Asylum Seekers Benefits Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Asylum Seekers Benefits Act
Abbreviation: AsylbLG
Type: Federal law
Scope: Federal Republic of Germany
Legal matter: Administrative law , residence law , social law
References : 2178-1
Original version from: June 30, 1993
( BGBl. I p. 1074 )
Entry into force on: November 1, 1993
New announcement from: August 5, 1997
( Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2022 )
Last change by: Art. 18 G of June 12, 2020
( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1248, 1277 )
Effective date of the
last change: 		June 24, 2020
(Art. 28 G of June 12, 2020)
GESTA : G031
Weblink: Text of the law
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The Asylum Seekers Benefits Act (AsylbLG) has regulated the amount and form of benefits that materially needy asylum seekers , tolerated persons and foreigners who are enforceably obliged to leave the Federal Republic of Germany can claim since 1993 . Causes for the need for help can be: B. in a lack of earned income (partly due to a lack of a work permit) or insufficient income and assets to meet needs.

Political background and legislative development

Origin in the asylum debate

The Asylum Seekers Benefits Act came into effect after the asylum debate , in which the significantly increased number of asylum applications and asylum abuse played an important role, as a result of the asylum compromise agreed in December 1992 between the governing parties CDU / CSU and FDP and the opposition SPD . The AsylbLG replaced the regulations contained in Section 120 (2) of the Federal Social Welfare Act on the granting of social assistance (in particular standard rates, accommodation, sickness assistance) to asylum seekers and tolerated foreigners. It is also referred to as the performance-related annex to the asylum compromise.

The aim of the federal government at the time was to limit the influx of refugees into Germany and to prevent abuse of the right to asylum. The aim of the AsylbLG was to “avoid incentives for migratory movements through a high level of performance by international standards”. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 18, 2012, however, declared the lowering of the benefit level justified by migration policy to be unconstitutional.

The background to this was the burden on public budgets from the sharp rise in refugee flows, of which Germany had to bear a large part in Europe. The motives for fleeing were often the search for protection from war and civil war (especially in the former Yugoslavia ), which, however, was not considered individual “political persecution” within the meaning of the German asylum law and was therefore “obvious” according to Section 30 (3) AsylG for the rejection of asylum applications unfounded ”. The independent residence title as a "war refugee" provided for in the asylum compromise in 1992 in accordance with Section 32a of the Aliens Act at that time was also not granted in practice. The goal of obtaining protection from war and civil war situations played (and continues to play) a role in the entry of many refugees. Today, however, due to the requirements of European guidelines on refugee protection, such reasons for fleeing lead to refugee recognition more than in the 1990s.

While the number of asylum seekers had risen sharply since 1989 (438,191 in 1992 taking into account subsequent asylum applications), around 95 percent of asylum seekers were not recognized as entitled to asylum in the early 1990s. Many of them, especially the more than 300,000 civil war refugees from the former Yugoslavia, were instead granted protection from deportation in the form of a tolerance. With reference to the high rejection rates, the Federal Government declared that economic reasons are very often the main driving force behind entry. The fact that the vast majority of refugees arrived by land via Germany's neighboring countries, all of which are considered safe third countries, was also cited as evidence of asylum abuse. In order to limit immigration, after the asylum compromise in 1993, the right of asylum under Art. 16a GG was considerably restricted, the AsylbLG was created and a group of foreigners was defined who should no longer receive benefits under the Federal Social Welfare Act (BSHG) at that time, but under the AsylbLG.

Unconstitutionality and amendment of March 2015

After the benefit rates of the AsylbLG had remained unchanged since 1993, the Federal Constitutional Court, in its judgment of July 18, 2012, regarded the basic benefits as "evidently insufficient" and declared them unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court called on the Federal Government to immediately create a new constitutional regulation and adopted a transitional regulation for the period up to its entry into force, which had an effect back on January 1, 2011.

On March 1, 2015, an amended version of the AsylbLG came into force, which retained the basic structures, but set a level of benefits within this framework that was basically based on social assistance according to SGB XII or unemployment benefit II. However, there is still no complete agreement; In particular, the AsylbLG still does not provide for any additional needs surcharges, and medical care remains below the level of statutory health insurance.

As a result of the asylum compromise negotiated with the Federal Council on the declaration of Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia as safe countries of origin, the Legal Status Improvement Act, which also came into force on March 1, 2015, provided for the extensive abolition of the priority in kind in Section 3 (2) AsylbLG .

Another change in October 2015

The Asylum Procedure Acceleration Act passed on October 15, 2015 , which is a reaction to the increase in the number of asylum seekers in 2015 and which came into force on October 24, 2015, brought about another change in the law on benefits for asylum seekers. One of the aims of the legislature is to eliminate “possible false incentives that can lead to unjustified asylum applications”. During the stay of up to six months in reception facilities, instead of the cash amount for personal use ("pocket money"), benefits in kind should also be given for personal needs; the cash amount can also be replaced by benefits in kind in shared accommodation. In addition, in the area of ​​§ 1a AsylbLG, the benefits are further restricted.

Asylum seeker benefits law as social law

As an independent law, the AsylbLG regulates the material benefits for those entitled to benefits. It is not in the formal sense of the social law to you, because it is not in the catalog of the SGB I was taken. In terms of its service content, however, it still belongs to the material social (aid) law.

Beneficiaries

The group of persons entitled to benefits is finally regulated in Section 1 (1) AsylbLG . They include materially needy asylum seekers, tolerated foreigners who are legally obliged to leave the country, even if they no longer have legal residence status. In a few exceptional cases, holders of a temporary residence permit are also entitled to benefits under the AsylbLG (see Section 1, Paragraph 1, No. 3 AsylbLG ).

Service content

The persons entitled to benefits receive basic benefits (Section 3 AsylbLG), which include cash requirements (pocket money or standard rate), possibly also as benefits in kind, as well as the costs of accommodation (shared accommodation or rented apartment), household items and heating costs. In addition, benefits are granted in the event of illness, pregnancy and childbirth ( Section 4 AsylbLG), as those entitled to benefits are usually excluded from statutory health insurance. In addition, there are other services ( Section 6 AsylbLG), e.g. B. Special needs for pregnant women, the disabled and those in need of care.

For the first 18 months of the stay, basic benefits are granted in accordance with Section 3 AsylbLG. In certain cases, beneficiaries are sanctioned through reductions ( Section 1a AsylbLG). After a stay of 18 months, the benefits are raised to the level of social assistance under certain conditions ( Section 2 AsylbLG).

Basic services

The basic standard of the benefit system is § 3 AsylbLG. It regulates the so-called basic services. You capture

  • the necessary needs for food, accommodation, heating, clothing, health care and durable and consumable goods ( Section 3 (1) sentences 1 to 4 AsylbLG) and
  • the necessary personal needs to cover personal needs of daily life § 3 Abs. 1 Sentences 5 to 9 AsylbLG.

