Community of needs

This article was entered in the editorial right for improvement due to formal or factual deficiencies in quality assurance . This is done in order to bring the quality of articles from the subject area law to an acceptable level. Help to eliminate the shortcomings in this article and take part in the discussion ! ( + ) Reason: after a controversial edit, the question arises what an update can look like. - gdo 22:33, Jun. 8, 2016 (CEST)

Community of needs (BG) is a legal term for social assistance in Germany. In German law, it was incorporated into the newly regulated Second Book of the Social Code (SGB II) during the reform of the basic security for job seekers in 2005 . The construction of the community of need is based on the political decision that people who have special personal or family relationships and who live in a common household should support each other materially in emergencies and cover their livelihood needs together.

The basic security that is granted, which is intended to cover needs insofar as it is necessary to lead a decent and livelihood secure life, is subordinate to other forms of assistance. This means that the state demands solidarity based on partnership and does not intervene as long as partners can help themselves. Spouse and partner subsidiarity refers to the priority of solidarity among partners over welfare state aid. Whether the credited amount actually benefits the destitute person is irrelevant; this does not result in a legal claim between the partners. Family maintenance is only owed among spouses, but not among those living together similarly to marriage. Transfer benefits within families and similar partnerships are assumed to be factually given and are therefore taken into account when calculating the basic security in order to avoid disadvantaging people who have no one to support them.

In maintenance law, the community of needs of a maintenance debtor is also taken into account when determining his deductible : if he saves costs for the apartment or general lifestyle through joint housekeeping, a lower deductible may be allocated to him. Conversely, a common way of life also has an effect: if the person entitled to maintenance lives with a third party in a cohesive partnership, the claim to maintenance is forfeited according to § 1579 BGB .

history

The principle of community of needs is historically based on the construction of the "family emergency community". In the Weimar Republic , in addition to those legally liable for maintenance (first-degree relatives and spouses), the other family members living in the household were also used as moral maintenance providers for the maintenance of those in need. This practice of the “emergency family community” remained anchored in law in the Third Reich . In the Federal Republic of Germany , the means of the "emergency family community" was increasingly criticized by administrative courts , but was ultimately included in Section 11 (1) of the Federal Social Assistance Act (BSHG) of 1961.

Members of the benefit community

A community of needs within the meaning of SGB II consists of one (despite the word component - community ) or several people. According to Section 7 (3) SGB II, a community of needs includes

employable beneficiaries

the live-in parents or living in the household parent of an unmarried, working child who has not yet reached the age of 25 (= U25) and living in the household partner of that parent

as a partner of the person in need

the spouse who is not permanently separated ,

the life partner who is not permanently separated

a person who lives with the employable person in need in a common household in such a way that, after reasonable appreciation, the mutual will is to be assumed to bear responsibility for one another and to stand up for one another (community of responsibility and responsibility),

the unmarried children belonging to the household of the persons named in numbers 1 to 3, if the children have not yet reached the age of 25 and cannot secure their livelihood from their own income or assets.

Living permanently separated refers to the family law regulation in § 1567 BGB. According to this, there is also a community of needs if the spouse is being cared for in a nursing home. Foster children are not children in the sense of the law and therefore do not belong to the community of needs of the foster parents.

Each “requirement unit” supported according to SGB II is assigned a requirement community number (BG number), even if it is an individual person.

Community of responsibility and responsibility as a sub-case of a community of needs

A community of responsibility and commitment is always a community of needs. If certain presumption facts exist, the authority may presume a community of responsibility and responsibility and it is up to the persons concerned to refute the presumption. The authority remains obliged to present and provide evidence for the existence of the presumptive facts.

Legal presumption

The mutual will to take responsibility for one another and to stand up for one another is presumed according to Section 7 (3a) SGB II if partners

have lived together for more than a year,
live with a common child,
Look after children or relatives in the household or
are authorized to dispose of the other's income or assets.

