[…] 39-41 2. a) The case submitted for review by the Social Court in proceedings 1 BvL 12/12 is based on a complaint by a single man born in 1961, who received unemployment benefit II from September 2011 to August 2012. The amount of benefit paid in 2011 for standard needs was EUR 364 per month and in 2012 EUR 374 per month. He sued for additional benefits for standard needs of a total of EUR 487 per month. […] 42 b) The Social Court […] considers the legal provisions submitted for review to be incompatible with Art. 1 sec. 1 in conjunction with Art. 20 Sec. 1 GG. […] 43 3. a) The goal of the constitutional complaint in proceedings 1 BvR 1691/13 is to receive higher benefits to secure minimum existence under the Second Book of the Code of Social Law for the assessment period from May to October 2011. Complainant no. 3, who was born in 2009, received benefits on the basis of standard needs of EUR 215 per month, and complainants nos. 1 and 2 were each paid a monthly sum of EUR 328 . Their action against the decision of the responsible Jobcenter was unsuccessful before the Social Court; the Federal Social Court rejected the “leapfrog” appeal (Sprungrevision). 44 b) The social courts took the view that the amount of benefit was not so low as to violate the Constitution, and that there was therefore no objection to the way the standardised standard need was set for complainant no. 3. […] 45 c) […] 46 III. The Federal Government, the State Chancellery of Lower Saxony, the Federal Social Court, the Federation of German Trade Unions, the social welfare organisation Sozialverband VdK Deutschland e.V., the national association of welfare organisations of the protestant church in Germany (Diakonie Deutschland – Evangelischer Bundesverband –), the German Caritas Federation, the association of German social courts (Deutscher Sozialgerichtstag e.V.), the German Association for Public and Private Welfare (Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge e.V.), the Federal Association of Non-Statutory Welfare (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege), the German Equality Welfare Association (Paritätischer Gesamtverband), the Alliance for Dignified Minimum Existence (Bündnis für ein menschenwürdiges Existenzminimum), the National Conference on Poverty, the plaintiffs and the defendant of the initial proceedings have submitted statements. With the exception of the Federal Government, the Federal Social Court and the defendant of the initial proceedings in the constitutional complaint, they all argue that the arrangements for determining the level of standard needs for 2011 and 2012 are unconstitutional. […] 47 48-68 10/29