Standard rate lawsuits on the way to the Federal Constitutional Court

“When I saw the court decision, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. As I read it, I asked myself where the 'spirit' of our constitution had gone,” plaintiff Thomas Wasilewski told the portal “Armut Verbindet”.

This sentence sums up the desperation and discontent of many citizens' allowance recipients who find themselves trapped in a seemingly insoluble spiral of poverty and government ignorance.

Wasilewski’s story is not an isolated case, but a symptom of a deeper problem in our society.

Rising inflation reduced purchasing power

In the summer of 2022, Germany faced rapidly rising inflation, which particularly pushed up food and energy prices.

While many citizens felt the increased cost of living in their wallets, the situation was even more depressing for those who were dependent on social benefits such as Hartz IV.

Thomas Wasilewski, a father of a family who was still receiving Hartz IV at the time, experienced this development first hand. Despite the renaming of Hartz IV to the so-called Citizens' Allowance, the problem remains: many people in Germany live below the poverty line and struggle to survive every day.

The model lawsuit: Why Wasilewski and the VdK are suing

The lawsuit that Wasilewski filed together with the VdK and the SoVD in the summer of 2022 was more than just an attempt to obtain social benefits. They asked a fundamental question:

How is the socio-cultural minimum subsistence level defined in Germany? For Wasilewski and many other affected people, this means not only physical survival, but also participation in social life.

But the year 2022 brought an increase in Hartz IV rates of only 0.76 percent.

Given inflation and the sharp rise in the cost of living, this adjustment was little more than a drop in the ocean.

The arguments of the social associations, supported by the report of Dr. Irene Becker, made it clear that this increase was not nearly sufficient to offset inflation.

Hartz IV and price developments: Why the adjustment of standard rates fails

The crux of the debate is the question of how quickly and to what extent legislators must react to price developments.

The Federal Constitutional Court already made it clear in 2010 that the standard rates for unemployment benefit II, also known as Hartz IV, must not only secure physical existence but also enable participation in social and cultural activities.

This demand was reiterated in 2014. But the reality is different:

While inflation rose to over seven percent and energy costs exploded by more than 20 percent, those entitled to social benefits received only a minimal adjustment to their benefits.

Wasilewski and the social associations argued that this was below the subsistence level – a violation of the welfare state principle.

The ruling of the Düsseldorf Social Court: A slap in the face for those affected?

In March 2023, the Düsseldorf Social Court dismissed the lawsuit. Although the court could not deny the high inflation rate and the associated reduction in purchasing power, it did not see any unconstitutionality in the small increase in social benefits.

Instead, it referred to the new increases in the citizen's allowance and argued that these would compensate for inflation.

But this argument falls short: for Wasilewski and many other affected people, this means that they must continue to live on a subsistence level that is not sufficient to cover their basic needs.

The court argued that higher social benefits could lead to people giving up their jobs and wanting to live on social benefits – an argument that Wasilewski rightly described as “irrelevant”.

The welfare state principle: an inalienable fundamental right

The welfare state principle is one of the fundamental principles of the German constitution.

The aim is to ensure that every citizen receives a dignified minimum standard of living, regardless of their economic situation. This fundamental right, which is derived from the guarantee of human dignity in the Basic Law in conjunction with the principle of the welfare state, has been affirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court in several rulings.

But the decision of the Düsseldorf Social Court raises the question of whether this principle is actually implemented in practice. The court's argument that welfare recipients also have to make do with less contradicts the idea of ​​a welfare state that should secure the existence of its citizens.

Long road to the Federal Constitutional Court?

Wasilewski and the VdK have appealed against the ruling of the Düsseldorf Social Court. It will be a long and difficult road that will probably lead to the Federal Constitutional Court.

But the question remains: Will the Federal Constitutional Court confirm once again that the minimum subsistence level must be guaranteed in every case and at all times?

The Social Court’s ignoring of the old rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court raises doubts.

But one thing is certain: the decision in this case will have far-reaching consequences for the understanding of social justice and the welfare state principle in Germany.

Carolin-Jana Klose has been an author at Gegen-Hartz.de since 2023. Carolin studied education and works full-time in health prevention. Her expertise lies in social law, health prevention and socio-political issues. She is active in counseling for the unemployed and is politically committed to helping those affected by poverty.