The assumption causes a burden of proof and therefore a deviation from the office determination principle according to § 20 SGB X . The authority does not have to prove the community of responsibility and commitment, but the applicants have to prove that they are not a community of commitment. This reversal of the burden of proof was introduced with effect from January 1, 2007 by the law on the further development of basic security for jobseekers in response to the difficulties of the authorities with the proof of a marriage-like union . At the same time, the term marriage-like community was replaced by the term community of responsibility and commitment , and the offense was thus extended to same-sex partnerships. The constitutionality of this regulation is controversial and unclear.

In particular, the first presumption that all people who have lived together for more than a year are viewed as a community of needs also affects many shared apartments. According to the wording of the law, however, “living together” is required, mere “living together” is not sufficient.

"A presumption for the existence of a community of responsibility and contribution ... requires ... in the sense of the norm more than just living together. It is necessary to live together in the form of a household and economic community as a demarcation from a mere flat-sharing community. The presumption only applies if there is economic activity 'from one pot'. "

- Detmold social court : file number S 11 AS 97/10

In order to justify the presumption of a community of responsibility and responsibility, it is not enough to just live in the same apartment, it depends on “living together”. Living together is a matter of presumption, so the competent authority still has to prove that it is a relationship that goes beyond living together. Only then are the prerequisites for presuming a community of responsibility and commitment with the consequence that a community of needs can be assumed.

The family law regulation of § 1567 BGB does not apply to the community of responsibility and commitment, not even analogously. This means that two people who in the past formed a community of responsibility and responsibility do not have to prove a willingness to separate to the basic security authority.

Refutation of the presumption

The presumption of a community of responsibility and responsibility can be refuted. So far there is no established case law which evidence can refute this assumption. The courts carry out an extensive assessment, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case. Usually there will be several clues to examine and evaluate. In any case, there is no schematic assessment in the sense that if an index were available, it would automatically be possible to infer the presence or absence of a benefit community. Some of these factors can be:

Existence of a sublease contract for the entire period of residence and rental payments actually made.
Written affidavit by the members of the community that they do not want to pay for each other. The employment agency had a different opinion here: "A mere assertion that the partnership is not designed to last and that both of them do not stand up for each other in emergencies is not enough."

Differentiation between community of need, shared flat and household community

The community of need differs from the shared flat . Shared apartments are communities of people who live together without being responsible for one another due to family or personal ties. If they are responsible for one another, for example because they are married or live together permanently as partners, they form a community of needs.

A household community exists when several people live and work together, for example on a family basis ("living and business community"). The term is to be interpreted narrowly. A household community does not exist if an apartment is shared, but managed independently and separately.

If relatives or persons in law live in a household, it is assumed that the relatives or persons in law provide services to a person in need, as far as this can be expected based on their income and assets. In contrast to the presumed community of responsibility and commitment, the presumption does not result in a community of needs, but rather a lack of need for help due to (fictitious) maintenance. Such a presumption can also be refuted.

No maintenance obligations under social law

Of belonging to a community of need does not follow for their members that they would be legally obliged with each other maintenance to be done. Therefore, people who are not married or have a partner do not owe maintenance by being seen as a community of needs. Existing civil-legal maintenance obligations, be it towards beneficiaries who live in the benefit community or towards beneficiaries living outside the benefit community, are not affected.

Effects on benefit entitlement

The existence of a benefit community means that the entitlement to benefits to secure livelihoods is reduced by the amount by which the income and assets of the partner living with the beneficiary in the benefit community are to be taken into account. The same applies to an unmarried child entitled to benefits who is not older than 24 years and who lives with the parents or one of the parents. The income or assets of the parents are taken into account when calculating the child's benefit entitlement. This does not apply to a child who is pregnant or who is caring for a child who is not older than five years.

In contrast, the income and assets of children are only taken into account for the child concerned, but not for the parents. Child benefit and child allowance are allocated to the child and not to the parents as income. However, if the child does not need the child benefit to secure their own livelihood, the child benefit is counted as income for the parents ( Section 11 (1) sentence 5 SGB II).

