Inclusion agreement

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An integration agreement (EGV) according to Section 37 (2) SGB III or Section 15 SGB ​​II is a public law contract between the Employment Agency and an unemployed person in Germany. The integration agreement should agree on what discretionary services the employment agency will provide to enable the unemployed to take up employment and thus integrate them into working life, and what efforts the unemployed will have to make to end their unemployment.

If the unemployed person does not make the bindingly agreed personal efforts, this leads to a temporary suspension of unemployment benefit or a reduction in unemployment benefit II .

If the employment agency is not responsible for providing integration services, but rather a local authority, this agency is a party to the integration agreement instead of the agency.

Integration agreements in the area of ​​basic security for job seekers

In Germany, integration agreements are used primarily in accordance with Section 15 SGB ​​II in the area of ​​integrating recipients of unemployment benefit II into the labor market. They are concluded there as a public law contract between the employment agency or an approved municipal body ( option municipality ) and the person entitled to benefits . In this area, the conclusion of the integration agreement is usually required. In contrast to the previous legal situation, since April 1, 2011, the refusal of a beneficiary to conclude an integration agreement has remained without sanctions. However, instead of the integration agreement , the authority can also unilaterally regulate the integration by issuing an (but then contestable) administrative act .

According to the wording of the law, the integration agreement should be concluded for a period of six months. An integration agreement, in which a different period of validity has been agreed upon without weighing up discretion, is illegal.

Content

In an integration agreement, the duties and performance of both sides in the job search, the goal and the strategy pursued are defined. If the authority has undertaken in the integration agreement to grant a certain service for integration into work, the provision of which is at its discretion, a legal claim to the service arises from this. This can be, for example, debt counseling if this is necessary for integration into working life ( Section 16a SGB ​​II). Further content can be intermediate goals and measures as well as necessary legal instructions.

According to Section 53 (2) SGB X, only those benefits can be regulated in an integration agreement that are at the discretion of the basic security provider. The livelihood security benefits themselves may not be part of an integration agreement. If the service recipient is required to make binding efforts that result in additional costs, the reimbursement of costs must be bindingly and specifically regulated; a vague promise of costs is not sufficient. If such a binding cost commitment is missing, the integration agreement is void as a whole and therefore has no effect on the contractual partners.

Legal space

The overwhelming opinion is that the integration agreement is a contract under public law , for which the general provisions of Section 53 of SGB ​​X and the BGB apply. Section 15 (1) sentence 6 SGB II is not a legal basis for supplementing, changing or replacing an already concluded and still valid integration agreement with an administrative act . Since the integration agreement is not a unilateral administrative act, no objection can be raised against it . As long as it is not immoral and its creation was not enforced, it is legally binding. An integration agreement is void according to § 58 SGB ​​X if the void results from the corresponding application of the provisions of the German Civil Code. The contract is also void if an administrative act with the corresponding content would be void or materially illegal or if the authority could be promised an inadmissible counter-performance according to Section 55 SGB ​​X.

Since it is a contract, the beneficiary has the opportunity to make a counter-proposal / proposal for a change to the integration agreement that has been submitted. For this purpose, she can also ask for a time to think about it. A suggestion of one's own cannot be understood as a refusal.

If the person in need of help refuses to conclude an integration agreement, there is no sanction. If an integration agreement is not concluded after a sufficient negotiation phase, the rights and obligations to be determined are to be regulated in a binding administrative act according to Section 15 (1) sentence 6 SGB II. The addressee can contest the administrative act with objection and legal action (legal challenge) before the social court. However, due to Section 39 (1) SGB II , these do not have a suspensive effect. Therefore, in practice, for effective legal protection, the restoration of the suspensive effect is also necessary as an interim order according to § 86b SGG. This is generally to be ordered by the court if individual regulations of the administrative act prove to be illegal.

A change in the administrative act to the detriment of the benefit recipient compared to an integration agreement that was previously unsuccessfully negotiated is only possible under strict conditions: first, the benefit recipient must be heard beforehand in accordance with Section 24 SGB ​​X, secondly, there must be an objective reason for the change. In particular, such changes must not be used as a punishment for not signing the integration agreement.

criticism

In the opinion of critics, the obligation to conclude an integration agreement when receiving unemployment benefit II constitutes a violation of the constitutionally protected freedom of contract . The fundamental right to freedom of contract arises from Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The freedom of contract may only be restricted in accordance with Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law and Article 19, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, but not as in Section 2, Paragraph 1 of Book II of the Social Code in conjunction with Art. V. m. Section 15 (1) SGB II should be repealed. The integration agreement is also rejected by critics because it was often not preceded by any real negotiations and, in practice, the contractual partners were not on an equal footing.

Corresponding lawsuits that the freedom of contract are generally unlawfully restricted by the obligation to conclude have been rejected several times by the social courts.

Outside of SGB II

In accordance with Section 37 of Book III of the Social Code, integration agreements are also made with training and job seekers who do not receive unemployment benefit II.

Web links

swell

  1. ↑ § 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2, § 15 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II
  2. ↑ Amendment of Section 31 of the Second Book of the Social Code by Article 2 of the Act on Determining Standard Needs and Amending the Second and Twelfth Volumes of the Social Code of March 24, 2011, Federal Law Gazette I, pp. 453, 470
  3. ^ BSG, February 14, 2013, AZ B 14 AS 195/11 R
  4. ↑ see also Section 15 (1) sentence 2 SGB II
  5. ↑ BSG, April 2, 2014, AZ B 4 AS 26/13 R
  6. ↑ a b Saxon LSG, February 27, 2014, AZ L 3 AS 639/10
  7. ↑ BSG, June 23, 2016, AZ B 14 AS 30/15 R
  8. ↑ Berlit in LPK-SGB II, 5th edition, § 15 no. 45, ISBN 978-3-8487-0596-2
  9. ↑ Hessisches LSG, January 16, 2014, AZ L 9 AS 846/13 B ER
  10. ^ Judgment of the LSG North Rhine-Westphalia of December 20, 2006 - L 20 B 298/06 AS ER and judgment of the SG Aachen of April 20, 2007 - S 8 AS 3/07