Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
831.3 ZLGLPCLPI CH-ZH

Art. 18 : Zusatzleistungsgesetz (ZLG)

Originalquelle öffnen Gesamter Erlass (53 Artikel) Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Art. 18

32 Die Beihilfe kann gekürzt oder verweigert werden, soweit

sie für den Unterhalt nicht benötigt wird.

← Art. 17a Zusatzleistungsgesetz (ZLG) Art. 19 →

Fragen Sie sich, wie diese Gesetzesbestimmung auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Erlass zusammen mit Rechtsprechung, Kommentaren und verwandten Gesetzesbestimmungen in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (24)

ZL.2022.00064 · zh (§ 18 ZLG)
Supplementary Benefits Appeal Regarding Imputed Income and Cantonal Aid Denial
Cited in the reasoning for denying cantonally required aid (Beihilfe) due to lack of need, which was overturned in the final orders.
ZL.2021.00072 · zh (§ 18 ZLG)
Claimant Entitled to Supplementary Cantonal Aid, Denied Municipal Supplements
Allows for the reduction or denial of assistance if not needed for maintenance.
ZL.2021.00072 · zh (§ 18 ZLG)
Claimant v. Canton: Disability Benefits, Cantonal Aid, and Municipal Grants Dispute
The court granted the appeal regarding cantonal aid by finding that the basis for denial/reduction of aid (not being needed for subsistence) was not met.
ZL.2022.00022 · zh (Art. 18 ZLG)
Recalculation of Supplementary Benefits and Rental Income Dispute
Cited regarding the reduction or denial of cantonal benefits if not needed for maintenance.
ZL.2020.00030 · zh (§ 18 ZLG)
Hypothetical Earning Capacity Considered Actual Income for Benefit Calculation
Allows for the reduction or denial of supplementary benefits if they are not needed for maintenance.
ZL.2018.00074 · zh (§ 18 ZLG)
Beihilfe Reduction Due to Cohabitation Upheld with Modified Calculation
The reduction of cantonal supplementary aid is justified based on the finding that the aid is not needed for current subsistence.
ZL.2016.00102 · zh (§ 18 ZLG)
Cohabitation and Supplementary Benefit Denial Upheld
This provision allows for the reduction or denial of supplementary benefits if they are not needed for maintenance, which was the basis for denying the supplementary benefit in this case.
ZL.2014.00050 · zh (Art. 18 ZLG)
Supplementary Benefits Overpayment and Household Contribution Dispute
Basis for reducing or denying supplementary benefits in cases of multi-person households.
ZL.2013.00002 · zh (§ 18 ZLG)
Disability Benefits Reduction Upheld Due to Flat-Rate Ancillary Cost Limit and Cohabitation Presumption for Cantonal Aid
Used to justify the rejection of the appeal regarding the denial of cantonal benefits due to lack of need.
ZL.2012.00070 · zh (Art. 18 ZLG)
Disability Pensioners' Supplementary Benefits Calculation with Vested Assets
This provision was used to determine that cantonal assistance could not be refused solely based on the existence of assets, as these were already considered in the calculation.
ZL.2009.00095 · zh (§ 18 ZLG)
Supplementary Benefits Reduction Based on Cohabitation Overturned in Part
Used to uphold the dismissal of the claim for cantonal supplements (Beihilfe) due to lack of need.
ZL.2009.00095 · zh (§ 18 ZLG)
Supplementary Benefits for Cohabitant with Alimony Obligations
Cited as the legal basis for the reduction or denial of cantonal supplementary benefits when not needed for maintenance.
ZL.2010.00030 · zh (Art. 18 ZLG)
Woman's Supplementary Benefits Appeal Dismissed Due to Lack of Bias and Need
Used to deny the claim for supplementary benefits because the conditions for reduction or refusal of benefits were met.
ZL.2009.00072 · zh (§ 18 ZLG)
Benefit Aid Reduction Appeal Regarding Cohabitation and Repayment Offset
This provision was the main ground for the court to reject the appeal regarding the claim for higher cantonal supplementary benefits due to lack of need arising from cohabitation.
ZL.2010.00030 · zh (§ 18 ZLG)
Claimant v. Administrative Body Regarding Supplementary Health Insurance Assistance Denial
The relevant provision regarding the reduction or denial of assistance, which the court implicitly confirmed justified the denial by referring to prior reasoning.