According to Section 2 (1) SGB II, those in need of help who are fit for work and the members of the community of needs must exhaust all possibilities to end or reduce their need for help.

All members of the benefit community are obliged to provide the authority with information about their income and financial situation. If the cost of the accommodation is unreasonably high, the community of need can be asked to move to a cheaper apartment.

The recognized standard requirement of fully-age employable beneficiaries who live in a community of needs with a partner is only 90% of the standard requirement of a single person.

Temporary community of need

The temporary benefit community is a special case of the benefit community that was established by the Federal Social Court. This occurs when separated parents take turns exercising the right of access to their children. Normally, only the parent with whom the children have their habitual residence would be entitled to benefits for their children, the other parent would not be entitled to additional benefits and would therefore not be financially able to exercise the right of access. In this case, however, the children become part of the other parent's community of needs while they are staying with the other parent and thus acquire a right to benefits. The entitlement of the parent with whom the children have their habitual residence to benefits from their children is not reduced for the period in which the children are not there.

Every child is entitled to the daily rate for every day (at least 12 hours) that they spend with the other parent. Reductions in the standard requirement due to requirements that by nature do not arise in a temporary community of needs are not permitted. Child benefit may not be counted as income for the child as long as it is with the parent who is not entitled to child benefit. A residence in Germany is not necessary to establish a temporary community of need; Children who have their habitual residence abroad can also acquire a right to benefits in Germany through the temporary benefit community.

Numerous problems of this construct have been improved by the legislature over time. Since 2011, every single parent has been able to claim benefits for their children by inserting Section 38 (2) SGB II; the consent of both parents was required beforehand. The costs incurred by the children by traveling to the other parent have been an additional requirement since 2011 according to Section 21 (6) SGB II; previously, such a claim could only be asserted on the basis of Section 73 SGB XII .

Mixed community of need

The special case of the mixed benefit community occurs when the sole earner in a benefit community is excluded from benefits under SGB II, for example because he is of retirement age.

If one were to apply the same crediting rules here as for other benefit communities, the entire benefit community would be in need of help, but the sole earner would have no way of securing his own livelihood, as he is excluded from benefits under SGB II, but again does not need help in the sense of SGB XII would. Here the Federal Social Court decided that only income may be taken into account that exceeds the fictitious needs of the sole earner. As a rule, this is also determined for the sole earner according to SGB II, but in certain exceptional cases the rules of SGB XII must be applied instead, for example if the sole earner is in an inpatient facility, as SGB II does not have an equivalent to the cash requirement in facilities according to § 27b SGB XII.

criticism

The granting of basic security with reference to the community of need has met with criticism on various occasions because it has a discriminatory effect. Regardless of the consideration of individual points of criticism, it should be emphasized that at the European level, Directive 79/7 / EEC does not generally subject systems of basic security to the prohibition of discrimination. According to prevailing interpretation, unequal treatment in the granting of unemployment benefit II does not contradict the provisions of European law; from the point of view that unemployment benefit II is linked to and complements unemployment insurance, it would very well fall within the scope of this directive.

Illegitimate couples are worse off than married couples

Criticism of the construct of the community of need is expressed above all with regard to the consideration of the partner in a marriage-like community or, even more so, to the consideration of the partner in a same-sex community. Such relationships (both homosexual and heterosexual) would only be considered if they had a negative impact on social benefit entitlements. With regard to the valuation of such a community in social and tax law, there is thus a contradiction, because the partners are denied claims that depend on being married, such as the tax law splitting of the spouse , the right to a survivor's pension in the event of the partner's death or the partner's free health insurance in the family insurance. Thus, for example, the absurd situation arises that, because of the similarity to marriage, one partner is supposed to be allowed to provide for and health insurance for his partner, but is in fact not obliged to do so in any way, and that beyond that the matter of marriage is not similar enough, namely the non-contributory family insurance to enable.

