Hartz IV has been around for almost 15 years - and with it the highly controversial sanctions. Some consider them the epitome of the relentlessly punitive authoritarian state, others the need to discipline oppressors. The tension on both sides was correspondingly high before this Tuesday. For the first time, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled on the extent to which the sanctions are compatible with the Basic Law.
The Constitutional Court's Response: Yes, the state may force Hartz IV recipients to accept work or attend training courses. The Basic Law even allows recipients to have to do with less than the subsistence minimum for a while. But the state should not beat it as it does so far. Too drastic are some sanctions, too rigid their execution, and no proof of their effectiveness.
The even harder rules for Hartz IV recipients under 25 years were not treated in the specific case. But the same applies: The law must be changed.
Specifically, the constitutional judges have now made the following stipulations:
- The rule rate may be reduced by a maximum of 30 percent - even if a Hartz IV recipient repeatedly violated his duties. For a single, this would currently be a maximum of 127, 20 euros, since the standard rate is 424 euros a month.
- On the other hand, a reduction of 60 percent or even the complete withdrawal of Hartz IV including the payments for housing costs - ie the previously applicable sanctions for repeated breaches of duty - is unconstitutional .
- More room for Jobcenter : Even the 30-percent-sanction must not - as required by law - must be imposed in any case. The job centers must be able to to waive the sanction if an extraordinary hardness exists.
- No fixed duration : The sanction must end if the persons affected change their behavior. So far the law prescribes a fixed duration of three months.
As long as there is no new law, further sanctions may be imposed - but never more than 30 percent of the standard rate will be cut. In addition, the job centers may also decide not to impose a sanction - and to cancel it prematurely if the person affected changes his behavior.
(Here you will find a detailed press release of the Constitutional Court.)
Thus, the sanctions in Hartz IV were previously regulated
reporting failures
A failure to register is usually that a Hartz IV recipient simply does not appear for an appointment at the Job Center - and for no "important reason" can prove.
In this case, Hartz IV will be cut by ten percent of the regular requirement for three months. Specifically, a single so so long with 42.40 euros less per month to get along, as the rule requirement for him is 424 euros. Since each individual failure to report leads to a reduction of ten percent over three months, it is quite possible that the cuts will add up - that is, 20, 30 or more percent of the regular requirement will be deducted.
breaches
A breach of duty is, for example, if a Hartz IV recipient without a "good cause" declines a reasonable job or behaves in the interview so that he does not get the job. Similarly, if he can not prove to have written enough applications or a so-called action - ie training or training - refuses or breaks off . There are a few more breaches of duty, which are very rare according to statistics.
Breaches of duty are punished much harder than failure to report: Hartz IV is reduced for three months by 30 percent of the standard requirement for the first violation , in a single so by 127.20 euros. If there is a second breach of duty within a year , it will be cut by 60 percent , ie by 254.40 euros. In the third dereliction of duty within a year, it comes quite thick, namely to Vollsanktionierung : Then the entitlement to Hartz IV altogether expires - that is, there is no cent more from the Job Center , the housing and heating costs are also no longer paid , as well as health insurance ,
Stricter sanctions for young people
Much harder are the regulations for Hartz IV recipients under 25 years . With them, the job center already cuts 100 percent of the standard rate on the first breach of duty . In the case of a second breach of duty within one year, the full sanction follows: Then the claim to Hartz IV expires altogether - that is, there is no more cent from the job center , the housing and heating costs are also no longer paid, as well as the health insurance .
Benefits in kind as a substitute
If it imposes sanctions, the Jobcenter can grant benefits in kind, ie, in the main, vouchers for food or hygiene products . However, this is never a complete substitute for the reduced amount of money: Benefits in kind can only be granted from a reduction of more than 30 per cent - and at most enough to reach the level of a 30 per cent reduction , but at least half of the standard rate , In addition, they are only available on request - and even then the job center discretionary will decide whether to grant them.
An exception are households in which children live. In this case , the job center must provide the benefits in kind - without request and discretion .
