Unemployment benefit II

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The unemployment benefit II (short Alg II or ALG II , colloquially usually Hartz IV ) is in Germany , the basic security services for working-age beneficiaries after the Second Book of the Social Code (SGB II). It is intended to enable beneficiaries to lead a life that corresponds to human dignity . However, it can be reduced by up to 30% through permissible sanctions . The subsistence level is not unconditionally paid.

The ALG II was introduced on January 1, 2005 by the fourth law for modern services on the labor market ("Hartz IV") and - as provided for in the underlying Hartz concept (2002) - the former unemployment benefit and social assistance for those in need of help who are fit for work a basic security for job seekers at the performance level of the socio-cultural subsistence level . Inactive beneficiaries who live with employable beneficiaries in a benefit community receive social allowance , which in many ways is calculated and granted according to the same rules as ALG II.

The official name is (unlike that of the earlier unemployment benefits) misleading three times:

  • ALG II is not a variant of a superordinate unemployment benefit, but something completely different from unemployment benefit . In the form for the income tax return, under the examples of wage replacement benefits, there is also “unemployment benefit”; however, ALG II is not to be entered here.
  • In order to receive ALG II, one does not have to have previously received another unemployment benefit; officially there is no "unemployment benefit I".
  • You do not have to be unemployed to receive ALG II . ALG II can also be drawn in addition to work and other income (also in addition to unemployment benefit).


Before ALG II was introduced, there were two parallel benefits to secure livelihoods: federally financed unemployment benefits for people who were still unemployed after receiving unemployment benefits, and social assistance financed by the municipalities for all other people, especially such who have never been employed. This coexistence of two social benefits caused numerous problems in practice:

  • The integration services for the unemployed were often inadequate and there was no coordination between the various providers, in particular because data exchange was not possible for reasons of data protection law.
  • Since unemployment benefits were dependent on previous income, the amount could vary widely; sometimes so low that supplementary social assistance was necessary. Overall, the criteria with regard to the crediting of income and assets as well as the reasonableness of work differed considerably between the two social benefits.
  • While recipients of unemployment benefits were compulsorily insured in health, long-term care and pension insurance, recipients of social welfare were generally not insured and only insured for health and long-term care if they had already been compulsorily insured through previous employment. Otherwise, recipients of social assistance were not insured and could only receive health care benefits through help for health .
  • A big problem was also the “shunting yard” between unemployment benefits and social welfare, because one provider considered the other to be responsible.
  • Both benefits caused high costs that were not covered by unemployment insurance contributions and had to be financed from taxpayers' money. The social welfare burdened municipalities in structurally weak regions with many unemployed in particular.
  • Different jurisdictions were responsible for both social benefits : unemployment benefits fell under the social jurisdiction , while the administrative jurisdiction was responsible for social assistance .

The ALG II was intended to create a social benefit for all employable unemployed, which is borne solely by the federal government through the Federal Employment Agency . Social assistance remained for those people who are not entitled to unemployment benefit II, in particular because they are unable to work. However, today (2018) the accommodation costs are borne by the municipalities, and creditable income primarily reduces federal payments.


The ALG II is intended to enable people of working age to satisfy their basic material needs, insofar as they cannot cover these with their own resources or with the help of others. This is intended to enable those entitled to benefits to have a decent life and thus take into account the welfare state requirement of the Basic Law ( § 1 SGB ​​II).

The principle is the principle of "support and demand": The securing of existence is not unconditionally provided, but the benefit recipients are obliged to do everything to end their need for help and to participate in the integration into the labor market. In the law there is still the obligation to conclude an integration agreement, but a violation of this obligation can no longer be sanctioned since 2011 ( § 2 SGB ​​II). In return, the basic security provider can provide services to place beneficiaries in work. He must provide these services if the beneficiaries are either younger than 25 years or older than 58 years. Beneficiaries who do not have sufficient knowledge of the German language are to be placed in an integration course ( Section 3 SGB ​​II).

Legal bases

The legal basis for ALG II is the Second Book of the Social Security Code (SGB II). It has been one of the most frequently changed laws since then.

There are also various regulations such as a. the Unemployment Benefit II / Social Allowance Ordinance (Alg II-V) and the Inequity Ordinance (UnbilligkeitsV) .


The ALG II is usually run by the employment agencies and the independent cities or the districts (local authorities). The employment agency bears the standard needs, including additional needs and the integration services, while the municipality bears the costs of accommodation, the services for education and participation, the one-off services and the accompanying services ( Section 6 SGB ​​II). According to Section 44b of the Second Book of the Social Code (SGB II), the sponsors form a joint facility which, according to Section 6d of the Second Book of the Social Code, is called Jobcenter .

In addition, according to Section 6a of the Second Book of the Social Code , individual municipalities can also assume responsibility entirely on their own. They are commonly called option communes . The federal government reimburses the costs incurred by taking on the tasks, including administrative costs ( Section 6b (2) SGB II). The list of all approved optional municipalities can be found in the municipal carrier approval ordinance .

The previous ARGE was abolished on January 1, 2011 after a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court declared it to be incompatible with the Basic Law. With the introduction of Art. 91e GG, the legislature legitimized this form of cooperation in the case of the job center. This also eliminated the rare case of separate sponsorship .

Performance requirements


Benefits according to SGB II are provided to employable beneficiaries ( Section 7 SGB ​​II). These are people who

Benefits are also given to people who live in a community of needs with persons who are capable of work , such as their children.

Anyone who is not able to work for at least three hours a day under the usual conditions of the general labor market is fit for work because of illness or disability ( Section 8 (1) SGB II).

Those in need of help are those who cannot or cannot sufficiently secure their livelihood from the income or assets to be taken into account and who do not receive the necessary help from others, in particular from relatives or other social benefits providers (e.g. housing benefit or child allowance) ( Section 9 SGB ​​II) . With help and can thus employed workers be that because of their low employment income as an additional without ALG II benefit can not exist ( the working poor ), or unemployment benefit recipients with low unemployment benefits , known as " spiking ". You do not need help if you only receive subsidies for health insurance contributions according to Section 26 SGB ​​II.

Any work is reasonable for the employable beneficiary , unless he is physically, mentally or emotionally incapable of doing it, performing the work would jeopardize the upbringing of his child or the child of his partner or would not be compatible with caring for a relative , or if there is another important reason preventing the exercise of the work ( § 10 SGB ​​II). Such a reason must be equal in importance to the aforementioned specific reasons for unreasonableness. Whether the content of an activity corresponds to the ideas and requirements of the person to be mediated is in itself irrelevant. The authorities must always prove the reasons for an alleged unreasonableness.

Do not receive any benefits under SGB ​​II :

  • Employable beneficiaries who are outside the immediate and local area without the prior consent of their personal contact person and are therefore not available for integration into work ( Section 7 (4a) SGB II)
  • People who are accommodated in a (fully) inpatient facility (exceptions: hospital / rehabilitation stay of less than 6 months or outdoors ) ( Section 7 (4) SGB II)
  • People of statutory retirement age and people who are likely to be unable to work for more than 6 months ( Section 7a , Section 8 (1) SGB II)
  • People who receive an old-age pension , miners' compensation or a similar benefit under public law ( Section 7 (4) SGB II)

Foreigners basically have the same entitlement to ALG II as Germans. However, foreigners do not receive any benefits under SGB ​​II ,

  • who do not have a place of residence or habitual abode in Germany, e.g. B. Tourists or seasonal workers ( Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II),
  • who neither have nor legally obtained a work permit. The existing legal possibility to take up employment subject to the consent of the Employment Agency according to Section 39 of the Residence Act (labor market or priority test ) is sufficient for entitlement to ALG II ( Section 8 (2) SGB II),
  • who are not gainfully employed and their (foreign) family members for the first three months of their stay ( Section 7, Paragraph 1, Clause 2, No. 1 SGB II), unless they have a residence permit for international, humanitarian or political reasons ( Section 7, Paragraph 2, No. 1 sentence 3 SGB II); This does not include foreign family members of German citizens,
  • who are entitled to benefits according to § 1 of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act , in particular asylum seekers and foreigners with a tolerance ( § 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 3 SGB II), and
  • whose right of residence arises solely from the purpose of looking for a job, and their family members ( Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II).


The individual amount of the Unemployment Benefit II to be granted is calculated by the cost bearers based on several factors and depends on the current standard needs and the expenses for accommodation, the number of children and the income of the applicant and the members of his community of needs. The standard needs are determined on January 1st of each year on the basis of the national average price development for goods and services relevant to the regular needs as well as the national average development of net wages and salaries per employee according to the national accounts (mixed index) and announced in the Federal Law Gazette.

Community of needs, household community

According to Section 7 of Book II of the Social Code, the members of a household form a community of needs , whose individual needs are determined taking into account the financial circumstances of the other members of the community of needs. An employable beneficiary who lives alone is also viewed as a community of needs. The benefit community includes (the list is complete):

  1. employable beneficiaries
  2. the parents living in the household or one of the parents living in the household of an unmarried, employable child who is not yet 25 years old and the partner of this parent living in the household
  3. as partner of the beneficiary
    1. the spouse who is not permanently separated,
    2. the life partner who is not permanently separated
    3. a person who lives with the employable beneficiary in a joint household in such a way that, after reasonable appreciation, the mutual will can be assumed to bear responsibility for and stand up for one another,
  4. the unmarried children belonging to the household of the persons named in numbers 1 to 3, if the children are not yet 25 years old and cannot secure their livelihood from their own income or assets.

A household community exists when several people who do not form a community of needs live and work together on a family basis on a permanent basis . The burden of proof for this lies with the basic security provider. There is no obligation to provide information on the part of relatives and by-laws living in the household who are expected to provide benefits in accordance with Section 9 (5) SGB II. Subletting, (student) shared apartments or the placement of an apartment by employers (e.g. in the hospitality industry) are not household communities.


Since August 1, 2016, schoolchildren and students have only been excluded from ALG II if they study and live outside their parents 'household or if their student loan application was rejected for a reason other than their own income or the parents' income. In all other cases, even if the application is still being processed, pupils and students are entitled to benefits. Apprentices can in any case receive ALG II.

Anyone who attends a general education school ( grammar school , technical college , vocational preparation year , basic vocational training year ) and is excluded from BAföG benefits because they still live with their parents is also entitled to unemployment benefit II ( Section 7 (6) point 1 SGB II). This also applies to people who attend evening school and are older than 30 years, so that there is no entitlement to BAföG benefits ( Section 7, Paragraph 6, Point 3 of SGB II).

Subordination of aid

The basic security benefits according to SGB II are generally subordinate to other social benefits. For this reason, anyone who makes use of other social benefits and can thereby avoid, eliminate, shorten or reduce their need for help must also apply for these social benefits. This does not apply to the so-called “child housing benefit ” ( housing benefit only for the children if they can secure their own livelihood through maintenance) ( Section 12a SGB ​​II). If one of the beneficiaries refuses to submit the application required to receive the other benefit, the authority can also submit the application or appeal against failing notices in accordance with Section 5 (3) SGB II.

In this way, “compulsory retirement” is also possible, i.e. applying for an old-age pension against the will of the beneficiary. This can be disadvantageous for the beneficiary if the early retirement pension is linked to a permanent deduction. This does not apply as long as the beneficiary is not yet 63 years old ( § 12a sentence 2 SGB II) or one of the exceptions finally regulated in the Inequity Ordinance applies. ( See also: Flexi-Rente # changes in SGB II .)

