## Facts

- Multiple proceedings before German social courts challenged the statutory “standard benefits” (Regelleistungen) paid to needy persons under the Second Book of the Social Code (SGB II), including the amounts set for children living in benefit households.
- The Hessian Higher Social Court (Hessisches Landessozialgericht) and other social courts stayed their cases and referred questions to the Federal Constitutional Court under Article 100(1) of the Basic Law (konkrete Normenkontrolle).
- The referrals targeted, in particular, **§ 20(1)–(3) SGB II** (standard benefits for employable beneficiaries) and **§ 28(1) sentence 3 no. 1 SGB II** (standard benefits/Sozialgeld for children), in the Hartz IV framework introduced by the “Viertes Gesetz für moderne Dienstleistungen am Arbeitsmarkt” and applied from 1 January 2005 (with later amendments relevant to the referral period).
- Adult standard benefits were set as lump-sum monthly amounts derived from statistical consumption data, with legislative choices about the reference group and about which expenditure items were included or excluded.
- Children’s standard benefits were largely fixed as percentages of the adult amount (e.g., 60% for younger children), without a separate determination of children’s needs by age group.
- The referring courts questioned whether the legislature had shown, through a transparent and fact-based method, that the amounts secured what the constitution requires for a life consistent with human dignity.
- The referrals also raised the absence of a statutory mechanism to cover **unavoidable, ongoing, not merely one-off special needs** that fall outside the flat-rate standard benefit.

## Issues

1. Whether the Basic Law guarantees a justiciable right to a subsistence minimum consistent with human dignity, and what material needs that right covers.
2. Whether the challenged SGB II provisions were compatible with Article 1(1) GG (human dignity) in conjunction with Article 20(1) GG (social-state principle), given the legislature’s method for determining benefit amounts.
3. Whether the constitution requires a transparent, appropriate procedure that uses reliable data and understandable calculation steps when setting lump-sum subsistence benefits.
4. Whether children’s subsistence needs may be set as a percentage of adult benefits without a separate, age-related needs assessment.
5. Whether constitutional compliance requires an additional entitlement for unavoidable, ongoing special needs not covered by the standard benefit, and what remedial orders are proper if the statutory scheme is incompatible with the Basic Law.

## Decision

- The Court held that **Article 1(1) GG, read together with Article 20(1) GG, guarantees a fundamental right to the provision of a subsistence minimum consistent with human dignity** for every person in need.
- The protected minimum includes the material requirements for **physical existence** and for a **minimum level of participation** in social, cultural, and political life.
- The Court found **§ 20(1)–(3) SGB II and § 28(1) sentence 3 no. 1 SGB II incompatible with the Basic Law** because the benefit determination was not sufficiently transparent and methodologically sound to demonstrate that the guaranteed minimum was met.
- The Court accepted that the legislature may use **flat-rate** standard benefits for typical needs, but held that the legislature must ensure the amounts are calculated in a way that is reality-based and verifiable.
- With respect to children, the Court held that simply scaling benefits as a fraction of adult rates, without an independent identification of children’s needs and age-related differences, did not satisfy constitutional requirements.
- The Court also held that the statutory framework lacked an adequate rule for **unavoidable, ongoing special needs** outside the lump sum and therefore failed to secure the guaranteed minimum in such cases.
- As a remedy, the Court did **not** immediately set the provisions aside; it allowed their continued application to avoid a gap in benefits and ordered the legislature to enact a new, constitutionally compliant regulation **by 31 December 2010**.
- Until new legislation took effect, the Court ordered that beneficiaries could assert a **direct constitutional claim** (against the Federation) for additional benefits covering unavoidable, ongoing, non-one-off special needs, according to the standards set out in the reasons.

## Legal Principles

- The Basic Law contains a **subjective, enforceable right** to a subsistence minimum consistent with human dignity, derived from **Article 1(1) GG in conjunction with Article 20(1) GG**.
- The guaranteed minimum protects both **basic physical needs** (such as food, clothing, housing, health-related necessities) and a **minimum of social participation**.
- The legislature has room to choose the **form** of benefits (including flat-rate amounts), but it must set benefit levels through a **transparent and appropriate method** that is **reality-based**, **understandable**, and based on **reliable figures** and coherent calculation steps.
- Constitutional review in this setting focuses on whether the legislature’s determination is methodologically defensible and consistent with the constitutional objective; the Court does not replace the legislature by fixing specific euro amounts.
- If flat-rate benefits cover typical needs, the legislature must still provide an **additional entitlement** for **unavoidable, ongoing, not merely one-off special needs** that cannot be met from the standard amount.
- Children’s subsistence needs must be determined in a way that accounts for **children as children**, including **age-related needs**; a mere percentage reduction from adult benefits is insufficient without an independent basis showing that children’s needs are met.
- When a benefits scheme is incompatible with the Basic Law, the Court may order **continued temporary application** and set a **legislative deadline**, combined with **interim individual remedies** to prevent violations of the guaranteed minimum.

## Conclusion

In these joined referral proceedings, the Federal Constitutional Court held that the Hartz IV standard-benefit provisions in § 20(1)–(3) and § 28(1) sentence 3 no. 1 SGB II were incompatible with Article 1(1) GG in conjunction with Article 20(1) GG because the legislature had not established benefit levels through a sufficiently transparent, data-based, and coherent method—particularly for children—and because the scheme lacked adequate coverage for unavoidable, ongoing special needs; the Court maintained temporary applicability, ordered statutory reform by 31 December 2010, and recognized an interim, directly enforceable constitutional claim for such special needs.


Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Feb. 9, 2010, 1 BvL 1/09, 1 BvL 3/09, 1 BvL 4/09, 125 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 175 (Ger.).