Standard Requirements Determination Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The articles Standard Requirement and Standard Requirement Investigation Act thematically overlap. Help me to better differentiate or merge the articles (→  instructions ) . To do this, take part in the relevant redundancy discussion . Please remove this module only after the redundancy has been completely processed and do not forget to include the relevant entry on the redundancy discussion page{{ Done | 1 = ~~~~}}to mark. Liliana • 10:17, May 14, 2015 (CEST)


Basic data
Title: Law to determine the standard needs according to Section 28 of Book Twelve of the Social Code
Short title: Standard Requirements Determination Act
Abbreviation: RBEG
Type: Federal Law (Germany)
Scope: Federal Republic of Germany
Issued on the basis of: Art. 74 I No. 7 GG
Legal matter: Social law , special administrative law
References : 8601-5
Original version from: March 24, 2011
( BGBl. I p. 453 )
Entry into force on: January 1, 2011
Last revision from: December 22, 2016
( Federal Law Gazette I p. 3159 )
Entry into force of the
new version on: 		January 1, 2017
Last change by: Art. 5 G of April 29, 2019
( Federal Law Gazette I p. 530, 536 )
Effective date of the
last change: 		July 1, 2019
(Art. 9 G of April 29, 2019)
GESTA : I005
Weblink: Text of the law
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The law for the determination of the control requirements in accordance with § 28 of Book XII of the Social Code (Rule Needs Determination Act - RBEG) governs since its entry into force on 1 January 2011 (retroactively) determine requirements for the amount of the lump-sum monthly performance in aid to the livelihood of social assistance in Germany . It replaces the Standard Rate Ordinance , in which the composition and determination of the level of benefits were previously standardized. According to Section 20, Paragraph 5, Clause 2 of the Second Book of the Social Code, the Standard Needs Investigation Act is also used as a basis for adapting the standard needs of recipients of basic security benefits for jobseekers in accordance with Book Two of the Social Code .

On January 1, 2017, a new version of the law came into force, while the standard requirement rates were updated annually by ordinance up until then.

Legislative process

In its judgment of February 9, 2010, the Federal Constitutional Court found the standard rates to be unconstitutional and obliged the legislature to create a new statutory regulation on this by the end of the year at the latest. The court decided essentially that the basic right to guarantee a decent subsistence level guaranteed every person in need of assistance those material prerequisites that are essential for their physical existence and for a minimum of participation in social, cultural and political life. The legislature must substantiate this fundamental right, which is fundamentally unavailable and must be redeemed, in a formal law and constantly update it by aligning the services to be provided to the current level of development of the community and the existing living conditions. In doing so, he is entitled to creative leeway. In order to determine the scope of the claim, the legislature has to measure all expenses necessary for existence in a transparent and appropriate process realistically and comprehensibly on the basis of reliable figures and conclusive calculation methods. The typical need for securing the decent subsistence level could be covered by a monthly fixed amount, and an additional benefit claim would have to be granted for an unavoidable, ongoing, not just one-off, special need beyond that. Overall, the regulation must be designed “logically”.

The legislature did not comply with this requirement on time. During the summer of 2010, a lively domestic political discussion about the further development of social security ensued. It was determined in the mass media on the one hand by the controversial statements by Thilo Sarrazin (SPD) on the topic in his book Germany Abolishes Itself , on the other hand by the statements of Guido Westerwelle about the alleged danger of a "late Roman decadence" among those in need in the event that the Rule rates would be too high. In this context, consideration was also given to providing educational benefits for children and young people only via a chip card as a benefit in kind. The proposal was later dropped because it was impractical.