Application requirement

ALG II is only granted upon application and only after the application has been made. One-off benefits in accordance with Section 24 of the Second Book of the Social Code as well as benefits for education and participation must be expressly requested separately. In principle, there is no formal requirement; an oral interview is also considered a valid application. The application for benefits to secure your livelihood has a retroactive effect on the first of the month and automatically takes into account all standard needs and the costs of accommodation ( Section 37 SGB ​​II). It is assumed that the applicant is entitled to represent the entire benefit community ( Section 38 SGB ​​II). The decision on the application is the applicant by a decision announced against within one month of notification of objection can be raised.

The job center in whose area the applicant has his habitual residence is locally responsible . If no habitual residence can be determined, for example in the case of the homeless, the job center in whose area the applicant is actually staying is responsible ( Section 36 SGB ​​II).

Applicants are compared to the basic security support has a duty to cooperate in accordance with § 60 SGB I . In addition, employers ( § 57 , § 58 SGB ​​II) and certain third parties, such as persons liable to support the applicant ( § 60 SGB ​​II) have an obligation to provide information and to cooperate with the basic social security provider. If employers or third parties fail to meet their obligations to cooperate, the basic security provider can impose a fine of up to 2000 euros on them in accordance with Section 63 SGB ​​II, and can also claim damages in accordance with Section 62 SGB ​​II. If a benefit recipient does not announce a change in the circumstances after submitting the application, the basic security provider can impose a fine of up to 5000 euros on him ( Section 63 (6) SGB II).

The benefits are to be granted for a period of six months. However, this approval period can be extended to twelve months in the event that changes in circumstances are unlikely to occur. If the entitlement does not exist for a full month, the benefits are paid out according to daily rates, whereby a month is calculated as 30 days ( Section 41 SGB ​​II). The services are transferred to the account of the service recipient. If the service recipient instead requests a payment as a check , the resulting costs must be deducted from the services to be paid, unless the service recipient can demonstrably not open an account with a bank, for example due to personal bankruptcy ( Section 42 SGB ​​II).

According to § 67 SGB II in the version of the social protection package of March 27, 2020, benefits whose approval period ends in the period from March 31 to August 30, 2020 (so-called existing cases) are ex officio for a further 12 years without a renewed application Months rendered. However, the legal obligation to notify changes in the circumstances that are significant for the service without being asked ( Section 60 SGB ​​I), as well as the right to reclaim wrongly granted services ( Section 45 , Section 48 , Section 50 SGB ​​X) .

Benefits to cover subsistence

The amount of ALG II depends on the needs of the applicant. According to Section 19 (1) SGB II, unemployment benefit II includes :

  • the standard requirement according to § 20 SGB ​​II,
  • Additional needs according to § 21 SGB ​​II and
  • Benefits for accommodation and heating according to Section 22 SGB ​​II

In addition, the following services are provided under certain conditions:

  • In the case of children, adolescents and young adults, needs for education and participation in social and cultural life in the community are taken into account separately in addition to the standard needs ( Section 28 SGB ​​II).
  • Bearing the contributions for health and long-term care insurance for beneficiaries who are subject to insurance under Section 5 (1) No. 2a SGB ​​V or Section 20 (1) No. 2a SGB ​​XI ( Section 251 (4) SGB V, Section 59 subs . 1 SGB XI)
  • Contribution to the insurance premiums for a private health and long-term care insurance according to § 26 SGB ​​II
  • One-off benefits ( Section 24 (3) SGB II)
  • Supplementary loans for unavoidable one-off needs that are covered by the standard need ( Section 24 (1) SGB II)

Since January 1, 2011, no more contributions to pension insurance have been paid for recipients of ALG II. Since then, periods of benefit receipt have been credited for pension insurance in accordance with Section 58 (1) No. 6 SGB ​​VI .

After the need has been calculated, the creditable income and assets are used to check whether the applicant and the people living with him or her in a community of needs can cover their needs themselves or are in need of help and receive benefits. In the simplest case, a person receives benefits in the amount of the standard need and the cost of accommodation because he has neither creditable assets nor income.

According to Section 19 (3) SGB II, income and assets to be taken into account cover the needs in the order listed above. If benefit recipients are only in need of help because of the benefits for education and participation, income and assets cover the individual benefits in the order in which they are listed in the law.

Since August 1, 2016, the entitlement to ALG II and social benefits cannot be seized ( Section 42 (4) SGB II). Previously, this only applied to social assistance benefits for people with reduced earning capacity, while unemployment benefit II, such as earned income, was fully attachable from a certain attachment exemption limit.

In the same context, the cash benefits transferred to the giro account of the beneficiary are automatically protected against attachment if the account is a garnishment protection account according to § 850k ZPO. If ALG II or social money is credited to a garnishment protection account, the bank may only offset this money against account management fees for a period of 14 days. Incidentally, the account holder must be able to access the transferred social benefit for 14 days, even if his account should go into negative territory as a result ( Section 850k (6) ZPO).

Standard requirement

Standard requirement step from 2013 since 2014 from 2015 from 2016 from 2017 from 2018 from 2019 from 2020
Adult single person 1 382 € € 391 399 € € 404 409 € 416 € 424 € € 432
Adult single parent 382 € € 391 399 € € 404 409 € 416 € 424 € € 432
Adult with a minor partner 382 € € 391 399 € € 404 409 € 416 € 424 € € 432
Adult partners in a marriage, civil partnership, conjugal or
partnership -like community, respectively
2 € 345 € 353 € 360 € 364 € 368 374 € 382 € 389 €
Single persons up to the age of 24 or
adults up to the age of 24 with an underage partner who
have moved without any assurance from the local authority
3 € 306 € 313 € 320 € 324 € 327 332 € 339 € € 345
Child or adolescent between the ages of 14 and 17 4th 289 € 296 € € 302 € 306 € 311 316 € € 322 € 328
Child between the ages of 6 and 13 5 € 255 € 261 € 267 € 270 291 € 296 € € 302 € 308
Child younger than 6 years old 6th € 224 € 229 € 234 € 237 € 237 € 240 € 245 250 €

The level of the standard requirement is based on Section 20 (2) to (4) SGB II and Section 23 SGB ​​II in connection with the Standard Requirements Investigation Act . The standard needs are determined on January 1st of each year based on the national average development of prices for goods and services relevant to regular needs and the national average development of net wages and salaries per employee according to the national accounts (mixed index) and announced in the Federal Law Gazette.

In deviation from the legal regulations (and in accordance with the Standard Requirements Investigation Act ), the standard requirement for single persons is to be used for spouses who do not have a common household, for example because one spouse is permanently housed in a home.

Accommodation and heating costs (KdU)

In addition to the standard requirement, according to Section 22 (1) SGB II, the actual costs of accommodation and heating are recognized, insofar as they are reasonable . The conditions, in particular the rent levels on the local housing market, must be taken into account. According to Section 22 (1) SGB II, costs for an unsuitable apartment are only recognized for as long as it is not possible or unreasonable for beneficiaries to reduce costs by moving, renting or in some other way, but usually for a maximum of six Months.

In the case of under 25-year-olds who move without a guarantee from the service provider, only 80% of the standard requirement is recognized according to Section 20 (3) SGB II and, according to Section 22 (5) SGB II, they are generally not entitled to the cost of accommodation no initial equipment granted according to Section 24 (6) SGB II . In exceptional cases, however, the accommodation costs must be borne by the service provider if there is a serious reason that makes the move necessary. The requirement of prior assurance can be waived under the same conditions.

Accommodation and heating costs apply to approval periods beginning from March 1 to June 30, 2020, for a period of six months in the actual amount as a reasonable need (Section 67 SGB II in the version of the social protection package of March 27, 2020).

Additional requirements

Additional requirements are not included in the standard requirement. They are recognized in accordance with § 21 SGB ​​II. The sum of the first four named recognized additional needs must not exceed the level of the standard benefit (Section 21 (8) SGB II).

Additional needs for single parents

The additional requirement for single parents is provided as a percentage surcharge of 12% per child (€ 50.88). The surcharge is a maximum of 60%. If one child is under seven years old or two children under 16 years old, the surcharge is at least 36% (152.64 €) ( Section 21 (3) SGB II).

The child does not have to be the biological child, the additional requirement can also be used to raise foster children and grandchildren.

When it comes to the question of whether someone is a single parent within the meaning of the law, what matters is the actual circumstances, who has custody , is not important. A person is entitled to the additional needs even if he lives in an extended family , provided that the other family members actually do not provide any educational services for the child.

If the parents live separately from one another and each of them exercises the right of access in turn, the additional requirement is due to the parent who exercises a higher percentage of the child's upbringing. If both parents exercise an exactly equal share in bringing up the child, both parents are entitled to half the additional requirement.

Additional needs for pregnant women

Expectant mothers from the 13th week of pregnancy are entitled to an additional requirement amounting to 17% of the standard requirement (€ 67.83, Section 21 (2) SGB II).

Additional needs for the disabled

Disabled employable people who receive benefits for participation in working life , benefits for school and training within the framework of integration assistance according to SGB ​​XII or other assistance to obtain a job, are entitled to an additional requirement amounting to 35% of the standard requirement (€ 148.40 , § 21 Abs. 4 SGB II). Disabled children are not entitled to additional needs, disabled persons with reduced earning capacity only within the framework of school education ( § 23 point 2 SGB II).

The Federal Social Court has specified the additional requirement insofar as the additional requirement is only granted if a measure actually takes place, as a result of which the disabled person incurs additional costs. A mere mediation and consulting service is not enough. However, it is not necessary that the measure is a disability-specific measure.

More need for expensive nutrition

Additional needs for expensive nutrition are recognized in an appropriate amount ( Section 21 (5) SGB II). For medical reasons, there must be higher costs for medical expenses. The basis is always a medical certificate from which the illness, the necessity of the special prescribed diet and the causal connection between the illness and the sickness diet must be evident . A retroactive granting of benefits to the time before the medical diagnosis is excluded. The German Association has issued recommendations on the granting of health care allowances in social welfare, which the authority can refer to. It gives recommendations for the normal case for some metabolic diseases. However, according to recent case law, the recommendations do not represent a so-called anticipated expert opinion. Therefore, in the event of a dispute, the authority must ex officio investigate (determine) whether and to what extent there is a need in an individual case. In order to deny services, it is therefore not sufficient for the authority to merely refer to “current nutritional recommendations”. The additional requirement must not only arise in the short term in an insignificant amount (so-called minor requirement). There is a legal claim to the additional requirement, the authority has no discretion in granting it, and it has no discretion in determining the appropriate amount. The decision is therefore fully verifiable in court. The “additional costs actually required” are to be replaced.

Additional requirement for decentralized hot water supply

If the energy requirement for the production of hot water is not already taken into account in the heating costs, because the hot water is generated separately from the heating by devices installed in the accommodation (e.g. instantaneous water heater), an additional requirement will initially arise according to Section 21 (7) SGB II recognized, the amount of which is between 0.8 and 2.3% of the standard requirement, unless there is a different requirement in individual cases or part of the appropriate hot water requirement is recognized in accordance with Section 22 (1) SGB II. There it says in sentence (1): Requirements for accommodation and heating are recognized in the amount of the actual expenses, insofar as these are reasonable.

As can be seen from the judgment of the Lower Saxony-Bremen Regional Social Court of May 22, 2019, 700 kWh of electricity per person are appropriate for decentralized hot water generation using an electric instantaneous water heater . According to a ruling by the Social Court of Augsburg on January 31, 2020, 800 kWh of electricity per year is appropriate for one person. At a price of 0.30 euros per kWh of electricity, each adult is then entitled to 240 euros a year for decentralized hot water generation, not just the minimum amounts previously paid.