Form of granting of benefits

With regard to the form of the service provision - in kind or in cash - a distinction is made according to whether the recipient of the service is accommodated in an initial reception facility according to § 44 AsylG or not:

Form of service provision
Accommodation in a reception facility
 Accommodation outside a reception facility
Necessary need Mandatory
contribution in kind 		primarily
cash benefit
Necessary personal needs Primarily
benefits in kind
Subordinated to vouchers or cash benefits		 Cash benefit

During accommodation in a reception facility (Section 47 AsylG), which is permitted for a maximum of six months, the “necessary needs” (food, clothing, health care and durable goods) are covered by benefits in kind, Section 3 (1) AsylbLG. In accordance with Section 3 (1), sentence 6, AsylbLG, this also applies in principle to necessary personal needs, but only if the granting of benefits in kind is "possible with reasonable administrative effort".

After the initial admission period of a maximum of six months in accordance with Section 47 AsylG, cash benefits for self-sufficiency are generally to be granted, Section 3 (2) sentence 1. The amounts in accordance with Section 3 (2) AsylbLG then cover the needs previously provided as benefits in kind. The benefit rates according to Section 3 Paragraphs 1 and 2 are added together, they then almost correspond to the standard rates of Unemployment Benefit II, Section 3 Paragraph 2 Sentence 5. In addition to the benefit rates according to Section 3 Paragraphs 1 and 2, benefits for accommodation, heating and Household contents according to § 3 AsylbLG, medical care according to § 4 AsylbLG and other services according to 6 AsylbLG.

Cash benefits

The basic allowances according to § 3 para. 1 and 2 are based on AsylbLG for the Alg II and social assistance relevant rule Needs Determination Act RBEG. However, they are still around 40 euros / month lower (single person, for example) because in the requirement rates according to § 3 AsylbLG the ongoing supplementary need for household items and cleaning agents was not taken into account (reduction of approx. 30 euros), and because, in the opinion of the Federal Government, that AsylbLG also leads to savings in medical care for those entitled to benefits, since no practice fee and no additional payments for medication etc. have to be paid (reduction of approx. 10 euros).

There are further cuts, some of which are serious, because, unlike Alg II and social assistance, Section 3 AsylbLG does not have any explicit regulations on additional surcharges for decentralized hot water costs, for pregnancy and for single parents, for initial equipment for pregnancy and childbirth, for initial clothing or for purchasing a Apartment contains. Section 6 AsylbLG only provides for an “irrefutable” requirement. Since in practice the current need for household items and cleaning supplies is only granted on application, the Berlin Refugee Council also believes that there is a factual reduction compared to the subsistence minimum recognized in the area of ​​Alg II and social assistance.

Cash benefits in reception centers

In principle, since the Asylum Procedure Acceleration Act of October 2015 came into force, all personal needs in reception facilities are to be covered by benefits in kind, provided that this is possible with reasonable administrative effort. In practice, with only a few exceptions, all or almost all personal needs are still covered by cash benefits nationwide . For this purpose, § 3 Paragraph 1 Clause 8 AsylbLG regulates the amount of cash benefits to be granted as "pocket money" for personal needs:

Necessary personal needs in reception facilities
Cash benefits for personal needs in accordance with Section 3 (1) AsylbLG in €
step designation until December 31, 2015 from January 1, 2016 from March 17, 2016
1 Single beneficiaries 143 145 135
2 Two adult partners in a household 129 131 122
3 another adult without their own household 113 114 108
4th Adolescents (14-17 years) 85 86 76
5 Children (6–13 years) 92 93 83
6th Children (0-5 years) 84 85 79
Cash benefits outside of reception facilities

If the beneficiary is accommodated outside a reception facility and the basic services for nutrition, clothing, health care and household goods are also granted as cash benefits in accordance with Section 3 (2) AsylbLG, the following amounts apply:

Accommodation outside reception facilities
Cash benefits in € from March 17, 2016
step designation necessary requirement § 3 Abs. 2 AsylbLG necessary personal needs § 3 Abs. 1 AsylbLG Amount of money § 3 total
1 Single beneficiaries 219 135 354
2 Two adult partners in a household 196 122 318
3 another adult without their own household 176 108 284
4th Adolescents (14-17 years) 200 76 276
5 Children (6–13 years) 159 83 242
6th Children (0-5 years) 135 79 214

Practice of the benefit in kind principle

In practice, even after the Asylum Procedure Acceleration Act of October 2015 came into force, all or almost all personal needs in the initial reception centers nationwide, with only a few exceptions, will continue to be covered by cash benefits in the amount specified in Section 3 (1) AsylbLG. The new option of providing personal needs as a contribution in kind beyond 6 months in communal accommodation is certainly not implemented on site. However, instead of up to 3 months, admission to an initial reception center is now possible for up to 6 months, and for asylum seekers from safe countries of origin even unlimited until departure.

The granting of benefits in kind, which has been limited to the time of initial admission since March 2015, had previously been the rule for years in practice and was no longer politically wanted. In Hamburg , Bremen , Berlin , Hesse , Rhineland-Palatinate , Saxony-Anhalt , Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Lower Saxony , cash benefits were and are granted across the board, with the exception of initial reception for asylum seekers and in some cases the reduction in benefits according to Section 1a AsylbLG. With the exception of a few districts, cash benefits are also granted in Brandenburg , Saxony , Schleswig-Holstein , Thuringia , North Rhine-Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg . Only in Bavaria are “real” benefits in kind still being provided as food, clothing and hygiene packages. In Berlin and Bremen, the rental costs for an apartment are usually paid after the initial admission has expired; the practice differs in the other countries.

Analog services: higher services after 15 months

According to § 2 AsylbLG, beneficiaries under the AsylbLG are entitled to benefits in the scope of SGB ​​XII after a “waiting period” , provided they have not abused their length of stay themselves. You will then largely be treated on an equal footing with those entitled to social assistance. Therefore these services are also called analog services.

requirements

  • Waiting period
    According to the legal situation valid until February 2015, the granting of analogue benefits was linked to an advance withdrawal of AsylbLG benefits: Before drawing analogue benefits, the beneficiary had to have received basic benefits for 48 months in accordance with Section 3 AsylbLG. With the new version for March 2015, the analog services will in future be decoupled from the advance withdrawal; they are granted as soon as the beneficiary has been in Germany for 15 months without any major interruptions. The shortening of the waiting time is a reaction to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 2012, which did not expressly declare the provision unconstitutional, but nevertheless contained indications that an unequal treatment of AsylbLG recipients and beneficiaries under SGB XII was unjustified for four years be.
  • No improper influence on the length of stay
    The granting of analogue services is only possible after the waiting period has been fulfilled if the recipient of the service has not improperly influenced the duration of the stay himself. This requirement corresponds to the legal situation that was in effect until February 2015. The term of legal abuse is not defined in the AsylbLG. According to the case law of the BSG, it contains an objective and a subjective component. The incriminated behavior must be objectively capable of influencing the length of stay at all, and subjectively, especially taking into account the principle of proportionality, it must be of such weight (“inexcusable”) that the exclusion of privileged services is justified. For this purpose, a diverse case history has developed in the case law.

