The legality of the government’s planned intensification of sanctions within the new basic income system is under intense scrutiny, following a legal opinion arguing its constitutionality despite widespread consternation. Rainer Schlegel, former president of the Federal Social Court, has asserted in a commissioned report – obtained by the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” – that total sanctions, including the complete withdrawal of benefits, can be compatible with the German constitution, particularly for single individuals. The opinion was authored at the request of the “New Social Market Economy” (INSM), an initiative funded by employers, immediately raising questions about potential bias.
This stance directly challenges the findings of a 2019 ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court, which significantly restricted the possibility of implementing sanctions. Schlegel’s assessment appears intended to pressure lawmakers, stating that “the legislature must not hide behind the Federal Constitutional Court”. He concedes Karlsruhe set high thresholds for sanctions, but argues these can be overcome through the implementation of proportionate hardship clauses.
The report distinguishes between the application of these clauses for single individuals versus households with partners and children, suggesting a stricter interpretation of hardship cases for the former, potentially limited to instances of imminent homelessness. This differentiation has already drawn criticism, with the Jusos (Social Democratic Youth), the Green Party and the Left Party branding the government’s plans unconstitutional.
Schlegel’s involvement is further complicating the debate. He previously served as an advisor to CDU General Secretary Carsten Linnemann, who jointly negotiated the reform of the citizen’s allowance with SPD leader and Labor Minister Bärbel Bas. This relationship lends significant political weight to his arguments and raises concerns regarding undue influence on policy development.
While total sanctions are technically already possible, they are rarely implemented due to stringent evidentiary requirements, which Schlegel aims to significantly lower. Job centers could potentially withdraw all benefits based on mere suspicion that an individual is unwilling to cooperate, bypassing the need for conclusive proof. Minister Bas intends to extend this power to include individuals who repeatedly fail to attend appointments at job centers, a proposal slated for introduction as a draft bill in the Bundestag in November following Coalition Committee decisions.
The prospect of such broad discretionary power vested in job centers, particularly with a weakened evidentiary burden, is fueling fears of arbitrary and potentially devastating consequences for vulnerable individuals, prompting a fierce political battle over the future of social welfare in Germany. Critics argue that the policy shift represents a dangerous erosion of fundamental constitutional rights and a punitive approach to social assistance.