The additional demand for hot water production is part of the cost of the accommodation and is not to be paid from the control benefit, because it does not include a share for hot water production. It was already clear from the judgment of the Saxon State Social Court of March 29, 2007 that the standard benefit had never included a share for hot water preparation. As of January 1, 2011, this fact led to the introduction of an additional expense allowance for hot water preparation for the first time.

In individual cases to be taken into account inevitable, ongoing, not just one-off special additional needs

In the case of beneficiaries, an additional need is recognized if there is an unavoidable, ongoing, not just one-off special need in individual cases ( Section 21 (6) SGB II). The additional requirement cannot be denied if it is not covered, in particular, by donations from third parties and taking into account the savings potential of the beneficiaries, and if the amount deviates significantly from an average requirement. A general minimum limit of 10% of the standard requirement is not permitted.

According to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court on February 9, 2010, unavoidable, ongoing, not just one-off special needs are to be taken into account, which are not covered by the standard benefits, but must be covered to guarantee a decent subsistence level. This can e.g. B. be:

  • Care products for atopic dermatitis, hygiene articles for an outbreak of HIV infection;
  • Cleaning and household help for wheelchair users
  • Costs for exercising the right of access
  • Other comparable hardship cases

According to the business instructions, there should be no special services to cover the practice fee, for clothing and shoes in oversize or for a special illness-related nutritional expenditure.

One-time services

Not from the standard need to § 20 are comprised SGB II requirements for

  • Initial equipment for the home including household appliances,
  • Initial equipment for clothing and initial equipment for pregnancy and childbirth as well
  • Purchase and repairs of orthopedic shoes, repairs of therapeutic devices and equipment and rental of therapeutic devices.

These requirements are provided separately upon request. Even people who do not receive ALG II can make use of the one-off benefits, whereby in this case they can be expected to contribute to the costs ( Section 24 (3) SGB II).

Initial equipment apartment

A requirement for the initial equipment of an apartment that is not already covered by existing furniture and other furnishings ("initial equipment") is - unlike a replacement or repair requirement - not covered by the standard rate and must be requested separately. This concerns, for example, additional needs after separation of spouses or illegitimate partners, if two new households have to be equipped from the household items of one household.

But the move of a child from the parental home can also lead to a need for household items. In special cases, however, a replacement requirement can also be taken into account. In addition to cases such as imprisonment and homelessness, this can also be the case if a benefit recipient has moved here from abroad. Initial equipment is also to be granted if existing furniture becomes unusable due to a move initiated by the basic security provider.

The initial equipment of an apartment should enable orderly housekeeping and a decent life. The basic equipment for the apartment includes furnishings (furniture, curtains, lamps) and household appliances (washing machine, stove, refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, iron). In a judgment of the Düsseldorf Social Court in 2007, individual costs for items such as bed, pad, bedding, wardrobe, lamps, etc. were expressly mentioned.

A father who moved out of his wife's home with his daughter was granted money for a washing machine. In another case, too, a beneficiary was awarded a washing machine.

This does not include entertainment devices such as a television that cannot be taken over as part of the initial equipment. A PC is not funded. The floor covering is understood as additional equipment that is not to be funded.

It is at the discretion of the basic security provider whether to grant the initial equipment requirement in kind or in cash. If he decides in favor of a cash benefit, he can set the claim as a lump sum, provided that the origin and calculation of the lump sums is clearly shown and the beneficiary can actually cover his needs.

From an economic point of view, a need under social welfare law can also be covered by used items and used furniture.

The need is not time-bound, a service recipient is not obliged to apply for initial equipment immediately and without delay and does not forfeit his claim by hesitation. Initial equipment can also refer to a single piece of furniture and not necessarily to an entire household.


A requirement for the initial equipment of clothing is only provided under certain circumstances. This includes, for example, a strong increase or decrease in weight, which makes it impossible to use old clothing.

Pregnancy and child

The initial outfits for pregnancy and childbirth include costs for maternity clothing on the one hand, and costs for the first-time clothing for the newborn and necessary furniture such as a closet, a stroller and a cot on the other. The Federal Social Court decided on May 23, 2013 that a new initial equipment can be requested if the child is too big for the cot and needs a new youth bed.

Orthopedic shoes and therapeutic devices

The need for orthopedic shoes includes the personal share that people with statutory health insurance have to pay for the procurement of orthopedic shoes. Therapeutic devices are all devices that have a medical purpose, such as ventilators; According to a ruling by the Federal Social Court, this also includes glasses , so that the costs for repairing glasses according to this provision are to be covered as a one-off service.

Other services

Under certain circumstances, the recipient of the benefit can be granted a loan if a one-off need that cannot be denied under the circumstances and is included in the standard need to secure a livelihood cannot be covered ( Section 24 (1) SGB II). This is the case, for example, if there is a threat of electricity being blocked due to electricity debts that have accrued during the service period.

In addition, a loan can be granted to bridge the period from taking up employment until the first wage payment (Section 24 (4) SGB II).

Benefits for education and participation

In addition to their regular needs, children and young people as well as schoolchildren receive benefits for education and participation under the requirements of Section 28 SGB ​​II, provided they are not entitled to benefits according to the fourth chapter of SGB XII. The educational and participation benefits must be applied for separately ( Section 37 SGB ​​II). This does not apply to personal school requirements amounting to € 70 in August and € 30 in February per eligible schoolchild according to Section 28 (3) SGB II.

Social allowance

Social benefits according to Section 19, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the Second Book of the Social Code are given to persons entitled to benefits who

In addition, underage children of trainees who are not able to work under BAföG are also entitled to social benefits.

The granting of social benefits by the job center instead of social assistance (HLU) according to Book Twelve of the Social Security Code by the social assistance provider is intended to avoid that different authorities are responsible for the individual members of a community of needs.

Health insurance

The health insurance contributions for recipients of ALG II, who are compulsorily insured in the statutory health insurance according to § 5 Abs. 1 Nr. 2a SGB V, are paid in the amount of around 100 euros per month from tax revenues by the federal government, the other costs are borne by the members of the statutory Health insurances distributed. The additional contribution to statutory health insurance is levied in accordance with Section 242 (3) SGB V only in the amount of the average additional contribution according to Section 242a SGB ​​V and is also paid in this amount. The contribution is also paid for people who are subject to statutory health insurance and who would be in need of help through the health insurance contribution alone.

Recipients of ALG II or social benefits who are neither subject to compulsory insurance nor family insurance under statutory health insurance receive a subsidy towards the insurance contributions for voluntary membership in statutory health insurance or for private health insurance up to half the amount of the basic rate according to § 152 Para. 4 Insurance Supervision Act (VAG). This grant is not limited to the amount of the reduced contribution rate for recipients of ALG II in the statutory health insurance. The deductible for private health insurance is not covered by this subsidy, but it can be claimed as an additional requirement in exceptional cases.

Contributions to private long-term care insurance are also to be covered up to half the contribution to the basic tariff. In order to close an unplanned loophole, the contributions to the statutory long-term care insurance must also be paid for those beneficiaries who are voluntary members of the statutory health insurance and are therefore subject to long-term care insurance according to Section 20 (3) SGB XI.

Crediting of income and assets

Example for a single person with a standard benefit of 399 euros plus warm rent of 300 euros (2015)
Example for a married couple with standard benefits 2 times 360 euros and 234 euros (child under 6 years) plus warm rent 499 euros (without child benefit, 2015)

Income must, as far as it has to be taken into account, be used primarily to secure a livelihood. Income is what the members of the benefit community gain in value while receiving the service. What already exists at the time of the application is assets. Which income is to be taken into account in what amount is regulated in Sections 11 to 11b SGB ​​II as well as in Unemployment Benefit II / Social Allowance Ordinance - Alg II-V. The pictures on the right show examples of a single person without children and for a married couple with one child.

Income to be considered

All income in money is to be considered as income. Since August 1, 2016, there is no longer any monetary value to be taken into account, except for benefits in kind that accrue in the context of gainful employment, the federal voluntary service or a youth voluntary service. Only income that is actually available as “funds available” may be taken into account. This is not the case with interest from a home loan and savings contract, for example, if the beneficiary cannot fall back on the interest income. Fictitious income may generally not be taken into account. Seized income is only to be taken into account if the seizure can be legally reversed without further ado. A loan is not an income because it has to be repaid and is therefore not available to the beneficiary in the long term. However, social benefits granted by loan are to be taken into account as income if and to the extent that they are used for subsistence (e.g. student loans). If a child belongs to the community of needs and cannot secure a living from his own income and assets, the child benefit is the child's income, although the parents are entitled to it. This regulation does not apply analogously if it is not the parents but z. B. the grandparents receive child benefit.

Current or one-off earnings are taken into account in the calendar month in which they are received (inflow principle). As of August 1, 2016, the case law of the Federal Social Court was largely revised: Income that regularly accrues monthly is current income, all other income is one-time income, including any additional payments on outstanding services. If the benefit entitlement would cease to exist due to the consideration of a one-time intake in a month, the one-time intake will be divided evenly over a period of six months and taken into account monthly with a corresponding partial amount. If the beneficiary uses the one-off income before the six-month credit period has expired, he can only apply for a loan in accordance with Section 24 (4) SGB II.

According to § 11b SGB ​​II, certain amounts are to be deducted from income as part of the income adjustment. The SGB II tax exemption calculator of the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs provides an overview of the income to be credited.

A tax exemption of € 100 applies to income from employment; In addition, 20% of income between € 100 and € 1000 and 10% of income between € 1000 and € 1200 are not taken into account ( Section 11b ), i.e. a total of up to € 300.

Income not taken into account

According to § 11a SGB ​​II, certain types of income are not taken into account. These include:

  • All benefits according to SGB II (this also includes system-like social benefits such as the AsylbLG)
  • the basic pension according to the Federal Pension Act and other laws that refer to the relevant regulations.
  • Pensions and benefits under the Federal Compensation Act , which are provided for damage to life, body and health, up to the amount of the corresponding basic pension under the Federal Pension Act
  • civil-legal compensation for pain and suffering
  • Donations from voluntary welfare work, provided that they do not significantly affect the situation of the beneficiary (e.g. food donations from the Tafel )
  • Donations by third parties, provided that consideration would be grossly unfair and they do not significantly affect the situation of the beneficiary, such as an expense allowance for a blood donation or benefits from a compensation fund.
  • Injury pension if the payment means that entitlement to benefits under the Federal Pension Act on the basis of Section 65 BVG is suspended, up to the amount of the corresponding basic pension.

Services that are expressly provided for a purpose that does not serve to secure a livelihood due to public law provisions are also not to be taken into account. These include, for example, all the benefits of statutory long-term care insurance or the home construction premium . Exceptions apply here for:

In addition, Section 1 of the Unemployment Benefit II / Social Allowance Ordinance lays down further rules for crediting and disregarding income. For example, minor income of up to EUR 10.00 per month is free of charge. The de minimis limit also applies if income is otherwise earned and credited, and it also applies to current income.

Asset crediting and allowances

If the beneficiary or the persons living with him / her in a community of needs have realizable assets , there is no entitlement to unemployment benefit II according to § 12 SGB ​​II, provided that the value of the assets exceeds certain allowances, it is not a question of protective assets and the utilization is not obviously uneconomical or for would mean a particular hardship for those affected. The assets are to be taken into account with their market value regardless of tax regulations ( § 8 Alg II-V).

The income (interest, dividends) from the assets is not assets, but income, because the beneficiary only receives the income in terms of value when it is needed.

