Cooperation plan under Bürgergeld: when a breach really may be sanctioned

The Jobcenter accuses you of not having kept to your cooperation plan (Kooperationsplan) — and now a benefit-reduction decision lands in your mailbox. Many ask: wasn't that the integration agreement (Eingliederungsvereinbarung) before? And wasn't there once a grace period without sanctions?

This page explains why a cooperation plan Bürgergeld breach sanction case today works differently than before, which formal hurdles your plan must clear and how you can stop a sanction decision now.

The most important points in 30 seconds

  • The cooperation plan (Kooperationsplan, § 15 SGB II new version) has replaced the old integration agreement (Eingliederungsvereinbarung) since 2023. It is drawn up jointly, not imposed unilaterally.
  • In the first year of the Bürgergeld reform, a Vertrauenszeit (trust period) applied: breaches of the cooperation plan were not punished with breach-of-duty sanctions.
  • Since January 2024 that is over: the "Gesetz zur Weiterentwicklung des Bürgergeldes" scrapped the trust period. Breaches of a duty from the cooperation plan are now breaches of duty (Pflichtverletzung) under § 31 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 SGB II — sanction: 30 percent of the standard need (Regelbedarf) for three months.
  • The 30 % upper limit of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG 1 BvL 7/16) still applies. Higher or longer cuts are unconstitutional.
  • A sanctionable cooperation plan must be concrete, achievable and accompanied by a legal consequences notice (Rechtsfolgenbelehrung) — and it must not have been unilaterally imposed on you.
  • Objection deadline: one month from service of the reduction decision.

We review your decision within 24 hours. Free and non-binding.

Why does this happen at all?

With the Bürgergeld reform on 1 January 2023, the legislator wanted to reset the relationship between benefit recipients and the Jobcenter. The old integration agreement (Eingliederungsvereinbarung) — often a pre-formulated document signed under threat of sanction — is history. In its place came the cooperation plan (Kooperationsplan).

The difference sounds bureaucratic at first, but it is important: the cooperation plan is meant to be developed jointly. No more one-sided duty list, but a paper recording your strengths, goals and next steps. The result of a genuine conversation on equal terms — at least in theory.

In the first year there was the so-called Vertrauenszeit (trust period): those who did not keep to the cooperation plan were not sanctioned immediately. The Jobcenter still had access to missed-appointment sanctions under § 32 SGB II (Meldeversäumnis), but the actual breach-of-duty sanction under § 31a SGB II was blocked.

That changed on 1 January 2024. With the "Gesetz zur Weiterentwicklung des Bürgergeldes", the legislator abolished the trust period. Since then: anyone who fails to fulfil a duty specified in the cooperation plan without an important reason risks a breach of duty under § 31 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 SGB II — and thus a 30 percent reduction (Leistungsminderung) for three months.

Concrete example: Herr D. receives 563 € standard need (Regelbedarf) as a single person. The cooperation plan states: "Herr D. will apply to at least three advertised positions in warehouse logistics by the 15th of the month." In the relevant month he sends out only one application and cannot give a reason for the other two. The Jobcenter treats this as a breach of duty (Pflichtverletzung) — 30 percent reduction, i.e. 168.90 € less per month, adding up over three months to 506.70 € lost.

Your rights in concrete terms

A reduction decision over a cooperation-plan breach is not automatic. The cooperation plan itself must meet strict requirements, and the sanction procedure is also bound by rules.

1. Joint creation (§ 15 Abs. 2 SGB II)

The cooperation plan must be worked out jointly with you. That is more than a polite phrase — it is statutory text. A plan printed out in full and presented to you for signature does not meet this requirement. Courts have already repeatedly stressed, regarding the old integration agreement (Eingliederungsvereinbarung), that pre-formulated standard contracts without individual negotiation are ineffective [URTEIL-REFERENZ].

2. Concrete, achievable duties

Only a duty that is so concretely phrased that you know exactly what to do can be sanctioned. "Applies regularly" is too vague. "Applies to three positions by the 15th of each month" is concrete. In addition, the duty must be achievable: no requirements that obviously fail because of your health, your family obligations or the labour market situation.

3. Legal consequences notice (Rechtsfolgenbelehrung)

Without a concrete written legal consequences notice (Rechtsfolgenbelehrung), no sanction may follow. It must clearly state: which duty is meant? Which consequence specifically threatens (30 percent, three months)? When does it take effect? Blanket notices such as "breaches may be punished" are not sufficient. Case law on the old integration agreement was strict here — and the requirements for the cooperation plan are no lower [URTEIL-REFERENZ].

4. Conciliation procedure — no substitute for real cooperation

If you and the Jobcenter cannot agree, § 15 Abs. 4 SGB II provides for a conciliation procedure (Schlichtungsverfahren). Practical problem: some Jobcenters use the conciliation procedure to push through a plan that was actually rejected. That is open to challenge. A conciliation outcome does not replace serious joint planning — it is only meant to clarify individual questions that would otherwise remain unresolved [URTEIL-REFERENZ].

5. Hearing duty (§ 24 SGB X)

Before every reduction decision, the Jobcenter must hear you (Anhörung). You must be given the chance to comment on the accusation — in writing or orally. Without a proper hearing, the decision is formally defective.

6. Important reason

Even in the case of an actually sanctionable breach, the reduction does not apply if you had an important reason (wichtiger Grund): illness, care of a relative, demonstrable obstacles. You must bring forward the reason and ideally support it with evidence.