The bill, which was discussed by the Bundestag and only passed in December 2010, required approval and met with opposition from the opposition parties SPD, Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen and Die Linke, which dominated the Bundesrat. The Greens, by mutual agreement with several social associations and poverty researchers, demanded that the standard benefit be raised to 420 euros, while the Left advocated an increase to 500 euros per month. This led to a lengthy procedure in the mediation committee. The new version of the provisions on the level of the standard rates was only one negotiation point among several. In particular, a new regulation had to be found for the organization of the basic security authorities, because the Federal Constitutional Court had already found the job center model to be unconstitutional in 2007 because of the mixed administration that was practiced . The end of the transitional regulation to cope with the organizational reform and the deadline by which the provisions on the standard requirements had to be revised both fell on December 31, 2010.

The negotiations were initially led by Federal Labor Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) and Manuela Schwesig (SPD). Later the Prime Ministers Kurt Beck (SPD), Wolfgang Böhmer (CDU) and Horst Seehofer (CSU) also acted as negotiators .

An agreement was only reached at the end of February 2011. At their meetings on February 25, 2011, the Bundestag and Bundesrat approved the extensive changes to the law, including the new regulation of standard requirements.

The RBEG was drawn up as Article 1 of the Act for the Determination of Standard Needs and for Amending the Second and Twelfth Volumes of the Social Code on March 24, 2011 and promulgated on March 29, 2011.

New regulation of the standard requirements

New legal concept of "standard need"

The previous term of the standard rate or the standard power has been replaced with the new regulation by the legal term of the standard requirement .

Statistical method

As in the old standard rate regulation, the legislature continues to rely on the so-called statistical method, which has replaced the shopping basket method previously used in welfare law .

In accordance with Section 28 of Book XII of the Social Code (SGB XII), the basis for determining the requirements is provided by several special evaluations of the 2008 income and expenditure sample, which the Federal Statistical Office and the State Statistical Offices prepare. The sample income and expenditure (EVS) is collected every five years. From the households used for this purpose, the data of those in which people live who only receive benefits according to SGB XII or SGB II or who were entitled to a home ownership allowance during the survey period are subtracted . From the remaining households, the bottom 15% of single-person households and the bottom 20% of multi-person households are included in the analysis.

From the figures then available, some items will be withdrawn in the further course that, for political reasons, are not counted among the needs to be covered. The remaining “standard requirement-relevant” expenditures of adults who live in one-person households, as well as of children and adolescents (up to the age of six or 14 or between the beginning of the 15th and the end of the 18th year) in multi-person households are stipulated by law in §§ 5 and 6 RBEG. According to the EVS, for single adults, for example, according to calculations by the Hans Böckler Foundation , the standard requirement without rental and heating costs of 535.33 euros per month. Of this, however, only 361.81 euros were recognized by the legislator as relevant to the requirements of the rule. Accordingly, the standard requirement for an adult in a one-person household is composed as follows:

No. EVS department and line item Euro
1 Food and non-alcoholic beverages 128.46
3 Clothing and shoes 030.40
4th Housing, energy and maintenance 030.24
5 Interior fittings, household appliances, etc. -Objects 027.41
6th Health care 015.55
7th traffic 022.78
8th Messaging 031.96
9 Leisure, entertainment, culture 039.96
10 education 001.39
11 Accommodation and catering services 007.16
12 Other goods and services 026.50
total 361.81

These respective amounts will be updated and rounded to January 1, 2011. According to § 8 RBEG in conjunction with the annex to § 28 SGB ​​XII, this results in six so-called standard requirement levels of each month

  • 364 euros for an adult entitled to benefits who runs their own household as a single or single parent;
  • 328 euros for two adult beneficiaries who run a joint household as spouses, civil partners, in a cohabiting or civil partnership-like community;
  • 291 euros for an adult entitled to benefits who neither runs their own household nor runs a joint household as a spouse, civil partner or in a cohabiting or civil partnership-like community;
  • 275 euros for a young person entitled to benefits or a young person who is entitled to benefits between the ages of 15 and 18;
  • 242 euros for a child entitled to benefits from the beginning of the seventh to the completion of the 14th year of life and
  • 213 euros for an eligible child up to the age of six.