Non-binding assets according to § 12 SGB ​​II
Asset allowances Exemption per year of age Minimum amount Maximum amounts
Basic tax allowance
(for persons of legal age and their partners)
150 € ¹ € 3,100  € 9,750 (born until 1957)

 € 9,900 (born 1958–1963)
€ 10,050 (born after 1964)

Basic allowance
(for underage beneficiaries) ²
- € 3,100  € 3,100
Exemption for old-age provision for employable beneficiaries from their 15th birthday and their partners³ 750 € - € 48,750 (born until 1957)
€ 49,500 (born between 1958–1963)
€ 50,250 (born after 1964)
Allowance for necessary purchases
(for each beneficiary)
-  750 €   750 €

¹ For beneficiaries who were born before January 1, 1948, there was an exemption of 520 euros and a maximum of 33,800 euros.
² Children's assets are not taken into account when calculating parental benefits.
³ Due to an irrevocable contractual agreement, the assets must not be able to be realized prior to retirement. Pension schemes that are expressly promoted by federal law, such as the " Riester pension ", are not included in this asset component, see u. Sparing ability .

Sparing ability

The following are not to be considered as assets:

  • appropriate household items ,
  • an appropriate motor vehicle for every employable beneficiary living in the benefit community, according to a decision of the BSG of September 6, 2007, a motor vehicle up to a market value of EUR 7,500 is to be regarded as appropriate. More expensive vehicles must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
  • Retirement provision in the amount of the assets expressly promoted as retirement provision under federal law, including its income and the promoted ongoing pension contributions ( Riester pension , Rürup pension , company pension )
  • Assets designated by the owner as intended for old-age provision to a reasonable extent, if the employable beneficiary or his partner is exempted from compulsory insurance in the statutory pension scheme,
  • a house plot of an appropriate size that is used by the owner or a corresponding condominium ,
  • Assets, as long as it can be proven that they are intended for the early acquisition or maintenance of a house property of appropriate size, as far as this serves or is intended to serve the residential purposes of disabled people or people in need of care and this purpose would be jeopardized by the use or the realization of the assets,
  • Property and rights insofar as their exploitation is obviously uneconomical or would mean particular hardship for the person concerned. For the appropriateness, the living conditions while receiving the basic security benefits for jobseekers are decisive.

Social protection package

When deciding on entitlement to unemployment benefit II and social benefit , the applicant's existing assets are exceptionally not taken into account for a period of six months for approval periods that begin between March 1 and June 30, 2020, unless the assets are “substantial” (Section 67 SGB II in the version of the social protection package of March 27, 2020).

Integration assistance and job placement

Support of inclusion

According to Section 15 of the Second Book of the Social Code, the job center should conclude an integration agreement with every employable person entitled to benefits , in which the benefits required for integration are determined and the minimum efforts the person entitled to benefits must undertake in order to find a job and how he can make his efforts has to prove. If the beneficiary refuses to conclude the integration agreement, there is no sanction; however, the job center can unilaterally determine the planned measures by means of a ( contestable ) administrative act. The instrument of the integration agreement already existed in the Job-AQTIV law from 2001.

Further integration services

For the most part, those receiving ALG II have access to the integration services from SGB ​​III , such as placement in work, funding from the placement budget or allocation to measures for activation and professional integration ( Section 16 SGB ​​II). In addition, additional benefits are specifically provided in SGB II:

There is no legal entitlement to certain integration services; the necessary and appropriate instruments are selected by the personal contact person. An individual discretionary decision must therefore be made about an application by the recipient of the benefit ( optional rules). However, there is a right to an objective justification for the discretionary decision made.


According to § 31 SGB ​​II, benefit recipients can be sanctioned for certain breaches of duty. During a sanction there is no entitlement to additional support for subsistence according to SGB XII ( Section 31b, Paragraph 2 SGB II). A sanction must be pronounced within six months of the date of the breach of duty. It usually lasts three months and comes into force on the first of the calendar month following the receipt of the sanction notice by the benefit recipient ( Section 31b (1) SGB II). Managing directors of the job centers receive four-digit bonus payments if they approach or exceed the specified sanction rates.

A distinction is made between two cases:

Sanction for breach of duty (major sanction)

According to Section 31 (1) SGB II, a sanction for a breach of duty is justified by the fact that benefit recipients, despite prior instruction on legal consequences, violate regulations from an integration agreement, reject reasonable work, training or work opportunity, or do not take or break off a reasonable measure. Legal consequences in the sense of the law must be specific, correct, complete and understandable. It must make it clear what direct and concrete effects the breach of duty can have. If the legal consequences instruction does not meet these requirements, the service recipient cannot be sanctioned. A sanction is also excluded if there is an important reason for the behavior of the service recipient.

In certain other cases, according to Section 31 (2) SGB II, a sanction is also possible without prior legal consequences, for example if a beneficiary has intentionally caused his or her need for assistance, if a claim to unemployment benefit is suspended or has expired due to a blocking period or if there is a reason for a Blocking period, for example by giving up his work.

The relationship between the direct facts of SGB II in Paragraph 1 and those that refer to the regulations on the blocking period in SGB ​​III in Paragraph 2 is designed in such a way that the latter are subordinate and only apply if the former of are not applicable from the outset. This is the case, for example, if the recipient of the benefits is terminated by the employer (without notice), since according to Paragraph 1, only self-termination, but not termination (without notice) by the employer is subject to sanctions. However, the facts of paragraph 2 presuppose that the beneficiary is or was subject to unemployment insurance; they only cover cases in which the blocking period has already been determined by the employment agency or where this fails due to a lack of qualifying periods for entitlement to unemployment benefits. If the beneficiary is not in employment that is subject to compulsory insurance, the sanction according to Paragraph 2 cannot be applied.

The reductions in benefits in the event of a sanction are as follows according to Section 31a (1) SGB II:

  • In the case of a simple breach of duty, ALG II is reduced by 30% of the standard requirement.
  • With the first repeated breach of duty, ALG II is reduced by 60% of the standard requirement. A repeated breach of duty occurs if less than a year has passed since the last breach of duty.
  • In the case of every further repeated breach of duty, ALG II is completely omitted, including the cost of accommodation. Since only recipients of ALG II are compulsorily insured, this sanction does not cover health insurance if the person concerned does not apply for and receive any food vouchers.

According to § 31a Abs. 2 SGB II, stricter conditions apply to those under 25 years of age. In this case, the entire standard requirement does not apply even with the first breach of duty; In the event of a repeated breach of duty, ALG II including the cost of accommodation is completely void. However, if the unemployment benefit II is completely canceled, the basic security provider can declare that it is ready to pay the cost of accommodation again if the beneficiary subsequently declares that he is ready to comply with his obligations. For the same reason, the duration of the sanction can be reduced to the standard requirement to six weeks ( Section 31b (1) sentence 4 SGB II).

If ALG II is reduced by more than 30% as a result of sanctions, the basic security provider can grant additional benefits in kind such as food vouchers upon request. He must grant these benefits if underage children live in the household of the person sanctioned ( Section 31a (3) SGB II).

If several people live in a benefit community and if a member's sanction affects the proportional costs of the accommodation, these must be offset by a corresponding increase for the other members of the benefit community, as otherwise an illegal family liability would arise.

Sanction due to failure to report (minor sanction)

A sanction for failure to report occurs according to Section 32 of the Second Book of the Social Code if a beneficiary fails to comply with a request to report to the basic security provider or to an examination by a medical officer despite prior instructions on legal consequences .

With such a sanction, ALG II is reduced by 10%, this is added to any existing sanction due to a breach of duty. Since there are no repeated breaches of duty in this case, several failures to report can result in several sanctions, each with 10% of the standard benefit, which each expire after three months. Here, however, the Federal Social Court ruled that requests to report may not be misused in order to reduce benefits by more than 30%.

Frequency of sanctions

In 2015 a total of 978,809 sanctions were imposed. The majority of these were minor sanctions due to failure to report (around 75%). 131,520 recipients of unemployment benefit II were affected by at least one sanction (3.0% of all recipients of unemployment benefit II). The average benefit reduction among these was 19.4%. 6,963 Alg-II recipients were affected by the full sanction. The frequency of sanctions varies from region to region; it is highest in Berlin.

Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court 2019

In November 2019, the Federal Constitutional Court found cuts in benefits in accordance with Section 31 SGB II in the event of breaches of duty on the part of those affected to be partly unconstitutional . In the event of violations, a reduction in benefits is possible, but the previous arrangement is not constitutional, ruled the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) in November 2019 (AZ: 1 BvL 7/16). The previously possible deductions for violations of 30 percent are permissible, while subsequent even tougher sanctions for repeated breaches of duty by 60 or even 100 percent are no longer proportionate and therefore incompatible with the Basic Law, explained Vice President Stephan Harbarth when the judgment was announced. The court also rejected the rigid deadline of three months. If the person concerned fulfills his duty to cooperate again, it must be possible to receive the full benefits again at an earlier point in time. In addition, cases of hardship should be given greater consideration; that was not possible until then. The judgment goes back to a submission of the social court in Gotha, Thuringia .

Until there was a new legal regulation, the Constitutional Court ordered that all deductions should be limited to a maximum of 30 percent. In cases of hardship, reductions in benefits should be waived.

The decision does not affect all possible sanctions according to SGB II, but only those that are issued because of a breach of duty according to Section 31 SGB II, but not reductions due to failure to report (that was over 77 percent of all sanctions in 2018) or regulations for persons under 25 years.

The reactions to the judgment were divided. Federal Social Minister Hubertus Heil (SPD) spoke of a “very wise”, “very balanced” judgment, which offered the “huge opportunity” to pacify the social conflict over labor market reforms. The decision ensures "legal security". The basic security must be further developed. Social associations , academics, trade unions and politicians from the SPD, the Greens and the Left, on the other hand, demanded in a joint declaration the complete abolition of the sanctions. Left party leader Katja Kipping , together with the opposition party Die Grünen, welcomed the Karlsruhe decision as a historic judgment on social guarantees, the Basic Income Network sees services as a minimum to ensure existence and participation and calls for an unconditional basic income . The Konstanz social scientist Stefan Sell , on the other hand, foresaw a deep legal uncertainty as a result of the judgment. By using many vague legal terms, the job center employees would get a lot more work. By focusing on the needs of the individual case, inequality is increased. The court had "clearly circumvented the question of the system, ie the ultimate question of the unconditional nature of an existential minimum". The lawyer Roland Rosenow, who was appointed as an expert in the proceedings for the Wuppertal Association Tacheles, spoke of a mixed picture after the reasons for the judgment. Although he still considers sanctions to be unconstitutional, the judgment also contains positive aspects. Although the verdict was unanimous, there are several indications of differences of opinion in the First Senate. Initial jurisprudential assessments criticized the decision as backward-looking and weakly justified, because the court did not further develop the fundamental rights dogmatics and the content of the fundamental rights itself, but based itself solely on the principle of proportionality as a limiting element. The court did not take part in the paradigm shift away from neoliberalism , so following Andreas Reckwitz the judgment reads "more like a final rebellion of the still prevailing apertistic liberalism." The DStGB welcomes the judgment, but sees it as an occasion to rethink the entire system of sanctions .

Administrative procedure

According to § 40 SGB ​​II, the regulations of SGB ​​X apply to the administrative procedure in the area of ​​unemployment benefit II with a few minor adjustments.


Against an administrative act according to § 31 SGB ​​X the way to the social courts is given according to § 62 SGB ​​X, since disputes in the area of ​​unemployment benefit II fall under the jurisdiction of the social judiciary ( § 51 para. 1 SGG). This also applies to disputes about a house ban that has been issued by a job center against a beneficiary; a reference to the administrative jurisdiction is not permitted in this case. Before filing a lawsuit, preliminary proceedings must first be carried out ( Section 78 SGG).