It is also criticized that the concept of the community of needs is intended to refer partners to maintenance payments to which they have no legal entitlement and which as a result they cannot sue in court. The Düsseldorf Social Court ruled that it could not be acceptable for a person in need of assistance to be referred to services provided by a third party that the latter did not actually provide and also do not have to provide legally. The applicant has no legal entitlement to maintenance payments from her partner and can certainly not sue for such. Against this background, the court found that the statements of the partners are of decisive importance in assessing the question of whether a “marriage-like union” exists.

A similar criticism concerns the impact on two-earner families based on partnership, in which both partners each generate almost half of the family income, because regardless of their marital status, they do not benefit from the non-contributory family insurance, hardly from spouse splitting and hardly from the survivor's pension, but when they are in need they become a community of needs classified.

Another point of criticism of the concept of income crediting of partners is that an alleged disadvantage of spouses, which is caused by the crediting of the spouse's income ( spouse subsidiarity ), can be corrected by abolishing spousal splitting and instead giving spouses an individual entitlement on social benefits.

Restricted freedom of choice

The community of needs meets with criticism as a compulsory community.

There was particular criticism that the construct of the benefit community after 2001 discriminated against heterosexual couples with regard to the freedom to choose the form of their own relationship. Same-sex couples living together could choose whether or not they wanted to enter into a legal relationship (in the form of a registered partnership ), although in the former case they did not enjoy all the advantages, in particular not the privilege of spouse splitting, but in the latter case at least no classification emerged as a community of need; Heterosexual couples living together, on the other hand, were not allowed to choose the latter if their relationship was classified as “marriage-like”. However, with the SGB II development law that came into force on August 1, 2006 , the previous category of “marriage-like” cohabitation was expanded, so that, under certain circumstances, same-sex couples are now classified as a community of need and this point of criticism is irrelevant.

Unequal effect on the sexes

Another point of criticism against the instrument of benefit community and spouse subsidiarity is based on the fact that the withholding of benefits is formulated in a gender-neutral way, but in practice it is primarily effective against women. It therefore contradicts Article 3 (2) sentence 2 of the Basic Law . In addition to the lack of a financial transfer, as soon as they are classified as non-eligible, those affected would be denied active labor market policy measures . They would then only have a right to further training and reintegration measures if they were classified as a returnee , which is dependent on the discretion of the Federal Employment Agency . The instrument of the community of need thus counteracts the increase in the employability of women, which is otherwise propagated in politics . There would be disadvantages for securing the livelihood and participation of women, which would have an effect not only during the crediting period, but also throughout the entire career. Such a “shutdown” also contradicts the goals of the Hartz IV reforms, which advocated activation of those affected.

In some cases, the position is taken that the regulations on the community of need are therefore indirect discrimination. The reason for the construction of the community of need is purely financial, since individual social security would cost the state more. In view of the question of whether financial considerations could justify indirect gender discrimination, the politically held view is that there is no discrimination whatsoever, since the women concerned are protected by their (spouse) partner.

It is also criticized that the instrument of the community of needs stabilizes the breadwinner model and the existing gender hierarchy. In terms of gender equality, it is rather necessary to undertake a “gender-neutral reorganization of paid and unpaid work” and to create a “social and participatory individualized security system” in parallel.

Worsening of individuals in communities of need

The Diakonisches Werk of the Evangelical Church in Germany criticizes in a theses that the worse position of communities of need compared to individuals undermines solidarity in lived social relationships and states: "The criteria for defining a community of need for non-tied partnerships contradict the freedom of action protected in Art. 2 of the Basic Law and private autonomy ”. Overall, the factual compulsion to mutual help created by the benefit community represents an unjustified interference in the free development of personality.

The economist Hans-Werner Sinn criticized the weighting of needs in the poverty statistics as well as the construction of the community of needs, which means that unemployment benefit II offers a strong economic incentive to live apart. The state support thus "takes on the character of a separation bonus". Others criticize that the construction of the community of need destroys social cohesion and divides couples, as well as parents and children.

