The “Hartz IV” decision
German Constitutional Court
BVerfG, 1 BvL 1/09 vom 9.2.2010, Absatz-Nr. (1-220) (2010)
- Written by Nathan Herkamp, JD
Facts
German unemployment benefits were reformed by the Bundestag in 2009 by an act commonly known as Hartz IV. A family of three (plaintiffs) applied to receive unemployment benefits. The family was informed of the benefits that would be provided to them. The family challenged the benefits determined, arguing that a larger amount was necessary to maintain their human dignity. The unemployment benefits available consisted of benefits for housing and heating as well as a standard benefit, which was calculated based on the family members’ ages and capabilities and on other factors. The standard benefit was determined by a calculation created by the legislature that accounted for costs of living, expenditures necessary, and average consumer conduct. After the standard benefit was determined, certain deductions were applied to account for expenses that might not be related to subsistence living. After the family’s administrative challenge failed to change the benefit, the family began legal proceedings in the local social court. The social court dismissed the complaint, explaining that the standard benefit was an acceptable means of providing social welfare and respecting human dignity, as required by the Basic Law. After the family appealed to the Hesse Higher Social Court, the court suspended the proceedings to refer a general question to the Federal Constitutional Court. The Hesse Higher Social Court asked whether the Hartz IV unemployment-benefit reforms passed by the Bundestag violated the Basic Law, particularly articles 1.1 and 20.1.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.