Legal consequences

§ 2 AsylbLG orders a "corresponding application" of SGB XII, which regulates social assistance. It has not been clarified whether this is a reference to legal grounds or a legal consequence . The Federal Social Court has not yet commented on this either. It expressly leaves it open whether such a systematisation is possible and necessary at all. When applying the SGB-XII regulations accordingly, it must be taken into account that the analogue beneficiaries still do not have a fixed right to stay. According to the legal literature, there must not be an undifferentiated transfer of the SGB-XII rules and thus a full equation of analogue rights and foreigners originally entitled to social assistance.

The analog services are generally to be provided in cash; this results from Section 10 (3) SGB XII, which is applicable to those entitled to analogue. Exceptions can only arise in the case of accommodation in homes or similar institutions (Section 2 (2) AsylbLG): Here, the social welfare agency can make a discretionary decision to choose other forms of granting benefits that are “appropriate to local conditions”. The provision was introduced to prevent tension from developing among people living in a community facility because some people receive benefits in cash and some receive benefits in kind.

In addition to the standard requirement rates, according to Chapter 3 SGB XII, benefits are provided for accommodation (shared accommodation or rented apartment), allowances for initial equipment with clothing, household items and for pregnancy and childbirth, the "education package" and, if necessary, additional needs surcharges. Individual special needs in special life situations (disability, need for care, etc.) are provided in accordance with Section 23 SGB XII, partly as mandatory, partly as discretionary services analogous to Chapter 5 to 9 SGB XII. Beneficiaries according to § 2 AsylbLG receive from a health insurance company of their choice a full health card according to § 264 Paragraph 2 SGB V, through which they can claim medical services to the same extent as those with statutory health insurance.

Restriction of benefits according to § 1a AsylbLG

According to § 1a AsylbLG, the benefits for tolerated and enforceable foreigners and their family members are further restricted under certain circumstances. You will receive benefits insofar as this is inevitable in the individual case under the circumstances. In practice - in accordance with the legal justification, BT-Drs. 13/11172 - limited benefits according to §§ 3, 4 and 6 AsylbLG are granted, usually the cash amount for personal needs (need for social participation, items 7 - 12 EVS) is reduced or canceled. The constitutionality of the norm is disputed; a constitutional court decision has not yet been made.

Conditions for restriction of entitlement

The provision ties in with the allegation of improper residence or residence extension. It pursues the goal of eliminating the privileging of benefit recipients under the AsylbLG in comparison to German social assistance recipients and foreigners living legally in Germany, and is intended to prevent benefits under the AsylbLG from being used in an unlawful manner. Two possible behaviors can be considered to reduce the demands:

  • Entry to obtain benefits (Section 1a No. 1 AsylbLG).
    The use of services must have been the determining goal of entry. Insofar as the foreigner demonstrates that he is seeking protection from armed conflicts in his home country, this speaks against an improper use.
  • Inapplicability of measures to terminate residence for reasons for which the foreigner is responsible (Section 1a No. 2 AsylbLG).
    This reason for restriction is more relevant in practice than that according to No. 1.Example cases in which a benefit restriction was affirmed are: going into hiding to prevent deportation , deception about identity or nationality, passport destruction, presentation of forged passports or failure to obtain personal documents of the Home state, although it can. The latter can be problematic in practice if there is no functioning registration system in the home country. The administration and the courts are obliged to examine each individual case.

In both cases, an individual investigation with personal questioning of the foreigner is regularly required both in administrative enforcement and in court proceedings. Practice shows that a qualified clarification of the facts often only takes place in court proceedings. Clarifying the facts can be difficult in individual cases; actual uncertainties are at the expense of the authority.

Constitutionality of the scheme

The restriction of entitlements according to § 1a AsylbLG, which came into force on September 1, 1998, has been criticized in terms of legal policy since its introduction. In jurisprudence, violations of Articles 1, 3 and 20 of the Basic Law (human dignity, principle of equality, principle of welfare state) are discussed.

The majority of the relevant commentary did not regard these fundamental rights as violated: the principle of equality was not violated because there was no arbitrary unequal treatment, but a differentiation according to objective criteria. The welfare state principle is preserved because the benefits are only limited, but not completely denied.

The question of whether the restriction of entitlements according to § 1a AsylbLG to what is inevitable was unconstitutional arose again after the decision of the BVerfG of July 18, 2012. In this decision, the BVerfG did not agree to the constitutionality of the norm because it was not the subject of the dispute . The question is controversial in science and jurisprudence. Since the lower limit of the subsistence level according to the AsylbLG is bindingly determined up to a constitutionally compliant new legal regulation in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Needs Determination Act that also apply to social welfare, whereby personal needs for social participation and interpersonal relationships (cash amount or "pocket money" for "personal needs") ) belongs to the decent subsistence level defined by the BVerfG, some regional social courts are of the opinion that the customary practice of reducing or deleting the share for personal needs according to § 1a AsylbLG is unconstitutional. Other courts see § 1a AsylbLG as a constitutionally unobjectionable sanction norm. The Federal Social Court also ruled in 2017 that the regulation was constitutionally unobjectionable.

Health care

Sickness, pregnancy and childbirth benefits

According to § 4 AsylbLG, medical care benefits are only provided in the event of acute illness or acute need for treatment and painful illness. Benefits for other treatments - especially in the case of chronic illnesses and disabilities - "can" be granted as discretionary benefits according to § 6 AsylbLG, insofar as this is "essential to safeguard health". After a waiting period of 15 months, those entitled to benefits under Section 2 AsylbLG in accordance with Section 264 (2) SGB V receive a fully-fledged health card with which they can claim the same medical services as those with statutory health insurance.

The restrictions on the right to treatment in the event of illness by §§ 4 and 6 AsylbLG vis-à-vis those with statutory health insurance and their consequences in practice are the subject of multiple criticism , the regulations are viewed by well-known social rights activists as violating human rights.

Another criticism is that the regulation does not implement the requirements of the Council Directive 2003/9 / EC of January 27, 2003 (EU Asylum Reception Directive) or the new version of the EU Asylum Reception Directive of June 26, 2013, insofar as it is medical and social Care for asylum seekers with special needs (chronically ill, disabled, pregnant women, minors, the elderly, etc.). Section 6 (2) AsylbLG has so far only granted benefits for foreigners with a residence permit in accordance with Section 24 AufenthG; claims for asylum seekers are not regulated.

With the exception of emergency aid (Section 6a AsylbLG, see below), the services for medical care were not changed by the AsylbLG 2015 amendment. However, the Federal Government is planning a new regulation as part of the implementation of the 2013 EU Asylum Reception Directive, which is planned for 2015.

According to the German Medical Association , the average annual health costs of an asylum seeker are 2300 euros, 600 euros less than for a German.

Legislative goal

According to the will of the legislature, the regulation is intended to ensure the necessary assistance in the event of acute illness and painful illnesses. The treatment entitlement of AsylbLG beneficiaries is reduced to the indispensable , especially in the case of dentures and the treatment of chronic diseases that are not becoming more acute in accordance with Section 6 (1) AsylbLG, which is limited to discretionary benefits, compared to those with statutory health insurance .

