A man has 450,000 euros in his account - and still receives Bürgergeld (citizen's allowance)
The Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Regional Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg) issued a notable ruling affirming a man's right to receive Bürgergeld (citizen's allowance) despite having approximately 450,000 euros recorded in savings accounts in his and his children's names. The court ruled that the Jobcenter's decision to suspend the allowance and demand repayment was illegal.
The case began when Sparkasse (the savings bank) reported the existence of several Sparbücher (savings books) containing large amounts and registered in the name of the benefit recipient and family members. Based on this, the Jobcenter considered that the family was not in financial need, suspended the benefits, and demanded the repayment of more than 12,000 euros that had been paid previously.
However, the family challenged the decision, asserting that the funds were not actually available to them. Although the accounts were registered in their names, they never owned the actual savings books and had no means to access the funds. The father or grandfather created these books and kept them entirely, retaining sole control over the savings.
The court supported this argument. In its ruling (case number L 18 AS 447/23), it emphasized that assets, according to German social law, are only counted if they are actually usable to secure a livelihood. Since the family did not have the books, nor did they possess cards or electronic access or the right to withdraw or cancel, the funds are not considered usable assets.
The judges confirmed that the decisive factor is actual control, not formal ownership. The ruling stated that the plaintiffs "never owned any of the three savings books at any time," meaning that the funds were not available to them in their daily lives. Consequently, the court annulled the decision to suspend the benefits and the recovery orders, leaving the Jobcenter without any financial rights.
The court also rejected the Jobcenter's argument that the man must sue his family members to recover the books. It clarified that Bürgergeld is an immediate right aimed at addressing current needs, and beneficiaries are not required to file lawsuits against their parents or grandparents. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of gross negligence or intentional fraud.
This ruling carries a clear message to both authorities and beneficiaries. Not all money recorded on paper is considered an asset counted towards Bürgergeld; the primary criterion is actual accessibility. At the same time, the court emphasized that deliberately concealing available funds to obtain benefits remains a crime. The decision confirms that the goal is not to create loopholes, but to set clear boundaries on what can be considered a real financial resource.