In contrast to this, the payments for children and young people of the last three levels were increased slightly to 287, 251 and 215 euros, respectively.

The regular adjustment of the standard needs to the changed circumstances is not regulated in the RBEG, but in § 28a SGB ​​XII, to which § 20 (5) sentence 1 SGB II also refers. In a mixed index, 70% of the price development and 30% of the development of net wages and salaries are used as a basis. The adjustment takes place on January 1st of each year and is to be announced in the Federal Law Gazette the previous November. According to Section 138 SGB ​​XII, the standard requirement levels will only be updated on January 1, 2012 in addition to the regular adjustment with a rate of change of 0.75%. This further adjustment results from the rate of change of the mixed index for the period from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 compared to the annual average from 2009. This leads to an additional increase in the respective standard requirement by 3 euros. The latter regulation went back to the negotiations in the mediation committee and was a demand of the SPD.

Section 10 RBEG stipulates that the special evaluation based on the 2013 sample of income and expenditure must be carried out by July 1, 2013. The Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs must submit a report on this, in which the further development of the evaluation will also be discussed in detail.

According to Art. 14 of the law of March 24, 2011, the new regulation of the standard requirements came into force retrospectively as of January 1, 2011. If the services were not provided due to an earlier decision, there is an entitlement to additional payment for the period between the entry into force and the promulgation of the law. The same applies to the newly introduced services for education and participation for children and young people ("education package") as well as for the costs of hot water heating that are now due to legal provisions. All other changes took effect on April 1, 2011.

Adjustment of the standard requirements

The Federal Statistical Office creates a special price index to update the standard requirement levels. This only takes into account the price development of the goods and services relevant to regular requirements. The Federal Constitutional Court confirmed this mechanism in its decision of September 9, 2014. The Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs ( BMAS ) announces the level of the standard requirements for the following calendar year in accordance with the levels resulting from a standard requirement level update regulation by November 1 of each year in the Federal Law Gazette.

valid from Standard requirement level in euros Reference
1 2 3 4th 5 6th
January 1, 2011 364 328 291 275 242 213 § 8 RBEG
January 1, 2012 374 337 299 287 251 219 § 2 RBSFV 2012
January 1, 2013 382 345 306 289 255 224 § 2 RBSFV 2013
1st of January 2014 391 353 313 296 261 229 Section 2 RBSFV 2014
January 1, 2015 399 360 320 302 267 234 § 2 RBSFV 2015
January 1, 2016 404 364 324 306 270 237 Section 2 RBSFV 2016
January 1, 2017 409 368 327 311 291 236 § 8 RBEG
1st January 2018 416 374 332 316 296 240 Section 2 RBSFV 2018
1st January 2019 424 382 339 322 302 245 § 2 RBSFV 2019
January 1, 2020 432 389 345 328 308 250 § 2 RBSFV 2020

Standard requirement levels

stages description regulated according to
Standard requirement level 1: For an adult entitled to benefits who runs their own household as a single or single parent; this also applies if one or more other adults live in this household who are assigned to standard requirement level 3. Section 20 (2) sentence 1 SGB II
Standard requirement level 2: For two adult beneficiaries who run a joint household as spouses, civil partners or in a community similar to that of a marriage or partnership. Section 20 (4) SGB II
Standard requirement level 3: For an adult entitled to benefits who neither runs a household of his own nor as a spouse, civil partner or in a community similar to a marriage or a partnership. § 20 paragraph 3 SGB II i. V. m. Section 20 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 No. 2 SGB II
Standard requirement level 4: For a young person entitled to benefits or a young person aged 14 to under 18 years of age. Section 20 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 No. 1 SGB II, Section 23 No. 1 SGB II
Standard requirement level 5: For a beneficiary child aged 6 to under 14 years. Section 23 No. 1 SGB II
Standard requirement level 6: For an eligible child up to 6 years of age. Section 23 No. 1 SGB II

criticism

The new law led to an increase in the standard need for single adults by five euros, while the cash benefits for children were not increased. Instead, they should receive benefits in kind for education and participation, which, however, must be applied for separately by the parents, which is often not done. It was therefore criticized that these ultimately only minor changes did not improve the situation of those in need, in particular through the immediately preceding savings legislation of the federal government, the bottom line was that more was taken from those affected than was given.

Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen did not support the compromise because they considered it to be unconstitutional. They therefore left the negotiations under the leadership of Renate Künast . Like the left, the SPD shared the constitutional concerns, but still supported the agreement.

The constitutional criticism concerns several elements of the statutory program for the determination of standard requirements as well as its creation in the mediation committee.

First of all, it was pointed out that the sample of income and expenditure had not originally been designed to be used as a basis for determining standard needs. The increase in the standard rates was arbitrary and owed to the previous domestic political discussion: "The Union had proposed five euros, the SPD eleven euros - in the end, an agreement was reached in the middle." Some observers also had the impression of the assessment Of the benefits, computer tricks were used in order not to have to increase expenditure for social purposes even more. It was also criticized that the “hidden poverty” of people whose income is only slightly below the standard requirement and who therefore refrain from applying for benefits is not excluded from the statistics. This leads to a distortion of the needs assessment. For example, also would spiking , the supplementary services relate to living as unemployment benefits because their income is working below the control requirements plus the cost of the apartment and the additional needs, not removed from the statistics. The increase in the requirement by five euros per month was merged with other elements of the new version and therefore “a sham package”. In addition, a lot of money that the federal government will use from 2013 to limit the expenditures of the municipalities will be lacking for the Federal Employment Agency to fulfill its tasks, which is socially unacceptable. Even the German Association criticized immediately after the conclusion of the law, the "rule needs assessment as significant weaknesses that should be up to the July 2013 addressed by further investigations."

The regular adjustment of benefits using a mixed index based on price developments and on the development of net wages has been criticized because this can lead to distortions in the statistical calculations. If net wages stagnate, this also has an impact on expenditure and thus on the results of the sample income and expenditure. It would therefore have been more appropriate to link the adjustment of the services exclusively to price developments.

The inconsistent application of the statistical model was also criticized. If individual items were removed from the statistically determined requirement as not being “relevant to standard requirements” - such as spending on alcohol, tobacco, cut flowers, dog food or dry cleaning - this would lead to a mixture of statistics and shopping cart methods, which would lead to a too low one Estimate of the subsistence level could come. Also, the inflation adjustment is too late in the legally prescribed procedure. Therefore, the actual needs of those affected are not guaranteed by the new regulation.

In June 2013 the Hans Böckler Foundation published interim results of a research project, according to which the increase in the standard requirement of 2.81 euros at the time was only due to the change in the calculation method. If the previously applicable method had been used to recalculate the standard requirement according to the specifications of the Federal Constitutional Court, the basic standard rate would have had to increase by around 27 euros. In 2013 it would be 407 euros. The distribution researcher Irene Becker, who carried out the study, commented that the change in the calculation method "systematically counteracted the corrections". It is therefore still questionable whether the standard requirement is adequately measured.

Jurisprudence

The Sozialgericht Berlin has, whether the new rule sets are due to the hearing on 25 April 2012 as the nationwide first court the question of the constitution, the Federal Constitutional Court by way of judge template submitted for decision. The chamber criticized the selection of the consumption sample as incorrect. Therefore, the needs were wrongly determined. In addition, the deduction for individual items is unjustified. The benefits for a family of three would have to be around 100 euros per month higher.

In contrast, the 18th Chamber of the Social Court in Berlin, in a judgment dated March 29, 2012, joined the regional social courts of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg and found the standard rates to be constitutional.