Performance requirements

As a rule, the prerequisite for benefits in accordance with Section 4 (1) AsylbLG is the presence of an acute or "painful" illness. According to case law, an acute illness is an unexpectedly occurring, rapidly and violently irregular state of body and mind which, for medical reasons, requires medical or dental treatment. However, since the distinction between acute and chronic diseases is often a medical question that cannot be clearly clarified, and in the case of chronic diseases only "the unavoidable" is to be achieved, social authorities often request the opinion of a medical officer to clarify the requirements. In practice, this often leads to considerable delays in the necessary inpatient treatment, specialist treatment, assistance for the disabled and services for the chronically ill.

In the case of pregnancy and childbirth as well as for preventive care and vaccinations, the necessary services must be provided without restriction, Section 4 Paragraphs 2 and 3 AsylbLG, in this respect the benefit entitlement corresponds to the statutory health insurance. In practice, however, in many places there is no reference to these services on the health insurance certificates, as mostly only the provisions of Section 4, Paragraph 1 and Section 6, Paragraph 1 are cited. Therefore, necessary vaccinations are often omitted.

Beneficiaries according to § 2 AsylbLG (i.e. those asylum seekers who have been in the federal territory for 15 months without any significant interruption and who have not improperly influenced the length of their stay themselves, as well as their underage children) receive a health insurance card in accordance with § 264 (2) SGB V. You With the exception of long-term care insurance, you have the same right to treatment as those with statutory health insurance. Services in the event of a need for long-term care may have to be provided in accordance with Section 2 AsylbLG in conjunction with Section 61 ff. SGB XII.

Health cards according to §§ 4 and 6 AsylbLG

In Bremen, all asylum seekers and tolerated persons have been receiving health insurance cards since 2005, since there the medical treatment according to §§ 4 and 6 AsylbLG on the basis of § 264 paragraph 1 SGB V by way of an agreement according to § 264 paragraph 1 SGB V to the AOK Bremen / Bremerhaven was transferred. The “Bremen model” has also been used in Hamburg since July 2012, where the AOK Bremen / Bremerhaven is also a contractual partner of the social welfare authority. With only a few exceptions expressly named in the agreements with the AOK (artificial insemination, DMP, dentures, benefits abroad), those entitled to benefits in both federal states according to §§ 4 and 6 AsylbLG receive in fact the same scope of benefits as those with statutory health insurance, without this for the social authorities would have led to additional costs.

An amendment to Section 264 (1) SGB V in the Asylum Procedure Acceleration Act of October 2015 made the introduction of the health card easier for the territorial states as well. In autumn 2015, NRW concluded a corresponding framework agreement with the AOK, Berlin and Schleswig-Holstein introduced the card at the beginning of 2016, and Brandenburg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Thuringia want to follow soon.

Administrative and judicial decisions

In accordance with the legislative will, be it not the task of the AsylbLG to ensure optimal or best possible medical care. Numerous official and judicial decisions are based on this legal opinion, denying asylum seekers medical services or delaying the decision on granting them for so long that there is an acute health risk. This practice is the subject of criticism from refugee and human rights organizations.

Examples of court decisions are the hip joint necrosis of an asylum seeker treated with opiates instead of an operation or the long-term dialysis treatment instead of a kidney transplant. The cost of a hearing aid was not covered for a hearing-impaired child who was threatened with massive damage to speech development ( dyslalia ). The Frankfurt / Main Administrative Court rejected the assumption of the costs of a vital liver transplant. The person concerned died in the following period. The LSG Thuringia refused to treat an alleged post-traumatic stress disorder due to the applicant's lack of credibility, among other things because the applicant had not already mentioned the rape in the asylum procedure.

A comprehensive statement by the Berlin Refugee Council as part of the legislative process on the AsylbLG amendment 2015 for the Committee on Labor and Social Affairs of the German Bundestag documents a number of negative and delayed administrative decisions in connection with the application of Sections 4 and 6 AsylbLG, which in some cases resulted in it to permanent severe disabilities and also to a number of deaths.

Chronic and mental illness

The opening clause of Section 6 (1) AsylbLG enables the competent benefit authorities to provide medical care that goes beyond the scope of services under Section 4 (1) AsylbLG, for example for the treatment of chronic or mental illnesses. When examining the authorization requirements of Section 6 (1) AsylbLG and when exercising the discretion disclosed therein, the competent benefits authority shall also take into account the fundamental rights of those entitled to benefits - including the fundamental right to life and physical integrity ( Section 2 (2) sentence 1 of the Basic Law) - to be observed.

Emergency care from hospitals

Insofar as hospitals provide emergency care for persons entitled to AsylbLG, the Federal Social Court had denied the hospital's claim against the social welfare provider for assumption of its costs in accordance with Section 25 SGB XII in a judgment of October 30, 2013. Rather, the beneficiary can and must himself assert his reimbursement claim against the social welfare provider retrospectively. As part of the AsylbLG amendment 2015, a new regulation was therefore included in the law with § 6a AsylbLG, which ensures the hospitals' cost reimbursement claims for emergency care against the service providers of the AsylbLG in accordance with § 25 SGB XII. The right to reimbursement of costs applies accordingly to emergency operations by the rescue services (ambulance, rescue helicopter, etc.).

Dental care for asylum seekers in Bavaria

In Bavaria there is a framework agreement between the district, city and district council and the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Dentists (KZVB), which, among other things, regulates the dental care of beneficiaries according to the AsylbLG. The dental services, which are undisputed with regard to the assumption of costs by the service providers, have been coordinated in a separate service catalog between the KZVB and the Bavarian State Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs, Family and Integration . No approval needs to be obtained for these services.

Crediting of income and assets

According to § 7 AsylbLG, an income of the asylum seeker is largely taken into account. Also according to § 7 AsylbG, assets of the asylum seeker that exceed the exemption amount of 200 euros per household member must first be used up according to § 7 AsylbLG before a claim to benefits exists. According to § 7a AsylbLG, this property can be taken from the asylum seeker as a security deposit.

Unconstitutionality of the amount of benefits

The amount of benefits according to the AsylbLG was the subject of a decision by the Federal Constitutional Court on July 18, 2012.

Procedure

This decision related to two submissions from the State Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, which concerned the level of benefits for adults and children. The matter concerned the amount of the basic benefits granted to the plaintiffs in cash according to Section 3 (2) AsylbLG and the amount of cash according to Section 3 (1) AsylbLG of 40.90 or for children 20.45 euros per month. The Federal Constitutional Court declared these amounts unconstitutional in its decision.

decision

The BVerfG decided that both the cash amounts according to Section 3 (1) AsylbLG and the basic benefit amounts according to Section 3 (2) AsylbLG are evidently too low and violate the basic right to a decent subsistence level because it has not been changed since 1993 and neither understandably calculated still realistically.