Beneficiaries in need can apply for advice at the competent local court. Advisory assistance must not be denied on the grounds that the beneficiary can avail himself of the obligation to provide advice under Section 14 of the Book I of the Social Code from the very authority against which he is appealing.

Due to § 39 SGB ​​II, objections and lawsuits against the vast majority of administrative acts have no suspensive effect. In case of doubt, this must be applied for at the social court ( § 86b SGG).

If the objection period has already expired, an application for review can still be submitted ( Section 44 SGB ​​X). In the case of favorable administrative acts , there is protection of legitimate expectations , so that the cancellation of an administrative act is only possible in certain cases ( Section 45 SGB ​​X).

Recovery from the authorities

If the relevant circumstances of the beneficiary change during the subscription period, the authority can retroactively credit the income or assets according to Section 48 SGB ​​X, Section 330 Paragraph 3 Clause 1 SGB III from the beginning of income generation and revoke and change the approval notification accordingly. Overpaid benefits must be reimbursed. It should be noted, however, that according to Section 40 (4) SGB II, 56% of the basic rent is to be left as a replacement for the housing benefit that the recipient of the benefits has not applied for due to the priority of SGB II, so the benefits cannot be reclaimed in this respect. However, this does not apply to a provisional decision in accordance with Section 40 (2) No. 1 SGB II i. V. m. § 328 SGB ​​III; here the housing benefit must also be paid back.

In contrast to most of the other administrative acts in the area of ​​SGB II, objections and lawsuits against reclaiming a provisional decision, which only refers to periods in the past, have a suspensive effect.

In addition, Section 34 defines claims for compensation in the event of socially adverse behavior.

On Bill

Claims against the beneficiary can be offset against the benefits to secure the livelihood according to § 43 Abs. 1 SGB II. The set-off must generally be declared in writing by administrative act. The limitation period is three years; Periods in which the set-off is not enforceable due to legal remedies, extend the limitation period ( Section 43 (4) SGB II). A claim may be waived if its collection would be unreasonable ( Section 44 SGB ​​II). However, strict requirements must be placed on this. A subjective inequity can be given if the beneficiary gets into an emergency as a result of the set-off, which endangers or destroys existence; however, simply falling short of the standard requirement does not pose a threat to the company's existence. Objective inequity can exist if the claims were partly caused by misconduct on the part of the basic security provider.

In the case of reimbursement claims due to overpaid services, e.g. due to a provisional decision, the offset amount is 10% of the standard requirement, in the case of claims for compensation due to socially adverse behavior 30%. In total, the sum added may not exceed 30% of the standard requirement. If this limit is exceeded by several claims, the older claims are no longer applicable ( Section 43 (2) SGB II). If the maximum limit were exceeded due to a simultaneous repayment claim for a loan, the loan will not be repaid ( Section 43 (3) SGB II). If different service providers are affected, such as the employment agency for services of standard needs and the municipality for costs of accommodation and heating, the offset amount is divided according to the amount of the claims ( Section 43a SGB ​​II).

If a service recipient receives a sanction during ongoing crediting, the offsetting is to be suspended according to the technical information provided by the employment agency, as otherwise the unlawful result would be that 60% of the standard requirement would not apply, but the benefit recipient would still not be entitled to additional benefits in kind in the form of food vouchers .

According to § 65e SGB ​​II, claims of a social welfare provider can be offset if the beneficiary falls within the area of ​​responsibility of SGB II, but only in the first two years of the provision of benefits.

Historical development

Development of the legal basis

ALG II was introduced on January 1, 2005 by the fourth law for modern services on the labor market ("Hartz IV").

First law to amend SGB II (2005)

The first amendments to SGB II came into force on December 31, 2005 with the first law to amend SGB II . The very brief amendment law dealt among other things with the share of the federal government in the benefits for accommodation and heating ( § 46 SGB ​​II financing from federal funds).

Law amending SGB II and other laws (03/2006)

Law on the further development of basic security for job seekers (08/2006)

On August 1, 2006, the first part of the “Law on the Further Development of Basic Security for Jobseekers” (in short: Further Development Act; previously: “SGB II Optimization Act” ) came into force.

The further development law provides for around 50 changes, including cuts in benefits and tightened access to unemployment benefit II. Fundamental legal deficiencies such as the unclear responsibility between the Federal Employment Agency and the municipalities have not been clarified.

Changes as of August 1, 2006

Some examples of changes that went into effect on August 1, 2006 are:

  • Sanctions can also affect accommodation costs (Section B.4 Amendment 2)
  • The burden of proof is reversed in the case of a marriage-like community ( benefit community ) and same-sex life-partnership-like communities (Section A.5), i.e. needy people living together in one apartment must prove that they do not form a benefit community (the term marriage-like communities was introduced on August 1, 2006 replaced by the term "community of responsibility and commitment")
  • Tightening of the legal basis for further control options and data comparison (Sections A.3, A 27, B.1, B.3, B.5, E.2)
  • Creation or expansion of external services for extensive home visits (B.3)
  • Exclusion of services in the event of a violation of the accessibility arrangement
  • Reduction or cancellation of accommodation costs when moving without authorization (A.23)
  • Start-up grant for recipients of unemployment compensation , instead of the previous promotions with bridging allowance or start-up grant ( "Ich-AG")
Changes as of January 1, 2007

On January 1, 2007, the last tightening of sanctions in the “Law on the Further Development of Basic Security for Job Seekers” came into force. The key points here were:

  • Three levels of sanction: first breach of duty, reduction in benefits by 30% for three months; second breach of duty, reduction in benefits by 60%; third breach of duty within one year, complete cancellation of the service including the cost of accommodation and deregistration from health insurance.
  • The cost of accommodation is also affected by sanctions for young people.

Standard Requirements Determination Act (2010)

After a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court, according to which the costs for education and participation of children from families of ALG II recipients are not adequately taken into account and the calculation of all benefits must be generally comprehensible, the Ordinance Requirement Investigation Act (RBEG) was passed January 2011 came into force. In doing so, u. a. Services for education and participation for children and young people (the “education package”) introduced.

On January 1, 2017, a new version of the RBEG came into force.

Ninth law amending the Second Book of the Social Code

According to the Federal Government's draft bill, the aim of this amendment law on July 26, 2016 was "that in future, beneficiaries will have faster and easier clarity about the existence and scope of legal claims and that the procedural regulations to be applied by the employees in the job centers will be simplified".

Basic empirical data

Recipients of ALG II

Development of the key data for unemployment benefit II
year Number of employable
beneficiaries (in millions)
Number of
communities of need (in millions)
payment entitlement per
community of need (euros per month)
2005 4.98 3.56 840
2006 5.37 3.97 846
2007 5.24 3.72 819
2008 4.97 3.58 822
2009 4.87 3.56 848
2010 4.84 3.59 843
2011 4.56 3.43 806
2012 4.40 3.34 820
2013 4.39 3.34 842
2014 4.35 3.32 863
2015 4.33 3.29 884
2016 4.32 3.27 898
2017 4.36 3.26 945
2018 4.14 3.09 966

After the introduction of ALG II, there was an annual average of 4.98 million employable beneficiaries who received ALG II. These formed 3.9 million benefit communities. This does not include recipients of social benefits. The beneficiaries were primarily former recipients of social assistance or unemployment benefits . According to the IAB , ALG II worsened the income situation for around 50% of former unemployment benefit recipients, while it improved for 43%.

Even without taking municipal costs into account, ALG II was ultimately more expensive than the previous system of unemployment benefits and social assistance. As a result, two major amending laws were passed in 2006.

The nominal target expenditures of the federal government for ALG II are put at around 36 billion euros each for the budget years 2017 to 2019.

In 2009, out of 25 million unemployment benefit II notices, 822,000 objections and almost 143,000 complaints were filed. The Federal Government's report literally states: “Around 1.2 percent of the notices were changed or revoked as part of the objection procedure. Around 0.2 percent were repealed or changed in court ”. There was an increase from 38,655 lawsuits in 2005 to 158,436 in 2010. The success rate for lawsuits rose from 36.7% in 2006 to 48.8% in 2010, and in the first half of 2013 more than a third of the contradictions were upheld.

For employed recipients of unemployment benefit II, so-called top-ups, the ALG II works like a combination wage . In September 2005 there were 900,000 top-ups, in 2010 there were 1.4 million top-ups, in 2012 1.3 million. This means that around a third of those receiving unemployment benefit II are gainfully employed.

In 2014 around 13% of all ALG II recipients had no school-leaving qualification, around 21% no vocational qualification.

At the end of April 2016, 7.7% of Germans and 18% of the foreign population in Germany were recipients of Hartz IV / unemployment benefit II. More than a third of Hartz IV recipients are not German citizens. In 2019, three quarters of the Syrians living in Germany and 43 percent of Afghans (both of working age) lived wholly or partially on Hartz IV.

End of benefit receipt

If no application for further approval is submitted, the job center will stop payments at the end of the approval period. Anyone who finds a job that is sufficient to cover their livelihood is obliged to deregister from receiving ALG II.

A study by the IAB in 2009 based on a survey of 10,000 ALG II recipients showed that around a quarter of them withdrew from ALG II receipt within one year, and that again half of them took up work. About 29% of these had to accept a job below their qualification. It was particularly difficult to place people without training, as well as older people and first-generation migrants. Single parents were often unable to start work due to a lack of childcare.

In 2015, according to a study by the IAQ, around 44% of recipients switched to "non-employment" (pension, parental leave or long-term incapacity for work). For comparison: In 2007, at 32.1%, significantly fewer switched to “non-employment”. According to this study, the proportion of ALG II recipients who found regular employment was 17% in 2015 and was always below 20% in previous years. In addition, every year since 2009, around 22 to 24% of ALG II recipients began training or took part in a job promotion measure. For many, phases of employment and phases of renewed unemployment alternated, especially since employment contracts are often limited in time; Among ALG II recipients there are many long-term unemployed and people with multiple placement barriers.

Management software

Common facilities


With the ALG II, the new A2LL administration software was initially used in the cooperative job centers of the federal agency and municipalities for benefit calculation. The software house PROSOZ Herten was initially responsible for developing the software on behalf of T-Systems . However, due to the sheer volume of the project, this was on the verge of bankruptcy in April 2005, so that T-Systems took over the programmer and then continued to develop the software independently.

A2LL hit the headlines mainly because of numerous bugs that led to significant problems with the payout of the benefit. By July 2006, the development cost 48 million euros, five times more than originally planned. The federal government estimated the damage caused by programming errors at 28 million euros, the Schleswig-Holstein district council came to annual additional costs of 230 million euros. The federal government also admitted considerable data protection problems; 40,000 employees of the employment agency had unlimited access to all case data nationwide.


In March 2008, the employment agency decided to develop the ALLEGRO administration program (ALgII LEistungsverfahren GRundsicherung Online) as the successor to the error-prone A2LL software . The development time was estimated at five years, the expected costs at 90 million euros. The Federal Employment Agency is hoping that the new software will improve processing and is planning to be more involved in the development of the program than was the case with the externally developed A2LL. The changeover from A2LL to ALLEGRO took place between August 2014 and June 2015.


In the field of placement, the cooperative job centers have been using the software VerBIS ("placement, advice and information system") since 2005, which originally comes from the employment agency and the placement of benefit recipients according to SGB ​​III . With VerBIS, online applications can be created and the profiles of those to be placed can be exchanged between job centers and the Federal Employment Agency if, for example, these unemployment benefits fall into the Hartz IV range at the end of the receipt.