Even the 14th Senate of the Federal Social Court, due to the oral hearing on July 12, 2012, did not submit the assessment of the standard requirement for single persons to the Federal Constitutional Court for decision by means of the judge's submission. The benefits were “not unconstitutionally set too low. The arguments put forward against the constitutionality in parts of the literature as well as in the submission decision of the SG Berlin of April 25, 2012 are not convincing. "

In March 2013, the 4th Senate of the Federal Social Court found that the assessment of the standard needs from January 1, 2011 according to the amendment law to the RBEG / SGB II / SGB XII was constitutionally unobjectionable. The services are - in the sense of the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court - not "evidently inadequate"; they are "to be justified on the basis of reliable figures and conclusive calculation methods". The legislature moved within the scope it was entitled to.

In its decision of July 23, 2014, the Federal Constitutional Court described the standard benefits as "currently still constitutional". Concealed poor do not have to be taken into account, since a proper estimate is fraught with uncertainties, which is why the legislature is not forced to base the determination of the amount of social benefits on a mere approximate calculation. Insofar as the actual coverage of existential needs in individual points is doubtful (for example with the costs for household electricity, mobility and the purchase of durable goods such as refrigerators and washing machines), the legislature has a viable assessment of the standard needs when they are pending re-determination on the basis of income and 2013 consumption sample.

literature

  • Peter Becker: Basic security for job seekers 2.0: The new regulations by the RBEG against the background of the previous legal situation and case law . In: ZfSH / SGB . 2011, p. 185-197 .