The BVerfG referred to its decision of February 9, 2010, in which it had confirmed in connection with unemployment benefit II that the Basic Law Articles 1, Paragraph 1 (human dignity) and 20, Paragraph 1 (welfare state) Basic right to guarantee a decent subsistence level ”, which includes not only physical existence but also a minimum level of participation in social, cultural and political life. The legislature has to measure, update, guarantee and redeem the subsistence level in a realistic and comprehensible way. He is entitled to a creative leeway. The basic right to a decent subsistence level has universal validity as a human right. It therefore applies to all people regardless of origin and residence status . A lowering of the performance level cannot be justified with considerations of migration policy. The services to secure the livelihood are to be continuously checked and further developed. This has not happened since 1993, not even through the statutory ordinance provided for in Section 3 (3) AsylbLG by the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, although the price level in Germany has risen by more than 30 percent since then.

Last but not least, the Federal Constitutional Court declared the four-year period of application of the AsylbLG regulated in Section 2 AsylbLG, no longer just short stays, as well as the definition in Section 1 AsylbLG of a very heterogeneous group of people under the AsylbLG who were not only temporarily staying in Germany, as unconstitutional. The BVerfG, however, did not examine the content of the constitutionally problematic practice of granting benefits in kind, as this was not the subject of the preliminary ruling.

Already in the run-up to the decision, the constitutional judge Ferdinand Kirchhof had pointed out a "striking difference" between the so-called Hartz IV rates and the significantly lower cash benefits for asylum seekers.

consequences

The court called on the legislature to "immediately" create a new constitutional regulation. In its ruling, the BVerfG ordered a transitional regulation for the period until a new constitutional regulation came into force. Accordingly, since August 1, 2012, cash benefits in the amount of the standard rates according to SGB ​​XII had to be provided, reduced by the need for interior fittings, household appliances and objects (Section 5 EVS according to Sections 5 and 6 of the Ordinance Requirement Determination Act RBEG), since AsylbLG beneficiaries these positions - unlike those entitled to benefits under SGB II / XII - can claim additional subsidies as required in accordance with Section 3 (2) sentence 2, last part of the sentence, AsylbLG. The amount of the amounts had to be adjusted annually according to the development of the standard rates according to SGB XII. The BVerfG awarded the AsylbLG beneficiaries additional payments retrospectively from January 1, 2011, if no final notices were available.

In December 2012, the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS) presented a draft bill on the reform of the AsylbLG. In June 2014, the BMAS again presented a draft bill for the constitutional amendment of the AsylbLG and held a hearing of associations and states on July 2, 2014.

The BMAS draft law was introduced to the Bundestag with only minor changes. The most important changes: Some of the people with humanitarian residence permits have been removed from the AsylbLG. The requirement rates according to § 3 AsylbLG are determined based on the income and consumption samples (EVS) and adjusted annually. The right to the education and participation package is included in the AsylbLG. The waiting period for benefits analogous to social assistance according to § 2 will be shortened from 48 months to 15 months. The regulation on the sanctioning of family members according to § 1a AsylbLG due to violation of duties to cooperate under residence law by beneficiaries (often criticized as "family liability") has been deleted. In § 6a AsylbLG, the right to emergency assistance was included in the AsylbLG analogous to § 25 SGB XII. In the case of income according to § 7 AsylbLG, income-related expenses can be deducted, and an asset allowance of € 200 is introduced.

On November 3, 2014, a hearing on the draft law took place in the Bundestag Committee on Labor and Social Affairs, but the Bundestag passed the bill unchanged. The Federal Council then called on the Federal Government to include those entitled to AsylbLG in the statutory health insurance, to exclude foreigners with a residence permit from the application of the AsylbLG, and to limit the period of application of the AsylbLG to 12 months.

Since the federal government promised the federal states payments of two times 500 million euros, the Federal Council withdrew its criticism and the draft law was also confirmed unchanged by the Federal Council on November 28, 2014. However, as part of the asylum compromise on the safe countries of origin Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia, the Federal Council was able to enforce that the benefits in kind principle of § 3 AsylbLG was limited to three months. Both new regulations came into force on March 1, 2015.

Job opportunity

Similar to those entitled to benefits under Book Two of the Social Code and the work opportunities regulated there with compensation for additional expenses , the AsylbLG also provides work opportunities for those entitled to benefits. Asylum seekers who, in accordance with Section 5 AsylbLG, take advantage of work opportunities in reception facilities in accordance with Section 44 AsylVfG , receive an expense allowance of EUR 0.80. If higher expenses are proven in individual cases, a higher amount must be paid out.

The work does not fall under the temporary absolute prohibition of work applicable to asylum seekers in accordance with Section 61 (2) AsylG .

The reason for the reduction from 1.05 euros to 0.80 euros introduced in 2016 with the Integration Act (Germany) is, according to the explanatory memorandum, the generally low additional expenditure, since the necessary work equipment, such as work clothes or equipment, is provided by the institutions responsible for the facilities and travel costs or costs for external catering do not arise.

Those who are able to work, are not gainfully employed and are not of school age can be obliged by the authorities to take advantage of such a job in accordance with Section 5a AsylbLG; otherwise the benefits according to the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act can be reduced to the "unavoidable". These compulsory work opportunities are provided as part of the refugee integration measures (FIM) work program implemented by the Federal Employment Agency . As part of a FIM , travel costs can be covered, as well as meal costs if free meals are not possible; Childcare costs are not covered.

Budget and statistics

Number of recipients of standard benefits according to the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act:

  • 2013: 225,000 (36% more than 2012)
  • 2014: 363,000 (38% more than 2013)
  • 2015: 975,000 (169% more than 2014)

In 2015, the state spent around 5.3 billion euros (gross) on benefits under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act. In 2015, 67% of recipients were male and 33% female. Approx. 30% of all beneficiaries were not yet of legal age, around 70% between the ages of 18 and 64 and around 1% already 65 years of age or older.

The costs for services according to the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act were covered by the federal states, districts and municipalities until January 1, 2016. Since that date, the federal government has contributed 670 euros per asylum seeker per month. The amount corresponds to the average costs or net expenditure per asylum seeker in 2014.

criticism

Too restrictive

Pro asylum , charities , Protestant and Catholic churches, refugee associations and human rights organizations such as B. Amnesty International criticize the law and demand its abolition.

Criticisms are u. a. that the low benefits and the accommodation in dormitories or refugee camps did not allow a decent life. The vouchers and benefits in kind discriminate against those affected who are subject to a legal or factual prohibition of work and training and other restrictions such as the residence obligation and who are largely deprived of any opportunity to live independently of the benefits under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act, to provide for their own living and to shape their everyday life and living environment independently. In addition, refugees are systematically cut off from social and cultural life, and they are forced to use pidgin languages to communicate with one another .

