Lunch subsidies for social security recipients - Ruling causes concern among select beneficiaries
In a landmark decision, the highest German social court has ruled that it is legal for job centers to deduct meal allowances from a citizen's income, even if the meals are not consumed by the employee. This ruling could have far-reaching consequences for many individuals receiving citizen's income.
The case in question involves a Berlin waiter who worked full-time in shifts and received a free meal and drink on workdays as part of his employment contract. Despite never consuming the meals, his job center deducted 30.18 euros from his citizen's allowance each month. The waiter, who supplemented his income with citizen's allowance to support his family consisting of a wife and three children, one of whom is disabled, argued in court that he spent the time with his disabled daughter and ate with his family instead. However, the Berlin Social Court, Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court, and Federal Social Court all rejected his lawsuit.
The Federal Social Court's decision (Az.: B 4 AS 83/20 R) states that the service was provided by the employer and was available, regardless of whether it was actually used. This ruling indicates that social benefits and allowances provided under public or social security schemes may be subject to adjustments or deductions if the recipient does not make use of certain agreed-upon services or provisions.
Given that such benefits—including the Citizen’s Income (Bürgergeld)—are regulated to ensure funds are appropriately allocated and used, courts’ decisions recognizing deductions for unused meals could set a precedent for similar treatment of other non-utilized benefits or services, such as transportation or additional provided services within social security frameworks.
Recent developments in German social security law demonstrate ongoing adjustments and sanctions related to public benefits, including withholding parts of payments for non-compliance or non-utilization of expected obligations (e.g., job-seeking or training requirements). This suggests a legal environment increasingly open to conditional benefits and sanctioning non-use or non-compliance.
However, the extension to other types of services and benefits depends on the precise legal and contractual context of each service and whether specific laws or court decisions govern those services differently. For instance, some court decisions explicitly exclude custodial, food, or transportation services from certain bindings or considerations, indicating possible legal distinctions.
The waiter, who is currently fighting against the court decision, may now consider changing his employment contract as a solution. Citizen's allowance recipients may also expect deductions when changing electricity providers, as job centers usually orient themselves to the official service values, which are determined annually and reflect the financial advantage that a provided meal statistically represents.
This ruling, while revealing a trend toward conditionality and possible deductions in citizen allowances, requires case-by-case legal analysis but seems plausible based on current tendencies in German benefit law and judicial interpretation. The potential far-reaching consequences of this ruling raise concerns for many individuals receiving citizen's allowance.
Personal finance implications could arise from this decision, as social benefits may now be subject to adjustments or deductions for non-utilization of services. For instance, those receiving citizen's allowance might face deductions when changing electricity providers, as job centers might orientation themselves to the financial advantage that provided services statistically represent.