Municipal job centers

The opting municipalities were not allowed to use the A2LL program for data protection reasons, as it accessed the central personal data administration (zPDV) of the Federal Employment Agency. These therefore mainly use other software, either from the manufacturer Prosoz or from third-party manufacturers such as the software "OK.Sozius SGB II" from the Munich company AKDB, "LämmKom Lissa" from Lämmerzahl or the application "aKDn-Sozial" from the Paderborn company GKD. In most cases, these were further developments of social welfare programs from before 2004. They have interfaces with the software of the Federal Employment Agency for the transmission of statistical data.

The majority of the software solutions of the municipal job centers contain not only the calculation of benefits but also modules for placing those entitled to benefits. These replace the application VerBIS of the Federal Employment Agency in their area of ​​responsibility. There is often additional software for document management , especially since job centers began converting their inventory to electronic files at the beginning of this decade.

Criticism and discussion

Criticism of unemployment benefit II

General criticisms

In general, the Hartz reforms are criticized for the fact that the laws for modern services on the labor market (2003-2005) developed from the Hartz concept had failed in their intentions. The stated goal of halving unemployment and, above all , reducing long-term unemployment has not yet been achieved. This also applies to the goal of significantly relieving the burden on public coffers by amalgamating unemployment and social assistance. The critics attribute the actual reduction in unemployment in Germany from 2006 exclusively to the economic development, demographic developments and cosmetic changes in the unemployment statistics . Other general criticisms of ALG II include the following allegations:

  • ALG II had broken with principles such as safeguarding living standards , grandfathering , qualification protection and occupational protection .
  • ALG II maintains too little difference to the net income from low-paid employment or to normal income from work in larger families (non-compliance with the so-called wage gap requirement ).
  • ALG II directs the focus of the social discussion on a abuse debate , which distracts from the causes and consequences as well as from the solution of the problem of mass unemployment and puts millions of people under general suspicion.
  • ALG II intensifies existential fear . Many of those affected no longer perceive the unemployment benefit II regulations as a social network .
  • ALG II leads to a financial disadvantage for families and partnerships that are open to one another, compared to those who untruthfully claim to be single or single.
  • ALG II leads to impoverishment and precariousness ; it drives large sections of the population to the edge or into poverty; This problem is particularly serious for children and large families , as the reform will lead to an increase in child poverty and, in the future, poverty in old age .
  • The increased sanctioning pressure on the unemployed to accept any kind of job as a result of the Hartz reform massively reduces the scope for applicants to enforce their own claims in the employment contract (this also applies to the trade union perspective). This leads to an increase in in- work poverty . Employees with a union or works council-active background and ambitions would be excluded from the labor market by the mass of applicants selling below the tariff.
  • The judge at the Federal Court of Justice a. D. and former Federal MP of the Left Nešković considers the sanctions to be unconstitutional, since the sanction linked the granting or non-granting of basic security to a certain behavior, but not to actual needs. According to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, the guarantee of human dignity in the Basic Law requires that the subsistence level be guaranteed in each individual case.
  • The UN Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights criticized that recipients of basic security , social assistance and Hartz IV were not granted an “adequate standard of living”.
  • Christian Rickens (Der Spiegel) summed up a socio-political scandal on the occasion of '10 Years Hartz IV '

Criticism of the practical implementation

  • The ALG II implies inadequate support for single parents with small children and for women living in partnership, which is based on gender stereotypes , since labor market policy goals compete with gender equality goals,
  • In some cases, notices were issued incorrectly and illegally, especially shortly after the Hartz IV reform came into force. According to the critics, serious administrative deficiencies characterized this first phase in 2005, in which, according to various surveys, around 90% of the notifications were incorrect; the number of proceedings before social courts increased by 50% in 2006 alone. From January to April 2007, 16,375 lawsuits were finally settled before the social courts. The lawsuit was fully upheld in only 4% of the cases (586), and only partially upheld in 2% of the cases (339). The majority of the complaints were settled through admission / withdrawal (13,126 or 80%) or dismissed through judgment / court order (2,329 cases or 14%). On June 18, 2010 the 100,000 was won at the nationwide largest social court in Berlin. Complaint filed by a Hartz IV recipient. Around half of the plaintiffs achieved "at least partial success" at this time.
  • The practices of receding concept of selling organization Help and the prosecution service (see below) have been the subject of criticism.
  • The administrative practice of the job centers and the resulting massive burden on the social courts are criticized primarily by lawyers. In 2009 alone, 143,000 lawsuits were filed against the job center, with a success rate of 48.9%. As of November 2015, the Federal Social Court passed 777 judgments on ALG II. According to lawyers, this is primarily due to the job centers' practice of foreclosure, so that many disputes that previously could be resolved informally now have to be dealt with in court. In addition, applications are often not processed at all, so that applicants first have to defend themselves with actions for inaction before the office even reacts. The Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia rejected a claim by a service recipient for the publication of the telephone lists of the job center employees on the grounds that the publication of these telephone lists would endanger the security and existence of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Criticism of the sanctions

  • According to the Berliner Zeitung, the job center bosses in Berlin collect up to 4,000 euros in bonuses for rigorously implemented savings, which also include sanctions, according to a confidential instruction from the Federal Ministry of Labor. Harsh Hartz IV sanctions, according to the assessment of the homeless, especially under 25-year-olds on the street.
  • According to a study by the IAB in 2017, sanctions among under-25-year-olds can lead to faster entry into employment subject to social security contributions, but also to withdrawal from the labor market, for example through illegal work. A survey published by the IAB in 2018 showed that many respondents would not sanction breaches of duty by under-25-year-olds or repeated breaches of duty as harshly as the legislature provides.

Criticism of the performance calculation

  • Calculation and amount of the control reserve. The level of standard benefits is criticized by welfare and unemployment initiatives as well as by business associations; those consider the level of control power to be too low, while they see it as too high. Senate 11b of the Federal Social Court had no concerns about the constitutional conformity of the current amount of the standard benefit, while the 14th Senate had the regulation according to which the social allowance for children up to the age of 14 is set at only 60 percent of the standard benefit for single adults , deems to be unconstitutional. The Hessian State Social Court was of the opinion that the amount of the standard benefit and the social allowance did not cover the socio-cultural subsistence level of families with children and therefore violated the Basic Law. Both courts had submitted the question of constitutionality to the Federal Constitutional Court for decision. This has declared the calculation, but not the amount of the standard benefit and the social allowance, to be unconstitutional and introduced a hardship rule. In its decision of July 23, 2014, the Federal Constitutional Court described the standard benefits as "currently still constitutional". Insofar as the actual coverage of existential needs in individual points is doubtful (for example with the costs of household electricity, mobility and the purchase of durable goods such as refrigerators and washing machines), the legislature has a viable assessment of the standard needs when they are pending re-determination on the basis of income and 2013 consumption sample. At the end of 2014, a welfare association criticized that the federal government had not yet responded to the requests of the Federal Constitutional Court.
  • Standard set inadequate for healthy child nutrition. The Research Institute of Child Nutrition (FKE), University of Bonn came in 2007 in a comprehensive study to the conclusion that ALG II was not enough balanced to children and young people to feed . The legislature estimates food and drinks for 14 to 18 year olds only 3.42 euros per day. Even those who only buy from discounter, however, have to spend an average of 4.68 euros a day to satisfy a teenager's appetite with balanced food. Children and adolescents from lower social classes today suffered from obesity two to three times more often than their better-off peers.
  • Decoupling from the insurance system. One criticism of ALG II says that with the Hartz IV reform and the abolition of unemployment benefits, many formerly long-term employed people would be financially equated with people who had never or never worked for a long time. This applies above all to job seekers who become unemployed at an advanced age and who therefore find it more difficult to find a new job despite professional experience. According to the critics, the cause of the criticized situation is that the amount of unemployment benefit II is independent of previous wages. The legislature counteracts this effect with a special support program for older unemployed.
  • Forced removals. The only partial assumption of the costs of large and expensive apartments is seen as a compulsion to move to a small and cheap apartment and criticized, because the housing market, especially in metropolitan areas, does not provide enough suitable apartments and the increased demand for cheap living space leads to further relocations. According to a market survey presented in March 2007 by the Real Estate Association Germany (IVD) for North Rhine-Westphalia, the introduction of ALG II in the past twelve months led to rent increases for simply furnished apartments of 7% to 11%. Many recipients of unemployment benefit II had to move to smaller apartments, and rents rose due to the greater demand.
  • Insufficient regional differentiation. The poorly differentiated calculation of the standard benefit is criticized because it does not sufficiently take into account the large regional differences in the cost of living in the various regions.
  • Privileging assets; The disproportion between the rigid offsetting of (gainful) income and the comparatively generous (unconditional) tax allowances in considerable amounts, such as in owner-occupied homes, is criticized.

There was criticism that money for alcohol and nicotine was removed from the calculation base.

Criticism of instruments for integration in work

Several of the instruments provided for in SGB II for integrating the unemployed into working life are viewed critically by unemployment initiatives, the Left Party and the DGB as opponents of the Hartz IV reform:

  • Opportunities with additional expense allowances are criticized primarily because of the suspicion of the destruction of regular jobs and branded as "1 euro jobs" because the public benefit and, above all, the additionality of the jobs created are not adequately controlled or in some cases cannot be controlled at all. The low level of compensation and the legal status of those employed in this way are also viewed critically by some politicians.
  • the design of the "activating" measures and tools for integration into the labor market, particularly the excessive emphasis according to the critics of demanding at the same time in their opinion, examples or subordination of the conveying counter-balanced model of " promoting and demanding ". So were z. For example, funding for further vocational training has been cut by around 84% from EUR 7.9 billion in 1996 to EUR 1.3 billion in 2006.

Positive evaluation of unemployment benefit II

General positive reviews

  • In retrospect, the introduction of unemployment benefit II is rated positively by politicians from the SPD and CDU / CSU. The social reforms that led to its establishment were necessary and without a viable alternative .
  • The German County Association assesses the labor market reform the ALG II underlying positive as it passes through the radio model many would have given local authorities the opportunity, even just something about unemployment in their own city / in your own district to do and to accomplish all services from a single source . This has also proven itself in practice.

Positive effects on the labor market

  • According to the Berlin economics professor Michael Burda , a positive consequence of the introduction of unemployment benefit II is a more flexible labor market, which has led to an increase in employment. This view is shared by the leading economic research institutes in their spring 2008 report, but is also controversial among labor market experts.
  • The Federal Employment Agency sees the reform as having an additional positive effect on reducing long-term unemployment (reduction of 700,000 between 2005 and 2007). She attributes this to what she believes is professional work by the job centers.
  • According to the Federal Employment Agency, the introduction of Unemployment Benefit II has further improved the care of young unemployed people, which means that their unemployment has also declined above average (2007 by 27% compared to the previous year).
  • Shortly after the introduction of unemployment benefit II, according to the management of the Federal Employment Agency, the number of people leaving unemployment had risen overall despite negative statistical effects . Even after a long period of time, managers at the job center and employment agency rate their own work positively in practice.
  • According to advocates such as political scientist Klaus Schröder from the Free University of Berlin, ALG II increased the incentive for unemployed people to take up work again

Use of language

In the vernacular, the term “Hartz IV” has largely become naturalized for ALG II (“He gets Hartz IV” or “I applied for Hartz IV”). "Hartz IV" actually only refers to the legislative package that formed the fourth stage of the so-called Hartz reforms , within the framework of which ALG II was created. As a synonym for this, however, the term has now also penetrated official usage.