It was also criticized that the benefits do not cover needs, the determination of the benefit amount is unclear. Neither in the law nor in the legal materials or anywhere else is there a reference to a needs assessment. The amounts of money mentioned in § 3 I and II AsylbLG for the needs of adults and children were based on freely estimated figures, which were determined solely by budgetary and migration policy motives. It was also criticized that since the AsylbLG came into force in November 1993, contrary to Section 3 (3) AsylbLG, the amount of benefits has not been adjusted to the price trend, cf. on this, the answer of the Federal Government to the question "Worse position of refugees under social law under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act". Although prices have risen by 34.4% since the AsylbLG came into force in November 1993, the amounts have never been adjusted to the price trend, contrary to Section 3 (3) AsylbLG.

The judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 18, 2012 confirmed this criticism and declared the amounts of money mentioned in Section 3 Paragraphs 1 and 2 AsylbLG to be unconstitutional: “The amount of cash benefits according to Section 3 of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act is evidently inadequate because it has not been changed since 1993 is. "

The restrictive handling of medical care under the AsylbLG by the administration and the courts is criticized by human rights organizations, the Central Ethics Committee of the German Medical Association and lawyers as a violation of fundamental and human rights. They are of the opinion that the decision-making practice of the administration and courts deprived the beneficiaries of the necessary medical care, which resulted in damage to health and danger to their lives.

According to Pro Asyl , medically incompetent officials or even security guards often decide whether there is a right to treatment. Those affected could also be exposed to fatal risks. For example, security guards and officials at the state asylum reception center in Zirndorf near Nuremberg refused to use the ambulance of a life-threatening, ill toddler for crucial hours. After weeks of coma, the child survived with severe disabilities, the "Leonardo case" was in the press nationwide. According to Pro Asyl, there were also deaths due to a lack of regular health insurance in Plauen (ambulance refused by the security guard) and Hanover (refused emergency admission of an infant in hospital).

The regulation is also criticized in jurisprudence. The threats to health care relevant to fundamental rights arise mainly from the factual handling of the apparently insufficiently defined §§ 4 and 6 AsylbLG by the competent administrations. However, medical care was not the subject of the judgment of the BVerfG v. July 18, 2012, because the plaintiffs had only attacked the insufficient amount of benefits according to § 3 AsylbLG.

The fact that the reduced medical care also applies to underage asylum seekers is viewed by the German Red Cross as a violation of Article 24 paragraph 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child , according to which the contracting states recognize the child's right to “the highest attainable level of health”. It also endangers the best interests of the child and discriminates against these minors.

The AsylbLG amendment, which came into force in March 2015, is also the subject of criticism from refugee organizations and charities, especially the continued restriction of medical care by Sections 4 and 6 AsylbLG. It is required that all beneficiaries are included in the statutory health insurance. The failure to implement the EU Asylum Reception Directive, version 2003 and version 2013 in the AsylbLG, according to which the “necessary medical and other care” for asylum seekers with special needs such as B. Torture victims, the elderly, the sick, the disabled and children must be ensured

The continued possibility of reducing benefits below the subsistence level to the "unavoidable" for reasons of migration policy according to § 1a AsylbLG, the possibility of benefits in kind, the reduction of the standard requirement according to § 3 AsylbLG compared to that according to SGB are also criticized II / XII applicable subsistence level to share for household items and furniture as well as health needs, the elimination of the flat-rate additional requirements z. B. for single parents or pregnant women, as well as unlimited crediting of the income of family members living in the household.

Too liberal

In the course of the refugee crisis in Europe in 2015 , Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić criticized Germany for the amount of cash benefits to refugees from the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act. In order to limit the incentives for those refugees who came for economic reasons, he called for the cash benefits to be reduced to no more than € 200. The cash benefit would not be higher than the average wage in Serbia and immigration from the Balkans would be drastically reduced immediately. The then head of the BAMF, Manfred Schmidt, had argued similarly and called for a stricter implementation of the principle of benefits in kind for refugees from the Balkans.

Administrative procedural and procedural law

Administrative procedure

As it has not been included in the General Part of the Social Code (SGB I), the AsylbLG is not a social law in the formal sense. The administrative procedure is therefore in principle not based on Book 10 of the Social Code (SGB X), but on the Administrative Procedure Act of the respective federal state (VwVfG). Exceptions apply to the withdrawal and revocation of administrative acts , the cooperation of service providers and the obligation to cooperate of the beneficiaries. In this respect, § 9 AsylbLG regulates a corresponding application of SGB I and SGB X, which in comparison to the VwVfG enables greater protection for the benefit recipients.

Judicial protection

The social justice system has been responsible for disputes under the AsylbLG since 2005 ; by 2004 legal recourse to the administrative courts was open.

literature

  • F. Burmester: Medical care of beneficiaries according to §§ 4 and 6 AsylbLG through a health insurance company , NDV 2015, 109
  • G. Classen: Social benefits for migrants and refugees By Loeper Literaturverlag, 2008
  • G. Classen: Overviews of case law on refugee social law and comments on §§ 1a, 2, 4 and 6 AsylbLG . > Legislation
  • G. Classen, R. Rothkegel: The livelihood security for foreigners after the social welfare reform. In: K. Barwig: Hohenheim Days on Immigration Law 2005/2006 . Nomos, 2007, > Legislation
  • E. Eichenhofer: Health services for refugees . (PDF) In: ZAR , 2013, 169
  • D. Frings: Social law for immigrants . Nomos Verlag, 2008
  • K.-H. Hohm: Community commentary on the AsylbLG (GK-AsylbLG) . Luchterhand, loose leaf
  • M. Kaltenborn: The new version of the AsylbLG and the right to health . In: NZS , 2015, 161
  • H. Meyer, S. Röseler: Commentary d. AsylbLG . In: Huber: Handbuch d. Ausl.- u. Right of asylum . Beck Verlag, Loseblatt, EL 12/2004.
  • Georg Classen, Ibrahim Kanalan: Constitutionality of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act . In: Information on unemployment law and social welfare law (info also), 06/2010, 243, info-also.nomos.de (PDF; 195 kB)
  • Claudius Voigt (Ed.): Working aid on the changes to the AsylbLG as of March 1, 2015 . (PDF) dpw general association

