Sanction practice in the Hartz IV system: is there a conscious and targeted reduction of the subsistence level?

The sanction practice in the Hartz IV system, which was further developed in the course of the introduction of citizen money, is the subject of intensive criticism. There are serious problems with regard to arbitrariness, disproportionality and legal legitimacy, especially in comparison to the daily rates in criminal law. This practice regularly leads to significant losses in the subsistence level of thethose affected, which is incompatible with the rule of law in the view of many lawyers and human rights organizations.

Reductions in job and action rejections: insight into practice

Anyone who rejects a reasonable job or measure often is confronted with a reduction of 30 percent of the already tight subsistence level over a period of three months. 30 percent of the benefits are already deducted for one month for failure to report. These cuts often take place below the actual basic needs for housing, energy and everyday lifeLiving costs, which massively endangers livelihood.

Lack of transparency and discretion of the job centers

The sanction mechanics are characterized by a high level of lack of transparency and considerable discretion in the job centers. An individual often decides whether an offer is considered reasonable, which behavior counts as a violation or how an “important reason” is to be documented. These uncertainties harbor the risk that decisions are irrelevant, disproportionate or simply incorrectto be hit. The legal control usually only takes place afterwards, often with considerable delays, which puts an additional burden on those affected in their situation.

Comparison with criminal law: protection of the subsistence level

Compared to criminal law, in which daily rates are designed in such a way that individual economic performance is taken into account, fundamental differences are evident. In criminal law, the punishment should be noticeable, but never interfere with the subsistence level. Even with high fines, a core of the livelihood remains untouched. In contrast, the sanctions apply inHartz IV system directly into the socio-cultural subsistence level that should be protected by the constitution.

Effects of the cuts on those affected

A 30 percent cut – especially in the case of repeated violations – often meets people whose financial situation is precarious anyway, often completely unprepared. Many do not have any financial buffer to absorb such losses. This can lead to a spiral of the social and economic situation, which is hardly possible to cushion by individual measuresis.

Systematic differences: criminal justice vs. basic security

The comparison with the legal system shows clear differences: while in criminal law the deduction is based on human dignity and is generally capped, in the area of basic security reductions of up to a third are used as a legitimate control tool. Repeated violations of duty can even lead to total sanctions, which is highly controversial in terms of constitutional lawand calls the right to a decent life into question.

Political influence and legal certainty

In addition, the practice of sanctions is strongly influenced by political opportunities and social moods. The criteria of when work is reasonable, how failure to report are to be assessed or which proof is required often change through administrative instructions or political specifications. This leads to enormous uncertainty and planning lawgaps. Professional associations and lawyers regularly criticize this practice as arbitrary and hardly compatible with the welfare state requirement.

Consequences: Disintegration, Stigmatization and Mental Stress

The consequences of sanctions practice are serious: Instead of promoting motivation, it usually leads to social disintegration, stigmatization and a considerable financial and psychological burden on those affected. The measures often exacerbate the already precarious situations in life and lead to a social division. Unlike in criminal law, where resocialization and prevention in theforeground, this is a strict punitive measure that exacerbates individual emergencies.

Systematic disregard for the subsistence level

The system of Hartz IV sanctions is characterized by a targeted devaluation of the subsistence level, of arbitrariness and a disproportionality that contradicts any constitutional comparison. The protective mechanisms that are self-evident in criminal law are systematically circumvented in the social field. The constitutionally guaranteed minimum only develops on paperprotective effect, while in the reality of life of those affected, it often does not offer any actual protection against existential risks.