If misconduct of a member of the benefit community is attributed to the entire benefit community, the probability of a "sanction" or "non-continuation of payment" increases with the number of members of the benefit community - whether this is a violation of Art. 3 GG ( principle of equality ) and, if applicable, Art. 6 GG (protection of marriage and family), still needs judicial clarification. Any "sanction" due to a lack of or insufficient compliance with "duties to cooperate" (e.g. with regard to information on income, assets, but possibly also inadequate meeting of deadlines or non-compliance with integration agreements, etc.) should - if the benefit falls below the subsistence level would be justified in general with regard to the welfare state requirement ( Art. 20 , Art. 28 GG) - only hit those who are accused of neglect . The larger and more complex the benefit community is composed, the higher the probability that information from a member of the benefit community would be viewed as incomplete or incorrect, with the consequence that all members are affected by sanctions or an extension of the processing time of (further approval) applications that endangers their existence . Particularly problematic in this context is the suspension of the entire benefit receipt, including health insurance protection and accommodation for all members of a community of benefits, which was introduced in administrative practice without a legal basis of its own, in the event of a "continued payment application not yet ready for decision" as a result of a combination of the need to apply for the benefit with a time limit through the introduction of "approval periods".

Extension of the need for help to those not in need

Benefit communities result in an expansion of the need for help in several respects: By being included in the benefit community, people who themselves have sufficient income and assets to earn their livelihood are treated as needy ( Section 9 Paragraph 2 Clause 3 SGB II). These people are forced to use their means to stand up for others, including those to whom they have no maintenance obligation, with the result that they themselves are dependent on state benefits. The expansion of the need for help also affects children who do not have sufficient income themselves through child benefit, child allowance, maintenance, etc.: Minor children whose parents depend on basic security benefits are stigmatized in this case as "needy", while children of parents who do not need help are not in this way their development and socialization are impaired. Poverty does not mean need of help. In the case of separated parents, the same child is in need of assistance if it lives with an unemployed parent; if they move to a parent or guardian who does not need help, they lose this stigma again.

The construct of the benefit community also leads to the fact that the entitlement of one of its individually needy members is reduced by the fact that the income and assets of the individually not needy members are offset against the entitlement.

Criticism of justification

Critics argue that the legal reason for an extended liability obligation to include unmarried persons is the conjugal maintenance obligation, whereby due to the requirement of non-discrimination against marriage, the social legal liability obligation has also been extended to those living together similarly to marriage. The conjugal maintenance obligation is based on the "unequal exchange" of the 19th century husband model in the sense of the breadwinner model . Since "the unequal exchange has meanwhile changed into an agreed, fundamentally egalitarian and intimate personal relationship negotiated by the partners themselves, the legal structure of which must not have an indirect discriminatory effect", this normative basis no longer exists.

It is also criticized that a community of needs with adult children assumes a greater financial transfer than is the case with child maintenance . In the case of the benefit community, it is assumed that parents pay transfer payments for an adult child even if their income is lower than the deductible for child maintenance. In the end, parents would be financially much more heavily burdened than provided for in child support legislation. In addition, wealthy parents find it easier to support their children financially by providing them with an apartment etc. without affecting their entitlement to unemployment benefit II .

Bureaucratic effort

The chairman of the board of the Federal Employment Agency Detlef Scheele criticized the construction of the temporary community of needs. The offsetting of claims in cases in which a child temporarily lives with the mother and father and one parent is dependent on basic security is an “enormous expense”.

Comparable regulations in other countries

In Canada , before 1995, social assistance was granted regardless of cohabitation for less than three years; As part of a campaign to prevent social welfare abuse , the Conservative government specified the spouse in the house (literally roughly: "spouse in the house") rule in such a way that the group of people to be considered spouse was expanded to include all those who lived together and many lost their entitlement to welfare . In 2002, on a lawsuit brought by four women, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the ruling was inadmissible because it deprived women of their dignity, subjected them to a state investigation into their personal relationships, and forced them to choose between financial independence and their relationship.

In Sweden , compared to Germany, there are lower maintenance and cost obligations among adults.