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Federal Office for Migration and Refugees : Asylum compromise guarantees protection for politically persecuted people. Amendment to the Basic Law to prevent abuse of the right of asylum , dated January 14, 2011, accessed on September 27, 2012
  2. ↑ Michael Griesbeck: Protection against political persecution and worldwide migration - content and limits of the work of the Federal Office (PDF) In: Asylpraxis. Series of publications by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees for the recognition of foreign refugees . Volume 2. 2nd edition. 2001, ISBN 3-9805881-1-4 , pp. 13-65, here p. 17
  3. ^ Wording of the asylum compromise. In: FAZ , December 6, 1992.
  4. ↑ a b Wahrendorf in: Grube / Wahrendorf: SGB XII Social Welfare Comment with AsylbLG, 4th edition 2012 (Beck), Introduction AsylbLG Rnr. 1.
  5. ↑ BVerfG, 1 BvL 10/10 of July 18, 2012 , paragraph 121, accessed on August 3, 2012.
  6. ↑ AuslG § 32a Admission of war and civil war refugees ( memento of July 26, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) on aufwohnbedingungen.de .
  7. ^ A b Thomas Hohlfeld: strategies of deportation. diss.fu-berlin.de, accessed on October 23, 2011 .
  8. ↑ Directive 2004/83 / EC of April 29, 2004 on minimum standards for refugee protection.
  9. ↑ bundesverfassungsgericht.de
  10. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/2592 . See the legislative history and criticism of associations and NGOs
  11. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/3144 and BT-Drs. 18/3444 .
  12. ↑ For the AsylbLG amendment 2015, see in detail Voigt, Claudius, Arbeitshelfe on the amendments to the AsylbLG as of March 1, 2015
  13. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/6185
  14. ^ Draft AsylbLG amendment 2015, BT-Drs. 18/2592
  15. ^ Opinion on the AsylbLG amendment (PDF) Refugee Council Berlin, October 2015
  16. ↑ Announcement ( BGBl. 2015 I p. 25 )
  17. ↑ a b Announcement BGBl. 2015 I p. 1793
  18. ↑ a b § 3 Paragraph 1 Clause 8 AsylbLG in the version valid from March 17, 2016
  19. ↑ for the type of service, the overview under D.II.3 at fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de (PDF; 650 kB)
  20. ↑ Wahrendorf in: Grube / Wahrendorf, SGB XII Commentary (with AsylbLG), 5th edition 2014, § 2 AsylbLG, Rnr. 2 B.
  21. ↑ BSG, judgment of June 9, 2011, Az. B 8 AY 1/10 R.
  22. ↑ Hohm, Asylum Seekers Benefits Act, Comment, § 2 Rnr. 100.
  23. ↑ Wahrendorf in: Grube / Wahrendorf, SGB XII Commentary with AsylbLG, 5th edition 2014, § 2 AsylbLG, Rnr. 45.
  24. ^ Hohm: NVwZ 1998, 1046.
  25. ↑ LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, decision of December 15, 2008, Az. L 11 AY 92/08 ER.
  26. ↑ Overview at Hohm: AsylbLG Commentary, § 1a Rnr. 107.
  27. ^ SG Hamburg, decision of December 15, 2013, Az. S 52 AY 143/13 ER.
  28. ↑ a b Wahrendorf in: Grube / Wahrendorf: SGB XII Social Welfare Comment with AsylbLG, 4th edition 2012 (Beck), § 1a Rnr. 2 ff.
  29. ↑ Andreas Decker: The amendments to the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act by the 2nd Amendment Act of August 25, 1998 Article in: Journal for Social Law Practice (ZfSH / SGB) 1999, p. 399 ff.
  30. ↑ Sybille Röseler, Bernd Schulte: Expert opinion on the draft of a second law to amend the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act. Regulatory content, practical effects and constitutional limits . Federal Association of Free Welfare Care e. V., Bonn 1998
  31. ↑ Faselt in: Fichtner / Wenzel, SGB XII and AsylbLG Commentary, 4th edition 2009, § 1a Rnr. 2 with further evidence.
  32. ↑ LSG Bayern, decision of January 24, 2013: L 8 AY 4/12 B ER (PDF; 31 kB). - LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of February 6, 2013: L 15 AY 2/13 B ER (PDF; 162 kB). - LSG NRW, decision of April 24, 2013: L 20 AY 153/12 B ER (PDF; 115 kB).
  33. ↑ LSG Thuringia, decision of January 17, 2013, Az. L 8 AY 1801/12 B ER.
  34. ↑ Federal Social Court, decision of May 12, 2017, Az. B7 AY 1 / 16R, quoted from: Authority may withdraw cash from uncooperative asylum seekers. (No longer available online.) Time online, May 12, 2017, formerly in the original ; accessed on May 13, 2017 .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.zeit.de  
  35. ^ Eichenhofer and Janda, both in the magazine for foreigners and asylum law ZAR 5/2013
  36. ^ Refugee Council Berlin, practical examples in the appendix of the statement on the AsylbLG amendment for the BMAS, January 2013
  37. ↑ Directive 2013/33 / EU of June 26, 2013, or Directive 2003/9 / EC of January 27, 2003. Art. 19 version 2013 reads: “The Member States ensure that applicants receive the necessary medical care that at least includes emergency care and the absolutely necessary treatment of illnesses and serious mental disorders. Member States shall provide applicants with special needs with the necessary medical or other assistance, including appropriate psychological care if necessary. "
  38. ↑ Kritisch Kellmann, Social law framework for those particularly in need of protection, Asylmagazin 6/2013
  39. ^ "Services for asylum seekers will be improved". In: bmas.de. Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs , August 27, 2014, archived from the original on December 6, 2014 ; accessed on January 22, 2016 .
  40. ↑ Stefan von Borstel: “We'll get it done soon” . In: The world . December 31, 2015, ISSN  0173-8437 , p. 5 (among other titles online ).
  41. ↑ Bundestag printed paper 12/4451
  42. ↑ Wahrendorf in: Grube / Wahrendorf, SGB XII Social Welfare Comment (with AsylbLG), 4th edition 2012 § 4 Rnr. 1.
  43. ↑ Fasselt in: Fichtner / Wenzel, SGB XII - Sozialhilfe mit AsylbLG, comment 4th edition 2009, § 4 AsylbLG no. 2.
  44. ↑ a b Birk in: Teaching and Practice Commentary SGB XII / AsylbLG, § 4 Rnr. 3.
  45. ^ The Bremen model project health insured chip cards for medical care according to §§ 4 and 6 AsylbLG. (PDF) fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de, accessed on April 20, 2014 .
  46. ↑ Technical instruction on § 4 AsylbLG. (PDF) In: Filing plan no. 450-4-239-00 / 4 as of March 6, 2008 March 6, 2008, accessed April 20, 2014 .
  47. ↑ Burmester, Medical care of beneficiaries according to §§ 4 and 6 AsylbLG via a health insurance company, NDV 2015, 109
  48. ↑ Communication. (PDF) Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Parliament Schwerin, March 17, 2014, accessed on April 20, 2014 . Public hearing on the possibility of assuming medical care for those entitled to benefits under the AsylbLG by the health insurance companies under Section 264 (1) SGB.
  49. ↑ Social authority improves health care: Asylum seekers will in future receive an AOK insurance card. Authority for Labor, Social Affairs, Family and Integration, April 2, 2012, accessed April 20, 2014 .
  50. ↑ Berliner Zeitung January 25, 2016 The first refugees receive a health card
  51. ↑ VG Gera 6 K 1849/01 GE, judgment of August 7, 2003 (PDF; 853 kB) on fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de; also SG Düsseldorf, judgment of May 17, 2011, Az. S 42 (19,44,7) AY 2/05.