The verb “hartzen”, derived from “Hartz IV”, was chosen by a jury headed by Langenscheidt Verlag as the 2009 word for young people .

See also


  • Frank Jäger, Harald Thomé: Guideline ALG II / social assistance from AZ. Edited by Tacheles eV Wuppertal. 26th edition. 2011, ISBN 978-3-932246-81-4 .
  • TuWas unemployment project (Udo Geiger, Ursula Fasselt, Ulrich Stascheit, Ute Winkler) (Eds.): Guide to unemployment benefits II. Legal advice on SGB II. 8th edition. Fachhochschulverlag Frankfurt am Main, 2011, ISBN 978-3-940087-74-4 .
  • Annett Reinkober: Hartz IV. The current guide to unemployment benefit II . Bund-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2011, ISBN 978-3-7663-6093-9 .
  • Rolf Winkel, Hans Nakielski: 111 tips on unemployment benefit II and social benefits . 4th edition. Bund-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2011, ISBN 978-3-7663-6026-7 .
  • Albrecht Brühl, Jürgen Sauer: My right to social benefits. 20th edition. Beck legal advisor in dtv, 2007, ISBN 978-3-932246-50-0 .
  • Hartz IV - Tips and help from the DGB, 2013 edition, publisher: DGB-Bundesvorstand, 10178 Berlin
Criticism and analysis
  • Christoph Butterwegge: Crisis and future of the welfare state. 3rd, exp. Edition. VS - Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2005, ISBN 3-8100-4138-6 .
  • Heinz Lampert, Jörg W. Althammer: Textbook of social policy. 9th, updated & revised Edition. Springer, Berlin 2013, ISBN 978-3-642-31890-0 .
  • Christian Burkiczak: "Hartz IV" in times of Corona . In: New legal weekly . No. 17 , 2020, p. 1180-1182 .

