/12 R –).

Source
www.socialgerichtsabilities.de

Note by Detlef Brock

1. No vehicle adapted for people with disabilities – public transport or transport service for people with disabilities is reasonable

Integration assistance: There is no entitlement to a vehicle adapted for people with disabilities from the social welfare provider. Public transport or a transport service for people with disabilities may, in individual cases, be considered reasonable even for a severely disabled person with the disability marker "aG" and care level 4.

LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 23.02.2026 – L 2 SO 3556/25 –

2. No accessible vehicle – taxi and bus are sufficient

Integration assistance: No entitlement to a disabled-friendly vehicle from the social welfare provider if taxis and buses are sufficient to meet participation needs.

LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 03.02.2026 – L 2 SO 56/26 ER-B –

3. Use of own assets or income in expedited proceedings

If it is not yet clear whether the basic requirements for integration assistance are met, i.e., whether and what impairments to participation exist, the applicant can reasonably be referred to the use of their own, possibly also protected, assets or income in expedited proceedings.

LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 06.07.2026 – L 2 SO 1823/26 ER-B –

6. Decisions concerning the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)

6.1 – SG Stuttgart, Judgment of 23 July 2026 – S 9 AY 2055/26 –

Subject:
Exclusion from benefits according to § 1 para. 4 sentence 1 no. 2 AsylbLG

Section 1, paragraph 4, sentence 1, number 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is contrary to EU law. Applicants cannot, without the corresponding cooperation of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), end the exclusion from or restriction of benefits by voluntarily leaving the country.

Decision

  1. Provision of basic benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at the legally prescribed amount.
  2. According to Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) (in the version applicable until June 11, 2026), persons entitled to benefits whose asylum application has been rejected as inadmissible by a decision of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) pursuant to Section 29 Paragraph 1 No. 1 in conjunction with Section 31 Paragraph 6 of the Asylum Act (AsylG), for whom deportation has been ordered pursuant to Section 34a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Alternative 2 of the Asylum Act (AsylG), and for whom, according to the BAMF's determination, departure is legally and factually possible, are not entitled to benefits under the AsylbLG even if the decision is not yet legally binding.
  3. The BAMF's determination, required by the regulation, that departure is legally and factually possible is lacking. The present decision from the BAMF contains no such determination. The BAMF has merely determined that there are no prohibitions on deportation pursuant to Section 60, paragraphs 5 and 7, sentence 1 of the Residence Act.
    However, this is not sufficient, as Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) expressly requires the further finding that departure – even voluntary departure – is legally and factually possible (see, in this regard and below, Social Court Heilbronn, Decision of 22 September 2025 – S 15 AY 1887/25 ER –, referring to Higher Social Court Lower Saxony-Bremen, Decision of 13 June 2025 – L 8 AY 12/25 B ER –; most recently Higher Social Court Hesse, Decision of 1 October 2025 – L 4 AY 5/25 B ER –; similarly Frerichs in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 4th edition 2024, as of 9 April 2025, Section 1 AsylbLG marginal notes 206.7 and 206.8 with further references).
  4. The applied provision is contrary to EU law. This follows from the ECJ's decision on the predecessor regulation of Section 1a Paragraph 7 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), which merely provided for a reduction in benefits (Federal Social Court, referral order of 25 July 2024 – B 8 AY 6/23 R –; ECJ, judgment of 4 June 2026 – C-621/24 –).

Source
: Attorney Sven Adam

6.2 – LSG Baden-Württemberg, decision of 30.07.2026 – L 7 AY 3689/25 ER-B –

Subject:
Exclusion from benefits according to § 1 para. 4 sentence 1 no. 2 AsylbLG

Decision:
The exclusion from benefits pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 AsylbLG is contrary to Union law and must therefore not be applied by national authorities and courts.

The Baden-Württemberg State Social Court (LSG) is of the opinion that the judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of 4 June 2026 – C-621/24 – establishes that the exclusion from benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is contrary to EU law. The provision must therefore be disapplied by national authorities and courts without the need to await legislative implementation or constitutional court proceedings.

Submitted by
Attorney Fabian Rust, Bremen

Note by Detlef Brock

  1. Insofar as the respondent intends to base her appeal on two decisions of the regional social courts issued after the cited decision of the ECJ of 4 June 2026 (Bavarian Regional Social Court, decision of 15 June 2026 – L 8 AY 43/26 B ER –; Hamburg Regional Social Court, decision of 6 July 2026 – L 4 AY 24/26 B ER –), these decisions each concerned the exclusion from benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and thus a set of facts not present here.
    The respective applicants in those cases had already been granted international protection by another Member State of the European Union, so that the situation was no longer covered by the Reception Directive 2013/33/EU and therefore the directive was no longer applicable.
  2. The question of whether the provision of Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is unconstitutional, particularly with regard to the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living under Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) (cf., in connection with benefits under the AsylbLG, for example, the Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of the First Senate of April 15, 2026 – 1 BvL 5/21 –), is irrelevant to the review to be conducted here. Therefore, a referral to the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) is not necessary in these expedited proceedings for this reason alone.

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.

Source: Tacheles Legal Case Law Ticker Week 32/2026

Similar posts:


  1. Tacheles Legal Case Law Ticker Week 48/2020
  2. Tacheles Legal Case Law Ticker Week 12/2021
  3. Tacheles Legal Case Law Ticker Week 16/2021
  4. Tacheles Legal Case Law Ticker Week 21/2021