Individual evidence

↑ Reich Ordinance on Welfare for the Unemployed, RGBl. I 1918, p. 1306; § 6 of the ordinance in the version of the "Ordinance concerning the amendment of the Reich Ordinance on unemployment welfare in the version of April 23, 1919", of January 15, 1920, RGBl. S. 54, 55 read: A needy situation is to be assumed ... only insofar as the income of the person to be supported, including the family members living in his household, is so small that he is unable to earn his living with it, and as none are entitled to maintenance claims under family law, the fulfillment of which would enable the necessary livelihood.

^ Ordinance on the implementation and amendment of the Deployment Family Maintenance Act (EFU-DV) of June 26, 1940, RGBl. I p. 912, 916, § 13 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 EFU-DV read: If a person entitled to dependents is a member of a family community (household community), the other members should use their resources and resources within the framework of what is reasonable for them to cover their essential needs provide, even if they are not obliged to provide maintenance under the provisions of civil law.

↑ Friederike Föking: Care in the economic boom. The emergence of the Federal Social Welfare Act of 1961. Munich 2007, p. 232 (second part, II. 2. From “welfare subject” to “welfare citizen”: the legal status of the recipient of assistance).

↑ BSG, judgment of February 18, 2010, Az. B 4 AS 49/09 R, full text .

↑ ^a ^b BSG, judgment of April 16, 2013, Az. B 14 AS 71/12 R, full text .

↑ BSG, judgment of March 29, 2007, Az.B 7b AS 12/06 R, full text .

↑ The phrase “live together” refers to the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court ( BVerfGE 87, 234 ), which in 1992 declared the practice to be unconstitutional to assume a marriage-like community even when living together .

^ Judgment of the Detmold Social Court , S 11 AS 97/10, April 13, 2012

↑ LSozG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of August 3, 2006, Az. L 9 AS 349/06 ER, full text : The " living together" must be suitable to justify the conclusion that there is a cost community, which is at least the existence of a household and economic community.

↑ BSG, judgment of October 12, 2016, Az. B 4 AS 60/15 R, full text .

↑ LSozG Baden-Württemberg, decision of December 5, 2005, full text : The existence of an (effective) lease agreement between two people, however, excludes the acceptance of a household community, because "management from a single pot", as is characteristic of a household community, cannot be accepted if one person has to pay rent to the other.

↑ SG Düsseldorf, decision of April 18, 2005, Az. S 35 AS 107/05 ER, full text : ... This conflict (see also “ Matrimonial Community ”) can only be properly resolved if the partners' statements on the question of “marriage-like Life community 'is of crucial importance.

↑ The employment agency of the members of a shared manifests itself in 2006 in the question of the significance of the declarations as follows: ([www.arbeitsagentur.de/nn_124484/zentraler-Content/A01-Allgemein-Info/A011-Presse/Presse/2006/Presse- 06-052.html Link] no longer available)

↑ Technical information from the Federal Employment Agency on Section 9 SGB II, Item 1.3.1

↑ BSG, judgment of November 7, 2006, Az.B 7b AS 14/06 R, full text .

↑ BSG, judgment of July 2, 2009, Az. B 14 AS 75/08 R, full text .

↑ BSG, judgment of October 28, 2014, Az. B 14 AS 65/13 R, full text .

↑ BSG, judgment of April 15, 2008, Az. B 14 / 7b AS 58/06 R, full text .

↑ Directive 79/7 / EEC (PDF) of the Council of December 19, 1978 on the gradual implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in the field of social security

↑ Sabine Berghahn u. a .: Spousal maintenance and the principle of subsidiarity under social law as obstacles to consistent equality of women in securing livelihoods. Project report (medium version). (PDF; 889 kB) Freie Universität Berlin, January 2007, accessed on October 31, 2009 . P. 57 ff.

↑ Social Court Dusseldorf , decision of 18 April 2005, Az. S 35 AS 107/05 ER, full text .

