Case Law on Citizen’s Allowance

In addition to laws and regulations, case law is an important source for interpreting citizen’s allowance rules. Courts clarify through their decisions how the often generally formulated legal texts are to be applied in specific individual cases.

This page provides an overview of fundamental and current court decisions on citizen’s allowance or SGB II that are relevant to benefit recipients.

The Significance of Case Law for Your Rights

Court decisions significantly influence how job centers implement citizen’s allowance law:

Specification of undefined legal terms: Courts determine what, for example, is to be understood by “appropriate” housing costs
Clarification of contradictions: In case of contradictory provisions, courts decide which interpretation applies
Closing legal gaps: For questions not regulated in the law, courts develop solutions
Control of administration: Courts correct erroneous or excessive practices of job centers

Social courts are the first instance for lawsuits in citizen’s allowance matters. There are 68 social courts nationwide.

The 14 state social courts are the appellate instance against judgments of social courts.

The Federal Social Court in Kassel is the highest instance in social jurisdiction. Its judgments have special significance and binding effect.

Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG)

The Federal Constitutional Court decides on constitutional complaints and the constitutionality of laws. Its decisions are binding for all state authorities.

Fundamental Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court

Hartz IV Judgment of February 9, 2010

The “Hartz IV Judgment” (BVerfG, 1 BvL 1/09) shaped basic security constitutionally:

The BVerfG derived a fundamental right to guarantee a dignified subsistence minimum from Art. 1 para. 1 GG in connection with the social state principle (Art. 20 para. 1 GG)
Standard benefits must be determined transparently, appropriately, and comprehensibly
The legislature must regularly review and adjust standard needs

Sanctions Judgment of November 5, 2019

With its judgment on sanctions (BVerfG, 1 BvL 7/16), the Federal Constitutional Court set limits for job centers:

Reductions of more than 30% are only permissible if special hardships are avoided in individual cases
Total sanctions (100% reduction) were declared unconstitutional
The job center must be able to lift sanctions if the person concerned seriously and sustainably promises their cooperation

This decision contributed to the redesign of benefit reductions in the citizen’s allowance law.

Important BSG Judgments on Housing Costs

Appropriateness of Housing

Coherent Concept: Job centers must determine the appropriateness limit for housing costs based on a “coherent concept” (BSG, B 4 AS 109/11 R)
Product Theory: Appropriateness is measured by the product of living space and price per square meter, not by rigid upper limits for both factors (BSG, B 14 AS 81/06 R)
Appropriateness Check in Grace Period: During the 12-month grace period, actual costs are covered, regardless of local appropriateness limits (new citizen’s allowance law)

Moves and Housing Changes

Necessity of a Move: A move is not necessary if the old housing was appropriate (BSG, B 14 AS 60/12 R)
Cost Reduction Request: Before a reduction of inappropriate housing costs, a concrete cost reduction request is necessary (BSG, B 4 AS 77/12 R)
Moving Costs: The job center must cover necessary moving costs if the move was necessary (BSG, B 4 AS 60/09 R)

Heating Costs

Appropriateness of Heating Costs: Heating costs are appropriate if they do not exceed the nationwide heating index by more than 30% (BSG, B 14 AS 36/08 R)
Utility Back Payments: Even for inappropriately high housing, appropriate utility back payments must be covered (BSG, B 14 AS 70/10 R)

Decisions on Income and Assets

Income

Tax Refunds: Tax refunds are considered income in the month of receipt (BSG, B 4 AS 29/13 R)
Additional Need Supplements: Additional need supplements according to § 21 SGB II are not counted as income (BSG, B 14 AS 48/09 R)
Allowances for Employment: Allowances are also available to persons who remain in need of assistance despite employment (BSG, B 4 AS 29/07 R)

Assets

Appropriate Motor Vehicle: A motor vehicle up to 7,500 euros in value is to be recognized as protected assets (BSG, B 14 AS 13/08 R)
Old-Age Provision: Assets for old-age provision are protected within certain limits (BSG, B 14 AS 2/10 R)
Protected Assets in Grace Period: In the first 12 months of benefit receipt, assets up to 40,000 euros for the first person plus 15,000 euros for each additional person in the needs community are protected (new citizen’s allowance law)

Case Law on Sanctions and Benefit Reductions

Acceptability of Work: Work is not acceptable if it is immoral (BSG, B 14 AS 1/10 R)
Important Reason: An important reason for refusing work can also lie in caring for relatives in need of care (BSG, B 14 AS 95/07 R)
Proportionality: Sanctions must be proportionate and may not lead to falling below the subsistence minimum (BVerfG, 1 BvL 7/16)

Decisions on Special Needs

Additional Needs

Costly Nutrition: An additional need for costly nutrition requires a medical certificate and a nutrition-related cost increase (BSG, B 14 AS 66/07 R)
Hot Water Production: With decentralized hot water production, an additional need is available (BSG, B 14 AS 70/07 R)
Pregnancy: The additional need for pregnant women begins with the determination of pregnancy, not only with reaching the 13th week of pregnancy (BSG, B 4 AS 18/13 R)

One-Time Needs

Initial Furnishing for Housing: Initial furnishing includes all essential furniture items (BSG, B 8 SO 8/09 R)
School Trips: Costs for multi-day school trips within the framework of school law provisions are to be covered (BSG, B 14 AS 6/08 R)
School Needs: The flat-rate school needs do not cover all school-related costs, special needs can be claimed additionally (BSG, B 14 AS A1/10 R)

Current Case Law on Citizen’s Allowance

Since citizen’s allowance was only introduced on January 1, 2023, the specific case law on it is still developing. Many decisions on the former “Hartz IV” remain relevant, as long as the legal foundations have not changed.

Current court decisions on citizen’s allowance concern in particular:

The interpretation of the new grace period regulations
The reformed provisions on benefit reductions
The implementation of the cooperation plan
Support opportunities within the framework of citizen’s allowance

How You Can Benefit from Case Law

In Appeals

In appeals against job center decisions, refer to relevant court decisions, especially judgments of the BSG or BVerfG.

In Lawsuits

Point out relevant judgments to your lawyer or introduce them yourself - if you sue without a lawyer - into the process.

In Advisory Conversations

Knowledge of case law can help you appear confidently before the job center and enforce your rights.

Note: This overview provides insight into important court decisions on citizen’s allowance/SGB II. It does not claim to be complete and does not replace legal advice in individual cases. For specific legal questions, we recommend seeking expert advice from an advice center or a specialist lawyer for social law.