  52. ↑ OVG Greifswald, 1 O 5/04, Bv January 28, 2004 (PDF; 385 kB) on asyl.net.
  53. ↑ OVG Münster 24 B 1290/94 v. June 28, 1994 (PDF; 408 kB) on fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de
  54. ^ VG Frankfurt / M 8 G 638/97, Bv April 9, 1997; Information from the Asylum Friedrichsdorf / Hochtaunuskreis (PDF; 691 kB) at fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de.
  55. ↑ LSG Thuringia, decision of August 22, 2005, Az.L 8 AY 383/05 ER)
  56. ^ Refugee Council Berlin, Statement on the AsylbLG amendment, Oct. 2014, page 39 ff.
  57. ↑ Answer of the federal government to the minor question of the members of the parliamentary group Alliance 90 / THE GREENS (PDF) printed matter 18/1934, health care according to the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act Retrieved October 30, 2015.
  58. ↑ Federal Social Court, judgment of October 30, 2013, B 7 AY 2/12 R
  59. ↑ List of services for those entitled to benefits according to § 1 AsylbLG (PDF) KZVB. Retrieved October 30, 2015.
  60. ↑ FAQs on the dental treatment of asylum seekers in Bavaria (PDF) KZVB. Retrieved October 30, 2015.
  61. ↑ Federal Constitutional Court press release No. 35/2012 of May 30, 2012 .
  62. ↑ a b c d e BVerfG, 1 BvL 10/10 of July 18, 2012 , accessed on August 3, 2012; see. Press release No. 56/2012 of July 18, 2012, accessed on August 3, 2012.
  63. ↑ BVerfG, judgment of February 9, 2010 .
  64. ↑ Judges criticize the government's asylum policy ( memento of June 22, 2012 in the Internet Archive ). In: Tagesschau.de , June 20, 2012.
  65. ↑ Berlin Refugee Council: State decrees, comments, tables and model contradictions to the BVerfG judgment on the AsylbLG . In: fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de .
  66. ↑ BMAS draft law of December 4, 2012, statements by NGOs, federal states and municipalities
  67. ↑ BMAS draft law dated June 4, 2014 with statements from NGOs
  68. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/2592
  69. ↑ fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de
  70. ↑ BR-Drs. 513/1/14
  71. ↑ PE PRO ASYL November 28, 2014: AsylbLG: Billions deal at the expense of the health of refugees
  72. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/3144 , BT-Drs. 18/3444
  73. ↑ Changes to AsylbLG from March 1, 2015, AsylbLG statistics change from January 1, 2016
  74. ↑ http://www.fluechtlingsinfo-berlin.de/fr/asylblg/BVerfG-AsylbLG-Novelle-2014.html#Die_AsylbLG-Novelle_2015
  75. ↑ You "need every euro" dradio.de from July 25, 2013
  76. ^ Draft of an integration law ( Memento of November 12, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF) German Federal Government.
  77. ↑ Basic information - work permit (PDF; 463 kB) Refugee Council Schleswig-Holstein e. V.
  78. ↑ Labor market program "Refugee Integration Measures " (FIM) ( Memento of the original from October 12, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. BMAS website , April 21, 2017 @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmas.de
  79. ↑ Circular Soz No. 01/2017 on procedures for creating and allocating work opportunities according to § 5 AsylbLG and for the implementation of the labor market program "FIM" according to § 5a AsylbLG Berlin Senate Department for Integration, Labor and Social Affairs, June 13, 2017
  80. ↑ FAQ Refugee Integration Measures (FIM). BMAS, January 11, 2017, accessed on October 12, 2017 . Section “4.8 What allowance do participants receive from FIM?”, P. 9.
  81. ↑ destatis.de: "Asylum seekers benefits: 36% more benefit recipients in 2013" press release no. 312 from 04.09.2014 on destatis.de
  82. ↑ a b c /DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2016/09/PD16_304_222.html destatis.de: ": Asylum seekers benefits: 169% more beneficiaries in 2015" press release no. 304 from 05.09.2016 on destatis.de
  83. ↑ lamm .: "Expenditures for asylum seekers more than sixfold since 2010" FAZ from September 5, 2016
  84. ^ Financing of refugee policy, Financial Research Institute at the University of Cologne, February 2016
  85. ↑ Cf. statements of the associations on the hearing in the German Bundestag on May 5, 2009 ; and on February 7, 2011 ( memento of October 24, 2011 in the Internet Archive ).
  86. ↑ on the criticism in detail Classen: The Asylum Seekers Benefits Act and the basic right to a decent subsistence level (PDF; 342 kB), February 2011.
  87. ↑ Interview with Astrid Nave and Mathias Fiedler on the documentary "Life forbidden" on grenzenlos-tolerant.de from November 29, 2012
  88. ↑ on the criticism of Kingreen: Estimates "into the blue". On the effects of the Hartz IV judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act . In: Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 2010, p. 558.
  89. ↑ Bundestag printed matter 16/7574 of December 13, 2007 (PDF; 108 kB).
  90. ↑ See www.destatis.de > Prices> Consumer Price Indices > Tables> Monthly Values . The consumer price index was 83.8 in November 1993 and 112.6 in March 2012. This results in an increase of 34.37 percent.
  91. ↑ judgment of the BVerfG v. July 18, 2012 on AsylbLG, guideline 1
  92. ↑ Statement of the Central Ethics Committee at the BÄK on the "Care of patients with a migration background who are not regularly insured" (PDF; 408 kB)
  93. ↑ Lissem, Vogt: Soziale Sicherheit 2010, pp. 337–341
  94. ↑ Leonardo and the Paragraph, Die Zeit, May 3, 2015
  95. ↑ Pro Asyl, PE of February 18, 2014 proasyl.de and April 16, 2015
  96. ^ Eichenhofer: Health services for refugees . (PDF) In: ZAR , 2013, 169. Janda: Quo vadis, AsylbLG? In: ZAR , 2013, 175. Kaltenborn: The new version of the AsylbLG and the right to health . In: NZS , 2015, 161.
  97. ^ Sieveking, Amendment to the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act, info also 1996, 110
  98. ↑ a b Take children's rights for refugee children seriously! Legal change required due to the withdrawal of the reservations to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (PDF; 2.2 MB) Pro Asyl, November 2011, accessed on April 25, 2014 . P. 29
  99. ↑ Child welfare and children's rights for underage refugees and migrants. (PDF) (No longer available online.) German Red Cross, January 2012, archived from the original on April 26, 2014 ; Retrieved April 25, 2014 . Appendix, Appendix I: Position Paper “Refugee Children in Germany - Political and Social Need for Action after Retraction of Reservations to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”, p. 112
  100. ↑ on this Burmester, medical care of beneficiaries according to §§ 4 and 6 AsylbLG via a health insurance, NDV 2015, 109.
  101. ↑ Kaltenborn, The new version of the AsylbLG and the right to health, NZS 2015, 161
  102. ↑ on all this also the opinion on the Berlin Refugee Council on the hearing in the Committee on Labor and Social Affairs of the German Bundestag, November 2015
  103. ↑ Germany should reduce financial incentives for refugees . In: FAZ , August 25, 2015; accessed on September 15, 2015
  104. ↑ BAMF President demands vouchers instead of money. In: FAZ , August 15, 2015; accessed on September 15, 2015