↑ See: Sabine Berghahn u. a .: Spousal maintenance and the principle of subsidiarity under social law as obstacles to consistent equality of women in securing livelihoods. Project report (medium version). (PDF; 889 kB) Freie Universität Berlin, January 2007, accessed on October 31, 2009 . P. 119

↑ Sabine Berghahn , Maria Wersig : New standards of comparison through "gay marriage"? - The social court in Düsseldorf raises the problem of the compulsory communalization of heterosexual couples. (PDF; 26 kB) Accessed October 31, 2009 . P. 1

↑ Sabine Berghahn u. a .: Spousal maintenance and the principle of subsidiarity under social law as obstacles to consistent equality of women in securing livelihoods. Project report (medium version). (PDF; 889 kB) Freie Universität Berlin, January 2007, accessed on October 31, 2009 . P. 64

↑ Sabine Berghahn : Gender equality and community of needs: Forward to the past of the breadwinner model? (PDF; 382 kB) In: Lecture at the IAB (Institute for Employment Research of the Federal Employment Agency) on September 14, 2005 in Nuremberg. September 2005, accessed October 31, 2009 . P. 18

↑ Maria Wersig : The interfaces of spousal maintenance to labor, tax and social law: Marriage centering as the basis of the strong German male breadwinner model In: Sabine Berghahn (ed.): Maintenance and livelihood security . Law and Reality in Germany (2007), pp. 275–288. In it: p. 281

↑ ^a ^b Sabine Berghahn : Gender equality and community of needs: Forward to the past of the breadwinner model? (PDF; 382 kB) September 30, 2005, accessed March 15, 2009 .

↑ ^a ^b Maria Wersig , Sabine Berghahn: From lying and cheating. Debate about "parasites". In: Friday November 44 , 2005, accessed March 15, 2009 .

↑ Sabine Berghahn u. a .: Spousal maintenance and the principle of subsidiarity under social law as obstacles to consistent equality of women in securing livelihoods. Project report (medium version). (PDF; 889 kB) Freie Universität Berlin, January 2007, accessed on October 31, 2009 . P. 121

^ Maria Wersig : Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany. (PDF; 130 kB) In: Working Paper No. 3 in the series: Working Papers of the “breadwinner model” project. Freie Universität Berlin, November 2006, accessed on September 12, 2009 (English). Pp. 12-13

^ Diaconal work of the Evangelical Church in Germany, Ten Theses on the Further Development of Basic Security for Job Seekers (SGB II) from May 18, 2006 Archived copy ( Memento from September 29, 2007 in the Internet Archive )

↑ Need- weighted cheese. In: WirtschaftsWoche, No. 22, pp. 48–49. May 26, 2008, accessed July 31, 2010 .

↑ Hartz IV may be based on the parents' income. In: time online. September 7, 2016, accessed September 7, 2016 .

↑ Sabine Berghahn , Maria Wersig : New standards of comparison through "gay marriage"? - The social court in Düsseldorf raises the problem of the compulsory communalization of heterosexual couples. (PDF; 26 kB) Accessed October 31, 2009 . Pp. 5-6 .

^ Federal Constitutional Court: Hartz IV judgment - now poverty is contagious. In: Stern. September 8, 2016, accessed September 16, 2016 .

↑ Employment Agency boss Detlef Scheele: "If you lose your job, it devalues the person". In: Der Tagesspiegel. Retrieved May 7, 2017 .

↑ Ontario retreats from appealing spouse-in-the-house decision. Retrieved September 1, 2009 .

↑ Sabine Berghahn : Marriage as a transitional labor market? Discussion Paper FS I 01–207, Berlin Social Science Center, November 2001, ISSN No. 1011-9523, pp. 32–33

[1] Reich Ordinance on Welfare for the Unemployed, RGBl. I 1918, p. 1306; § 6 of the ordinance in the version of the "Ordinance concerning the amendment of the Reich Ordinance on unemployment welfare in the version of April 23, 1919", of January 15, 1920, RGBl. S. 54, 55 read: A needy situation is to be assumed ... only insofar as the income of the person to be supported, including the family members living in his household, is so small that he is unable to earn his living with it, and as none are entitled to maintenance claims under family law, the fulfillment of which would enable the necessary livelihood.