Legally, the job center is obliged to cover additional needs in the case of our plaintiff (Section 21 (6) SGB II). Such additional needs exist in the case of language mediation costs if treatment cannot otherwise take place. According to the case law of the Federal Social Court, there is no claim against the health insurance fund (judgment of May 10, 1995, Ref.: 1 RK 20/94).

In December 2025, we filed a lawsuit against a job center in Bochum before the Dortmund Social Court on behalf of a Syrian refugee and lawyer Eva Steffen (Ref.: S 5 AS 3426/25). In January 2026, the GFF additionally applied for an interim order.

There are no psychotherapists available within a radius of more than 150 kilometers of the plaintiff's place of residence who offer talk therapy in Arabic. While it is not foreseeable when such a therapy place will become available, our plaintiff has been given a place with a German-speaking psychotherapist. In practical terms, he cannot begin therapy without language mediation. Digital health applications cannot replace therapeutic conversation either. At best, they can be useful in addition to treatment. Accepting the deterioration of our plaintiff's health solely on the basis of his language is discriminatory. This violates the plaintiff's minimum health requirements (BVerfG, judgment of November 5, 2019 – 1 BvL 7/16, para. 204).

The Dortmund Social Court rejected the application for an interim order for the job center to cover the costs in the first instance in January 2026 (Ref.: S 5 AS 12/26 ER). In its ruling, the court failed to take sufficient account of fundamental and human rights requirements. In addition, the court placed insurmountable hurdles in the plaintiff's path. It demanded the plaintiff's extended residence permit, whose application was still being processed by the competent authority. The extension was granted one day after the social court's ruling.

We cannot allow this to stand. We therefore lodged an appeal against the decision with the North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court in February 2026. Our plaintiff still urgently needs treatment – this has been confirmed repeatedly by his health insurance company and therapists.

The proceedings are supported by the Alliance for Medical Aid to Refugees Bochum e.V. and the Federal Working Group of Psychosocial Centers for Refugees and Victims of Torture (BAfF).

Legal loophole threatens medical care

In 2021, the coalition government promised in its coalition agreement to close the legal loophole and create clear regulations for language mediation in medical care (Coalition Agreement 2021-2025, p. 65). This has remained an empty promise.

Against this backdrop, we want to create legal clarity. In the event of a language barrier and the resulting exclusion from medical treatment, the costs for interpreters must be covered as a livelihood-securing benefit in order to protect the minimum standard of living in terms of health.

Few federal states are taking steps to close the gap in care provision

Brandenburg and Thuringia are among the few federal states addressing the gap in care provision with a digital offering. Both federal states provide video and audio interpreting services free of charge to healthcare professionals. These models show that there are ways to ensure the right to healthcare. Clear legal regulations remain necessary in order to counteract the threat of legal violations nationwide and enable urgently needed treatment for those affected.

Healthcare is a human right

The proceedings are part of the campaign for the right to medical healthcare, which is an expression of human dignity. This right is available to all people and applies regardless of residence status. To this end, we have filed a complaint with the EU Commission together with Doctors of the World and 45 other organizations. In doing so, our alliance is challenging the reporting requirement that has effectively excluded undocumented migrants from all medical care for over 30 years.