Citizens' money: no permanent stay in the apartment is necessary, according to the LSG

Citizens' money: no permanent stay in the apartment is necessary, according to the LSG

The discussion about the rights of citizens' money not only affects the persons concerned, but also raises significant questions about social security in Germany. A trend-setting decision by the Berlin-Brandenburg State Social Court (LSG) has found that recipients of citizen benefit are not obliged to stay permanently in their apartment. This could have far -reaching effects on the social integration and the ability of people to live a self -determined life.

legal support for recipients

The case that led to this judgment shows that citizenship earnings recruiters comply with their tenancy law by paying the rent. The job center had previously only approved preliminary payments because it expressed doubts about the actual use of the rental apartment. The social court in Frankfurt (Oder) had already decided in a urgent procedure that this procedure is illegal.

This decision was confirmed by the LSG, which looked into the definition of the habitual stay. If a recipient stays at different locations, this must not be seen immediately as proof of the lack of use of your own apartment. The court made it clear that a stay in different locations does not necessarily lead to the claim that the apartment was unused.

questions of social security

The topic is not only legally relevant, but also has a strong social dimension. Many recipients of citizen benefit could suffer from pressure to be permanently present in their apartment in order not to endanger services. The decision is reflected in the decision how flexibly society should deal with the realities of the life of many people. In urban rooms in particular, stays with friends or relatives can be an important part of the lifestyle.

The clarity about the habitual stay could give those affected more freedom and allow them to maintain social networks without having to be afraid of financial disadvantages. The court decision could be regarded as an important step towards a fairer treatment of socially disadvantaged groups.

recommendations for those affected

for civil allowance recipients whose costs of the accommodation (KDUH) are not covered by the job center, rapid action is advisable. A formal contradiction to the non -permit should be filed within five days. In addition, it is advisable to apply for legal protection from the responsible social court in order to prevent threatening rent debts and eviction lawsuits. In these cases, a capable lawyer can be crucial to protect the rights of the recipients.

conclusion and outlook

This decision of the LSG encourages to question the existing structures and support systems for civil allowance recipients. Real social security should offer space for individual realities and at the same time ensure that the necessary help can be easily called up. Even low consumption values ​​for water, electricity or heating should not be seen as evidence of the non -use of the apartment in order not to put unnecessarily under pressure to those in need of help. Ultimately, the habitual residence is crucial for the justification of services and should always meet the individual living conditions.

Detlef Brock, editor at counter-hartz.de and at the Social Association Tacheles e.V., will continue to provide weekly updates in the legal ticker to inform about developments in social law and to support people in difficult living.

- Nag