7. 30 % upper limit (BVerfG 1 BvL 7/16)

The Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) ruled on 5 November 2019: sanctions may reduce the Regelbedarf by no more than 30 percent. This upper limit continues to apply after the 2023 reform and the 2024 tightening. Multiple sanctions may not add up if together they would exceed 30 percent.

Current case law

BVerfG, order of 5 November 2019 — 1 BvL 7/16: the Federal Constitutional Court declared the Hartz IV sanctions in force at the time partly unconstitutional. The core points continue to apply:

  • Maximum reduction 30 percent of the standard need (Regelbedarf).
  • Mandatory hardship review, strict duration rules impermissible.
  • Proportionality to be examined in each individual case.

The judgment referred to the old legal situation, but it also binds the Bürgergeld sanctions (Sanktionen) from 2023 and the 2024 tightening. The BVerfG left this expressly open, but the legislator has adopted the 30 percent limit.

Case law specifically on the cooperation plan: here the ground is still thin. The cooperation plan has only existed since 2023, sanctions based on it only since 2024. First decisions of the Social Courts (Sozialgerichte) are available on questions of formal requirements, on the conciliation procedure (Schlichtungsverfahren) and on the legal consequences notice (Rechtsfolgenbelehrung), but a consolidated supreme-court line is still missing [URTEIL-REFERENZ]. First BSG decisions are expected at the earliest in 2026/2027 [URTEIL-REFERENZ].

Courts fall back additionally on the earlier case law on the integration agreement — especially on the questions when a pre-formulated document can still count as "jointly created" and when a legal consequences notice is concrete enough [URTEIL-REFERENZ].

How to proceed now

  1. Note the deadline. The date of service is on the reduction decision. From then on you have one month to file an objection (Widerspruch). Mark the deadline clearly in the calendar.
  2. Take out the cooperation plan. Read precisely which duty the plan allegedly breached. Is it really phrased that way word-for-word? Is it concrete enough? Does it contain a legal consequences notice (Rechtsfolgenbelehrung)?
  3. Reconstruct how it came about. How did the plan come about? Was there really a joint conversation, or were you handed a standard paper to sign? Was there a conciliation procedure (Schlichtungsverfahren)? Note dates and the course of the discussion.
  4. Document the important reason. Were you ill? Was there a family emergency? Collect evidence — medical certificates, confirmations, screenshots of cancelled interviews.
  5. File an objection (Widerspruch). Informally, in writing: "I file an objection against the reduction decision of [date], file number [number]. The reasoning will follow." By registered delivery or with receipt stamp.
  6. Consider an urgent application before the Social Court. The objection against reduction decisions has no suspensive effect (aufschiebende Wirkung) — the Jobcenter keeps cutting. If this means you lack rent or food, apply to the Social Court (Sozialgericht) for the order of suspensive effect. That is an urgent procedure (Eilverfahren).

Typical mistakes to avoid

  • Signing the cooperation plan uncritically. You do not have to sign what is put in front of you. If duties are unclear, unachievable or not jointly developed, raise it — and have any changes confirmed in writing.
  • Confusing the trust period with the current law. The Vertrauenszeit ended on 31 December 2023. Anyone today appealing to "there wasn't any sanction then at all" is arguing past the current legal situation.
  • Mixing up sanction and missed appointment. For missed appointments, the milder rules of § 32 SGB II apply (10 percent, one month). For cooperation-plan breaches, the harsher rules of § 31a SGB II (30 percent, three months). The two sanctions have different defence lines.
  • Letting the deadline lapse. After one month the decision becomes final (bestandskräftig). Even a manifestly faulty plan will then no longer save you.

Frequently asked questions

Has the old integration agreement really been abolished completely?

Yes. Since 1 January 2023 there is only the cooperation plan (Kooperationsplan) under § 15 SGB II in the version of the Bürgergeld-Gesetz. Old integration agreements (Eingliederungsvereinbarungen) that were still in force were superseded by the transition. Anyone still being asked today to sign a document with the old title should take notice.

Do I even have to sign the cooperation plan?

No. There is no signing obligation. If no agreement is reached, the conciliation procedure (Schlichtungsverfahren) under § 15 Abs. 4 SGB II takes effect. Important: even without your signature, the Jobcenter can document a plan — but that plan can only be sanctioned if it meets the formal requirements and the duties were actually developed jointly.

What happens if the Jobcenter simply uses a standard plan?

A plan full of pre-formulated text modules, with only name and date filled in, does not meet the requirement of joint creation. Frau L. for example received a plan with the sentence "The applicant actively seeks work" — without any specification. No sanction can be based on that. A duty must be so clear that you know in advance what concretely has to be done.

Does the 30 percent limit really still apply?

Yes. The upper limit from the BVerfG order 1 BvL 7/16 of 5 November 2019 continues to apply — even after the 2023 Bürgergeld reform and the 2024 tightening. The legislator has expressly adopted it in § 31a SGB II. Rent and heating are not covered by the sanction anyway.

What can I do if the conciliation procedure was forced on me?

Document how the conciliation procedure (Schlichtungsverfahren) ran: was there real mediation or was the Jobcenter's position simply pushed through? Was there a separate conversation with a neutral person? If not, the resulting plan is open to challenge. The conciliation procedure is meant to clarify points in dispute — not to formally secure a unilateral requirement.

Have your decision reviewed now

A reduction decision for breaching a cooperation plan often feels overwhelming. But it is rarely watertight. Missing joint creation, unclear duties, incomplete legal consequences notice (Rechtsfolgenbelehrung), an ignored important reason — these are four points where many decisions can be overturned.

We review your decision within 24 hours. Free and non-binding.

Send us a photo of your decision and of the cooperation plan — and we will get back to you with a clear assessment.