Web links

Wiktionary: Hartz IV  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. a b c BVerfG, judgment of November 5, 2019, Az .: 1 BvL 7/16
  2. a b Fourth law for modern services on the labor market of December 24, 2003 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 2954, 2955 ).
  3. BT-Drs. 15/1516
  4. Changes to SGB II , only the EStG and some other books of the Social Security Code have been changed more often
  5. ^ Statutory ordinances on SGB II
  6. Law on the further development of the organization of basic security for job seekers of August 3, 2010 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1112 ).
  7. BVerfG, judgment of December 20, 2007, Az. 2 BvR 2433/04 and 2 BvR 2434/04, full text .
  8. Law amending the Basic Law (Article 91e) of July 21, 2010 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 944 ).
  9. Federal Employment Agency: Technical information on § 16 SGB II , Rn 16.71.
  10. For example: SG Berlin , judgment of February 27, 2006, Az. S 77 AL 742/05, wages below social welfare level are (constitutionally) inadmissible
  11. Helga Spindler: Limits of the reasonableness of work for those entitled to social assistance in the case of low wages and wage usury, printed in: info also 2/2003 ( Memento from August 10, 2003 in the Internet Archive )
  12. ^ SG Düsseldorf , judgment of January 25, 2006, Az. S 29 AS 178/05 ER
  13. LSG North Rhine-Westphalia judgment of August 27, 2007, Az. L 19 B 38/07 AS ER
  14. ^ SG Lüneburg , judgment of January 22, 2007, Az. S 24 AS 2/07 ER
  15. BSG , judgment of January 30, 2013, Az. B 4 AS 37/12 R, full text .
  16. BSG, judgment of January 27, 2009, Az. B 14 AS 6/08 R, 8, full text .
  17. Schoch in Münder, LPK-SGBII, 5th edition. Section 60 marginal no. 9, ISBN 978-3-8487-0596-2 .
  18. Federal Employment Agency: Instructions on § 9 SGB II ; 1.3.1, Rn. 9.9.
  19. BSG, judgment of August 19, 2015, Az. B 14 AS 1/15 R, full text .
  20. BSG, judgment of October 28, 2009, Az. B 14 AS 56/08 R, full text .
  21. Hartz IV standard requirement 2013
  22. Hartz IV standard requirement 2014
  23. Hartz IV standard requirement 2015
  24. Hartz IV standard requirement 2016
  25. Hartz IV standard requirement 2017
  26. Hartz IV standard requirement 2018
  27. Hartz IV standard requirement 2019
  28. Hartz IV standard requirement 2020
  29. BSG, judgment of April 16, 2013, Az. B 14 AS 71/12 R, full text .
  30. Nationwide overview of the level of reasonable accommodation costs
  31. BSG, judgment of January 27, 2009, Az. B 14 / 7b AS 8/07 R, full text .
  32. BSG, judgment of July 2, 2009, Az. B 14 AS 54/08 R, full text .
  33. BSG, judgment of 23 August 2012, Az. B 4 AS 167/11 R, full text .
  34. BSG, judgment of March 3, 2009, Az. B 4 AS 50/07 R, full text .
  35. BSG, judgment of June 25, 2008, Az. B 11b AS 19/07 R, full text .
  36. BSG, judgment of March 22, 2010, Az. B 4 AS 59/09 R, full text .
  37. BSG, judgment of August 5, 2015, Az. B 4 AS 9/15 R, full text .
  38. Johannes Münder: Social Code II. Basic security for job seekers . In: Johannes Münder (Ed.): Teaching and Practice Commentary . 4th edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2011, ISBN 978-3-8329-5429-1 (§ 21 SGB II marginal number 26; with reference to: LSG Baden-Württemberg, judgment of December 9, 2008 - L 13 AS 4462/07).
  39. BSG, judgment of February 20, 2014, Az. B 14 AS 65/12 R, full text .
  40. Reiner Höft-Dzemski .: Recommendations of the German Association for the Granting of Health Allowances in Social Welfare. (PDF; 93 kB) (No longer available online.) German Association for Public and Private Welfare, October 1, 2008, archived from the original on May 16, 2011 ; Retrieved September 9, 2011 .
  41. BSG, judgment of April 15, 2008, Az. B 14 / 11b AS 3/07 R, full text ; Judgments of February 27, 2008, Az. B 14 / 7b AS 64/06 R, full text and Az. B 14 / 7b AS 32/06 R, full text , as well as judgment of April 15, 2008, Az. B 14 / 7b AS 58/06 R, full text .
  42. Johannes Münder: Social Code II. Basic security for job seekers . In: Johannes Münder (Ed.): Teaching and Practice Commentary . 4th edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2011, ISBN 978-3-8329-5429-1 (§ 21 SGB II marginal number 27).
  43. L 13 AS 207/18 ZVW
  44. S 11 AS 223/19
  45. L 3 AS 101/06 2007
  46. BSG, judgment of June 4, 2014, Az. B 14 AS 30/13 R
  47. BVerfG, judgment of February 9, 2010, Az. 1 BvL 1, 3, 4/09, BVerfGE 125, 175 - Hartz IV.
  48. BSG, judgment of September 27, 2011, Az. B 4 AS 202/10 R
  49. BSG, judgment of July 1, 2009, Az. B 4 AS 77/08 R
  50. The initial equipment according to § 23 Abs. 3 Satz 1 Nr. 1 SGB II on kanzleibeier.eu
  51. ^ SG Düsseldorf, judgment of March 27, 2007, Az. S 23 AS 113/06
  52. BSG, judgment of September 19, 2009, Az. B 14 AS 64/07 R, full text .
  53. Social Court Hildesheim , Az. S 13 AS 1126/06
  54. BSG, judgment of February 24, 2011, Az. B 14 AS 75/10 R, full text .
  55. LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, April 23, 2010, Az. L 6 AS 297/10 B
  56. LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, January 5, 2010, Az. 1 B 25/0 AS
  57. BSG, judgment of April 13, 2011, Az. B 14 AS 53/10 R, full text .
  58. BVerwG , judgment of March 14, 1991, Az. 5 C 70/86, full text .
  59. BSG, judgment of August 20, 2009, Az. B 14 AS 45/08 R
  60. BSG, judgment of November 19, 2008, Az. B 14 AS 64/07 R
  61. LSG Hamburg , October 27, 2011, Az. L 5 AS 342/10
  62. BSG, judgment of 23 May 2013, Az. B 4 AS 79/12 R
  63. BSG, judgment of October 25, 2017, Az. B 14 AS 4/17 R
  64. Federal Employment Agency, technical information on § 24 SGB II ( Memento from April 2, 2015 in the Internet Archive )
  65. State pays too little for Hartz IV recipients zeit.de, December 15, 2017
  66. Claudia Bittner: Section 26 SGB II, subsidies for contributions to health insurance and long-term care insurance in: Schlegel / Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB II , as of November 14, 2019
  67. BSG, judgment of January 18, 2011, Az. B 4 AS 108/10 R
  68. BSG, judgment of April 29, 2015, Az. B 14 AS 8/14 R
  69. BSG, judgment of October 16, 2012, Az. B 14 AS 11/12 R
  70. BSG, judgment of November 15, 2012, Az. B 8 SO 3/11 R
  71. BSG, judgment of August 19, 2015, Az. B 14 AS 43/14 R
  72. BSG, judgment of February 18, 2010, Az. B 14 AS 32/08 R
  73. BSG, judgment of May 10, 2011, Az. B 4 KG 1/10 R
  74. BSG, judgment of June 17, 2010, Az. B 14 AS 46/09 R
  75. BSG, judgment of October 19, 2016, Az. B 14 AS 53/15 R
  76. Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs: Free allowance calculator SGB II .
  77. BSG, judgment of June 25, 2015, Az. B 14 AS 17/14 R
  78. BSG, judgment of October 17, 2013, Az. B 14 AS 58/12 R
  79. Federal Employment Agency: Technical information on Section 11 SGB II
  80. Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG - all rights reserved: Sauer, SGB II § 11a Income not to be taken into account / the de minimis limit . In: Haufe.de news and specialist knowledge . ( haufe.de [accessed on August 22, 2018]).
  81. Section 65 (5) SGB II
  82. ^ BSG, judgment of September 6, 2007, Az. B 14 / 7b AS 66/06 R, full text .
  83. 4000 euros premium for tough job center bosses. In: www.bz-berlin.de. Retrieved June 16, 2016 .
  84. BSG, judgment of February 18, 2010, Az. B 14 AS 53/08 R
  85. BSG, judgment of March 22, 2010, Az. B 4 AS 68/09 R
  86. BSG, judgment of December 17, 2009, Az. B 4 AS 20/09 R
  87. LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen , July 8, 2009, Az. L 6 AS 335/09 B ER
  88. BSG, judgment of April 29, 2015, Az. B 14 AS 19/14 R
  89. a b statistik.arbeitsagentur.de - sanctions
  90. Editor: Constitutional judges overturn Hartz IV sanctions in part. In: Spiegel online. Spiegel online, November 5, 2019, accessed on November 5, 2019 (German).
  91. a b Stefan Sell: An as well as judgment. The Federal Constitutional Court, the limitation of the previously possible sanctions and a 70 percent minimal existence in the Hartz IV system. In: Current Social Policy. November 6, 2019, accessed on November 7, 2019 (German).
  92. Zacharias Zacharakis, AFP, dpa, Reuters: Sanctions: Broad approval of the Hartz judgment of the constitutional court . In: The time . November 5, 2019, ISSN  0044-2070 ( zeit.de [accessed November 6, 2019]).
  93. For a secure subsistence level: promote basic security recipients instead of interfering with the subsistence level! (PDF), Declaration by the social associations , November 5, 2019.
  94. Nuremberg press : Federal Constitutional Court overturns large parts of the Hartz IV sanctions. November 5, 2019, accessed November 6, 2019 .
  95. certainly now: away with sanctions introduce basic income , Basic Income Network , November 6, 2019 accessed on 6 November of 2019.
  96. Federal Constitutional Court on Hartz IV - "Judgment will lead to more legal uncertainty" - Stefan Sell in conversation with Mario Dobovisek. In: Deutschlandfunk. November 5, 2019, accessed on November 6, 2019 (German).
  97. ^ Roland Rosenow: Federal Constitutional Court restricts Hartz IV sanctions. A milestone in legal history (interview). Radio Dreyeckland, November 6, 2019, accessed on November 6, 2019 .
  98. Alexander Thiele: VB vom Blatt: Eight thoughts on the Hartz IV judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court. In: Verfassungsblog. November 5, 2019, accessed November 6, 2019 .
  99. Also critical: Mathias Hong: subsistence level, human dignity and proportionality. In: Verfassungsblog. November 5, 2019, accessed November 6, 2019 .
  100. According to Hartz IV ruling: How will the sanctions continue? Communal on November 5, 2019
  101. BSG, judgment of July 21, 2014, Az. B 14 SF 1/14 R
  102. BVerfG, decision of May 11, 2009, Az. 1 BvR 1517/08, full text .
  103. BSG, judgment of 23 August 2012, Az. B 4 AS 169/11 R
  104. LSG North Rhine-Westphalia, April 24, 2008, Az. L 7 B 329/07 AS ER
  105. Florian Diekmann: " Socially adverse behavior": Hartz IV recipients can now be punished so severely. Spiegel online, September 2, 2016, accessed September 7, 2016 .
  106. LSG Baden-Württemberg , November 21, 2014, Az. L 3 AS 2383/13
  107. Federal Employment Agency: Technical information on Section 43 SGB II (PDF).
  108. ^ First law amending the second book of the Social Security Code , text, changes and process flow
  109. Law on the further development of basic security for job seekers , text, changes and process flow
  110. Section 31a, Paragraph 1 of Book II of the Social Code: “[…] With every further repeated breach of duty according to Section 31, unemployment benefit II ceases completely . [...] "
  111. ^ Draft of a ninth law to amend the second book of the Social Security Code - legal simplification. BMAS, January 29, 2016, accessed December 6, 2019 .
  112. Federal Employment Agency: Structures of Basic Social Security Book II. Accessed on May 7, 2019 . Annual averages are given.
  113. State Center for Political Education Baden-Württemberg: Costs Hartz IV .
  114. Hartz IV: Basic security benefits for jobseekers in the 2017, 2018 and 2019 federal budget, Bremen Institute for Labor Market Research and Professional Assistance for Young People (BIAJ), July 6, 2018
  115. BT-Drs. 17/1095 (PDF; 316 kB)
  116. Almost every second Hartz IV lawsuit is successful on welt.de from July 15, 2013.
  117. WORLD: Every tenth Hartz IV recipient has a high school diploma . In: THE WORLD . December 15, 2014 ( welt.de [accessed July 11, 2018]).
  118. Unemployment: Does education protect against Hartz IV? In: ZEIT ONLINE . ( zeit.de [accessed on July 11, 2018]).
  119. Every fourth Hartz IV recipient is a migrant , Die Welt from August 1, 2016, accessed on August 1, 2016
  120. WORLD: Migration: Three out of four Syrians receive Hartz IV . September 22, 2019 ( welt.de [accessed September 26, 2019]).
  121. Study: Only minority get out of Hartz IV. In: www.welt.de. December 15, 2009, accessed October 27, 2019 .
  122. Lena Köhnlein: University study: A new job is not the way out of Hartz IV. In: rp-online.de. March 10, 2016, accessed October 27, 2019 .
  123. Detlef Borchers: Hartz IV software manufacturer ProSoz threatened with extinction. In: heise online. April 29, 2005, accessed September 27, 2015 .
  124. Detlef Borchers: Hartz IV software: consultants increase software costs. In: heise online. May 18, 2005, accessed October 11, 2015 .
  125. Detlef Borchers: Hartz IV software: 28 million euros damage. In: heise online. June 2, 2006, accessed October 11, 2015 .
  126. Detlef Borchers: Hartz IV software: additional costs of 230 million euros. In: heise online. September 15, 2006, accessed October 11, 2015 .
  127. Detlef Borchers: Hartz IV software: Defects in data protection. In: heise online. April 6, 2006, accessed October 11, 2015 .
  128. Detlef Borchers: Hartz IV software: Allegro is to replace A2LL. In: heise online. March 18, 2008, accessed October 11, 2015 .
  129. New ALLEGRO software for calculating unemployment benefit II (Hartz IV). August 15, 2014, accessed March 26, 2019 .
  130. Federal Agency for Civic Education : The virtual job market
  131. laemmerzahl.de
  132. Detlef Borchers: Hartz IV software: The alternatives. In: heise online. September 27, 2004, accessed September 27, 2015 .
  133. see for example Labor and Social Policy SGB II
  134. for example DMS in the job center or e-files and social issues
  135. tagesschau.de: Balance of the Hartz reforms, Hartz IV - winners and losers ( Memento from February 15, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  136. Schweinfurter Tagblatt of March 7, 2008: SALI considers laws to have failed, balance sheet after three years Hartz IV position.
  137. This criticized the parliamentary group of the party Die Linke in 2006 in a motion in the Bundestag on March 16, 2006 (PDF).
  138. For example, Der Spiegel No. 34/2004 of August 16, 2004; Title: "Fear of Poverty" .
  139. a b c Süddeutsche Zeitung of May 26, 2008: The trickery stunned me.
  140. "The effect is clear: The situation of those affected by Hartz IV is getting worse and worse. Overall, poverty and exclusion are promoted rather than limited in Germany ”, Hans-Jürgen Marcus, in: NAK 2005, p. 3 .; similar: Klaus-Dieter Gleitze, Uli Gransee, Meike Janßen: "Sociopolitical cuts". In: Lower Saxony State Poverty Conference - DGB District Lower Saxony - Bremen - Saxony-Anhalt (ed.): Risk of falling. Social cuts - effects and alternatives (new, expanded 2nd edition). December 2004.
  141. ^ Angela Halberstadt: Families. In: Lower Saxony State Poverty Conference - DGB District Lower Saxony - Bremen - Saxony-Anhalt (ed.): Risk of falling. Social cuts - effects and alternatives (new, expanded 2nd edition). December 2004.
  142. Wolfgang Nešković, Isabel Erdem: On the unconstitutionality of sanctions in Hartz IV - At the same time a criticism of the Federal Constitutional Court . In: The social justice . No. 3 , 2012, ISSN  0943-1462 , p. 134-140 .
  143. Deeply concerned about social grievances in Germany on sueddeutsche.de
  144. ^ Hartz reforms and long-term unemployed: The forgotten million , Der Spiegel from January 1, 2015.
  145. ^ First equality report: New ways - equal opportunities. Equality between women and men over the life course , BT-Drs. 17/6240 , June 16, 2011, Section 5.8.4 Women related to SGB II, p. 146.
  146. ^ For example, Andreas Geiger: Effects of the new labor market policy. On-site observations and initial findings. In: NAK 2005. p. 5; Stiftung Warentest: Unemployment Benefit II: Auf Hartz und bitten test.de from October 18, 2005; Gieselmann. In: Agency closing 2006: 27 u. a.
  147. For example, Christoph Flügge from the Berlin Social Court turned to the Berlin Senate Department for Justice with a “report by the Social Court on problems in cooperation with the job centers”, in which he pointed to “organizational deficits and implementation problems at the job centers . See letter from Christoph Flügge, Social Court Berlin, to the Senate Department for Justice of October 27, 2006, A3–5111 / 14
  148. State Center for Political Education Baden-Württemberg: "Unemployment Benefit II - Hartz IV", lpb-bw.de (accessed: March 22, 2007)
  149. 100,000. Hartz IV case! , Press release, Social Court Berlin, June 18, 2010.
  150. See Allex / Eberle, in: Agenturschluss 2006, p. 52.
  151. Every third contradiction successful , Süddeutsche Zeitung.
  152. Uwe Klerks: The SGB II - review and outlook from a legal perspective . In: info also , No. 2, 2016, ISSN 1862-0469, pp. 51–55.
  153. bz-berlin.de
  154. More and more homeless people in Germany , on noz.de.
  155. Faster return to work, but also side effects. IAB, February 8, 2017, accessed March 3, 2019 .
  156. Bernadette Mittermeier: Living in fear of office. In: sueddeutsche.de. March 3, 2019, accessed March 3, 2019 .
  157. Online survey on Hartz IV sanctions: Many would tone down the stricter rules for younger people. IAB, April 18, 2018, accessed March 3, 2019 .
  158. BSG, judgment of November 23, 2006, Az. B 11b AS 1/06 R, Rn. 46 ff.
  159. BSG, judgment of January 27, 2009, Az. B 14 AS 5/08 R, full text .
  160. ^ Hessisches LSG , decision of October 29, 2008, Az. L 6 AS 336/07, press release of January 26, 2009; BSG of January 27, 2009, B 14 AS 5/08.
  161. BVerfG, press release No. 76/2014 of September 9, 2014, accessed on September 10, 2014.
  162. New expertise on Hartz IV: Paritätischer calls for a standard rate of 485 euros. finanzen.net, December 29, 2014, accessed December 29, 2014 .
  163. ^ Research Institute for Child Nutrition (FKE) at the University of Bonn: Unemployment benefit II is not enough for healthy child nutrition
  164. perspektiven50plus.de ( Memento from October 22, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
  165. ^ Taz NRW of March 14, 2007, tenants pay on top .
  166. ^ RP-Online ( Memento from October 6, 2010 in the Internet Archive ). Retrieved October 7, 2010.
  167. Thuringian regional newspaper . Retrieved October 7, 2010.
  168. "While the 'demanding' [...] has been significantly increased and concentrated solely on the unemployed, the component of 'promoting' must first be developed", Ursula Engelen-Kefer : "The Hartz Laws - an interim balance sheet by the DGB". Thesis paper - Conference of the Bremen Chamber of Employees, February 8, 2005, p. 4.
  169. Heiner Barz: Handbuch Bildungsfinanzierung . Springer-Verlag, 2010, ISBN 978-3-531-92520-2 ( google.de [accessed on March 5, 2020]).
  170. Tagesschau.de: 5 years Agenda 2010 ( Memento from February 14, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  171. Landkreistag assesses Hartz IV positively, but sees a need for correction , Der Tagesspiegel of December 28, 2005.
  172. Main-Post of April 18, 2008: Solid as a rock, spring report 2008 of the leading economic research institutes
  173. tagesschau.de: Balance of the Hartz reforms, Hartz IV winners and losers ( Memento from February 15, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  174. a b Main Post of April 8, 2008: Hartz IV ensures fewer long-term unemployed, positive trend recognizable
  175. University protocols from March 17, 2005: Hartz IV has a positive effect
  176. http://www.ln-online.de/artikel/2307616/%EF%BF%BDPositive_Tendenz%EF%BF%BD_bei_Hartz_IV.htm (link not available)
  177. ^ Newsticker.de of March 27, 2008: Employment Agency - More Employment through Hartz IV ( Memento of December 9, 2008 in the Internet Archive ).
  178. Telephone announcement when calling the service number for employees
  179. Hartz IV application: Explanations soon in 13 languages on jobcenter-duesseldorf.de, accessed on March 23, 2015
  180. New ALLEGRO software for calculating unemployment benefit II (Hartz IV) onarbeitsagentur.de, accessed on March 23, 2015
  181. Hartzen on duden.de