Web links

Legal text

Determination of the standard requirement

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ BVerfG: Judgment - 1 BvL 1/09, 1 BvL 3/09, 1 BvL 4/09. February 9, 2011, accessed September 2, 2011 .
  2. ↑ BVerfG, press office: Standard benefits according to SGB II ("Hartz IV Law") not constitutional. February 9, 2011, accessed September 6, 2011 (press release).
  3. ↑ On the judgment cf. in detail: Stephan Rixen : Constitutional law replaces social policy? "Hartz IV" put to the test by the Federal Constitutional Court. (PDF; 274 kB) In: Current Social Law. 2010, pp. 81–87 , accessed on September 9, 2011 (based on the author's comment in: SGb 2010, 240).
  4. ↑ Jutta Roitsch: Basic rights - only against subscription. In: Sheets for German and international politics. February 2011, pp. 29–32 , accessed on September 13, 2011 .
  5. ↑ Guido Westerwelle: Hartz IV Debate: Nobody thinks of the German middle class. In: welt.de. February 11, 2011, accessed on September 7, 2011 : "Anyone who promises effortless prosperity to the people is an invitation to late Roman decadence."
  6. ^ A b c Rudolf Martens: The Hartz IV accounting. In: Sheets for German and international politics. November 2010, pp. 5–8 , accessed on September 13, 2011 .
  7. ↑ draft law of the federal government. Draft of a law to determine standard needs and to amend the second and twelfth books of the social code. (PDF; 406 kB) German Bundestag, November 29, 2010, accessed on September 6, 2011 (BT-Drs. 17/3958).
  8. ↑ For the discussion in the German Bundestag see: kgp / dpa / dapd: Coalition paukt Hartz IV reform by the Bundestag. In: Spiegel online. December 3, 2010, accessed September 7, 2011 .
  9. ↑ a b Martin Staiger: Lehrstück Hartz IV . In: Sheets for German and international politics . April 2011, p. 12-15 .
  10. ↑ Johannes Münder: Social Code II. Basic security for job seekers . In: Johannes Münder (Ed.): Teaching and Practice Commentary . 4th edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden Baden 2011, ISBN 978-3-8329-5429-1 (introduction, marginal number 26 with further references).
  11. ↑ BVerfG: Judgment - 2 BvR 2433/04 - 2 BvR 2434/04. December 20, 2007, accessed September 7, 2011 .
  12. ^ A b c Matthias Bartsch, Christoph Hickmann: There is too much clocking in Berlin . In: Der Spiegel . No. 9 , 2011, p. 30–33 ( online - interview with Kurt Beck: “The standard rate will be increased by a further three euros in 2012, we then have a total increase of eight euros.… Judging by the fact that there would have been no solution otherwise, I'm with this one Compromise satisfied.… I definitely have doubts.… We could have done it like the Greens and got out. But that would only have been at the expense of the weakest in society. ”).
  13. ↑ SGB II / SGB XII Editorial: Editorial: Changes to SGB II / SGB XII in the law for the determination of control requirements and amending the Second and Book XII of the Social Code . In: info also . 2011, p. 51 .
  14. ↑ Law for the determination of standard needs and for the amendment of the second and twelfth books of the social security code
  15. ^ Anne Lenze: Social Code II. Basic security for job seekers . In: Johannes Münder (Ed.): Nomos Commentary . Series of teaching and practice comments. 4th edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden Baden 2011, ISBN 978-3-8329-5429-1 (Appendix to Section 20 SGB II, Rn. 1–5).
  16. ↑ On older law see: Bernd Schulte, Peter Trenk-Hinterberger: Sozialhilfe. An introduction . 2nd, revised edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 1986, ISBN 3-8114-6585-6 (pp. 153ff.).
  17. ↑ See in detail: Anne Lenze: Sozialgesetzbuch II. Basic security for job seekers . In: Johannes Münder (Ed.): Nomos Commentary . Series of teaching and practice comments. 4th edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden Baden 2011, ISBN 978-3-8329-5429-1 (Appendix to Section 20 SGB II, Rn. 6-8).
  18. ↑ a b c Ute Kötter: After the reform is before the reform? - The new regulation of the standard needs in SGB II and SGB XII. (PDF; 220 kB) In: info also . Retrieved September 7, 2011 (2011, 99-106).
  19. ↑ SGB ​​II / SGB XII editors: What actually applies now - and if so, from when? Entry into force of the changes to SGB II / SGB XII in the law for the determination of standard needs and for the amendment of the second and twelfth books of the social security code . In: info also . 2011, p. 51-53 .
  20. ↑ Federal Government | Article | Standard rates will increase from 2017. In: www.bundesregierung.de. Retrieved October 6, 2016 .
  21. ↑ Lisa Caspari: Only a few are interested in the educational package. The state association or tutoring vouchers for children have so far met with little response. The job centers know why that is the case. In: zeit.de. June 28, 2011, accessed on September 7, 2011 : “The social associations see themselves confirmed in their fundamental criticism of the voucher system: It is too complicated, too bureaucratic and completely ignores the 'reality of life', says the managing director of Paritätischen Welfare Association, Ulrich Schneider. In addition, the voucher regulation requires that those affected take action on their own initiative. You have to go to the office and ask about the services. If the parents are mentally or physically bad, this often does not happen - and the services do not reach the children who may need them most. "