In addition, the job center with cuts of 60 percent and more usually transfers the rent directly to the landlord and the heating costs directly to the provider. This is to prevent Hartz IV recipients from losing their apartment because they no longer pay the rent in order to spend the money provided for their daily needs.
duration
The law provides for a rigid duration of sanctions of three months . Even with a change in behavior of the Hartz IV receiver, the sanction is generally not lifted or lowered prematurely . Exceptions are only possible with full sanctions - then the Jobcenter can reduce the sanction in adults to 60 percent reduction, under 25-year-olds will then at least be paid again living and heating costs and health insurance.
Multiple sanctions
If both sanctions for breaches of duty and failure to report are effective during the same period , they are simply added up . There is no way to impose the sanctions on a timely basis instead. For example, a Hartz IV beneficiary is sanctioned for a breach of duty for the period from February to April with a reduction of 30%, and a reduction of 10% for a period from March to May due to a failure to report. Then he gets in the two overlapping months of March and April a 40 per cent (30 + 10) reduced unemployment benefit II.
However, the verdict is at most a partial success for many general critics of the sanctions. For they already held the least reduction of the rule requirement for a breach of the fundamental right to a decent subsistence level - as the Gothaer social judge Jens Petermann, who brought the case before the Constitutional Court. His argument: Since the rule needs in Hartz IV system cover exactly the subsistence level and not a bit more, he should not be undercut under any circumstances. So does the former federal judge Wolfgang Neskovic - as Petermann a former member of the Bundestag party of the Left.
The constitutional judges have interpreted this fundamental right but now differently - as well as most lawyers in the apron: The state only has to ensure that a needy person receives the subsistence minimum - thus a person, this minimum "neither from its employment, neither from own fortune nor through Third party benefits ". So whoever prevents himself by his behavior from earning his subsistence level at least at some point through work can not fully rely on this fundamental right.
The legislature may therefore, according to the Constitutional Court, demand of employable Hartz IV recipients to work to overcome their own need for assistance - and to enforce this, even cut the standard rate. The constitutional judges expressly state that even with only a small reduction in the regular needs of a person concerned, the funds "that are needed to meet the needs that enable them to live in dignity" are missing - that is, the subsistence level is undercut ,
However, the constitutional judges also defined hurdles: the duties that Hartz IV recipients may be required to perform must be "appropriate, necessary and reasonable" - and the sanctions proportionate. Precisely because the fundamental right to subsistence is affected, the legislature has only a narrow margin.
For example, the ruling expressly supports the argument that the 30% cuts do not just change the behavior of those who are actually punished, but also have a deterrent effect. Those who seriously have to expect such a harsh sanction, think twice, whether he violates his duties. It is plausible that a milder or no penalty would have no comparable effect.
In several places, the judges are reluctant to acknowledge their reliance on limited evidence on the effects of sanctions after almost 15 years of existence. This is true for the drastic cuts of 60 percent, which are unreasonable in the amount. The judges do not rule out that even such harsh sanctions could exceptionally be justified - but only if their suitability could be proved.
Basically, hundreds of thousands of people in Germany are affected by sanctions. According to statistics, since the reorganization of the sanctions in 2011, each month about three percent of the working-age Hartz IV recipients are sanctioned, currently there are about 130,000. In total, in the whole of 2018, with around 400,000 sanctioned persons, 8.5 percent of all recipients were. Because many were sanctioned not just once but several times, the total number of sanctions totaled around 900,000.
However, the judgment of the constitutional judges concerns only a relatively small part of these sanctions - specifically those imposed for so-called breaches of duty. Their share of all penalized offenses has dropped significantly over the years to just over 20 percent. The remaining almost 80 percent of the sanctions are imposed for so-called reporting failures - so only because of missed appointments at the job center. In the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court, these reporting failures, which are each punished with a ten percent reduction of the standard requirement, were explicitly not.
Nevertheless, the verdict of the judges can also have consequences for these cases. Employment minister Hubertus Heil announced in a first reaction already that his ministry would examine, which means the verdict for the sanctioning of reporting failures.