The children are out of the house, so the parents have more space. But what happens if one of them applies for Hartz IV? A woman is denied benefits from the job center because her house is said to be too big. Finally, the case ends up before the Federal Constitutional Court.
According to a decision by the Federal Constitutional Court, specifications for Hartz IV recipients regarding the maximum size of residential property are compatible with the Basic Law. The highest German court in Karlsruhe announced that funds from the general public to help needy members should only be used in cases of current need. In concrete terms, this means that if, for example, a family owns a house or a larger apartment and the children move out, the number of square meters that is considered appropriate for receiving state benefits decreases. The judges decided that those affected would not be denied any services that they needed to secure their livelihood. "Because they own their own home, which they can use and thus secure their needs themselves."
According to the decision, the assessment of whether self-occupied property by Hartz IV recipients is appropriate may depend on the number of residents. The corresponding regulation does not violate the principle of equality, declared the Federal Constitutional Court. The legislature does not have to take into account whether more people used to live in the apartment, such as children who have since moved out.
Owner-occupied residential property is part of the so-called protective assets. For example, it does not have to be sold if someone applies for unemployment benefit II. However, the apartment must be adequate, i.e. not too big. How big it can be depends on the number of residents.
The Aurich social court has to decide on the case of a couple who live in a house of about 140 square meters. The six children have since moved out. The woman applied for benefits from the job center, which were rejected because the house was too big for the two of them. The Social Court asked the Constitutional Court whether the corresponding regulation is constitutional - which the latter now affirmed.