  22. ^ A b Ursula Engelen-Kefer: unemployed pay Hartz IV reform. The municipalities get a lot of money to implement the Hartz IV compromise. The Federal Employment Agency will miss it. In: freitag.de. March 4, 2011, accessed September 7, 2011 .
  23. ↑ Kolja Rudzio: Too little, too late. The Hartz IV compromise suffers from black and yellow stinginess. And children in problem families continue to receive too little support. In: zeit.de. February 23, 2011, accessed September 7, 2011 .
  24. ↑ dpa, Reuters, AFP: Greens get out of Hartz IV negotiations. The negotiators of the Greens surprisingly left the talks in the Hartz IV dispute. A constitutional agreement was no longer possible. In: zeit.de. February 21, 2011, accessed September 7, 2011 .
  25. ↑ a b faz.net: SPD sees "not all doubts dispelled". February 21, 2011, accessed September 7, 2011 .
  26. ↑ dpa, Reuters, AFP: Bundestag and Bundesrat agree to Hartz IV reform. In: zeit.de. February 25, 2011, accessed September 7, 2011 .
  27. ^ Anne Lenze: Expert criticizes the new regulation: "The Hartz IV law will not withstand this way". In: tagesschau.de. April 1, 2011, accessed on September 7, 2011 (interview): “All possible adjustments were made to the detriment of the beneficiaries so as not to increase the cash benefit. There is a certain intention behind this: According to calculations by some charities, every adult would be entitled to at least 420 euros if the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court had been transferred one-to-one. According to calculations by the Federal Employment Agency, there would then also be two million more beneficiaries who, in addition to their low income, would also be entitled to Hartz IV ( sic !) Because they work in the low-wage sector today. That would make the precarious working conditions of many people in Germany visible. The government does not want that, of course, because one would admit something to the outside world that one would rather keep hidden. "
  28. ↑ Jonathan I. Fahlbusch: From the work of the German Association: Working group "Basic security and social welfare" . In: NDV . 2011, p. 234–236 (The delimitation of the reference households, the distribution key on the basis of which consumption expenditure is distributed to the members of a family, and the determination of needs for adults in a multi-person household should be checked. In addition, the question of how to measure the Cash amounts in inpatient facilities and to the additional needs for single parents and disabled people.).
  29. ^ Anne Lenze: Social Code II. Basic security for job seekers . In: Johannes Münder (Ed.): Nomos Commentary . Series of teaching and practice comments. 4th edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden Baden 2011, ISBN 978-3-8329-5429-1 (§ 20 SGB II, Rn. 43 with further references).
  30. ↑ Hans Böckler Foundation: New report: New regulations on Hartz IV sentences: constitutional problems in essential points. September 5, 2011, accessed September 7, 2011 (press release).
  31. ↑ Irene Becker, Johannes Münder: Are the new standard requirements of SGB II and SGB XII constitutional? (PDF; 3.4 MB) In: SozSich . Retrieved September 7, 2011 (September 2011 Special). - the other view (with reasons): Federal Social Court: judgment of 28 March 2013 B 4 AS 12/12 R . Marg. 20-59, passim. Retrieved June 20, 2013.
  32. ^ Rainer Jung: More Hartz-IV, if criticism of the constitutional court had been implemented without further changes . Hans Böckler Foundation. Interim results from the research project “The level of basic security: Result of the distribution development and normative setting” by Irene Becker and Reinhard Schüssler, funded by the Hans-Böckler-Foundation, May 2013. In: Informationsdienst Wissenschaft (idw). June 20, 2013. Retrieved June 20, 2013.
  33. ↑ SG Berlin: Hartz IV unconstitutional - the standard rate is too low by 36 euros . Press release. April 25, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
  34. ^ SG Berlin: Judgment of March 29, 2012 - S 18 AS 38234/10 . In: Sozialgerichtsbarkeit.de , accessed on April 25, 2012.
  35. ↑ Federal Social Court. Judgment of July 12, 2012 - B 14 AS 153/11 R. Appointment report no. 40/12 (to preview the appointment no. 40/12) . July 12, 2012. Retrieved July 12, 2012.
  36. ↑ Federal Social Court: judgment of 28 March 2013 B 4 AS 12/12 R . Marg. 20-59. Retrieved on June 20, 2013. - Different view: Irene Becker, Johannes Münder: Are the new requirements of SGB II and SGB XII constitutional? (PDF; 3.4 MB) In: SozSich . Retrieved September 7, 2011 (September 2011 Special).
  37. ↑ Federal Constitutional Court: Decision of the First Senate of July 23, 2014 - 1 BvL 10/12, 1 BvL 12/12, 1 BvR 1691/13. Retrieved September 25, 2015.
  38. ↑ Federal Constitutional Court: Social law standard benefits are currently still constitutional . Press release No. 76/2014 of September 9, 2014. Decision of July 23, 2014 (1 BvL 10/12, 1 BvL 12/12, 1 BvR 1691/13). Retrieved September 25, 2015.