Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark sets aside course-related benefit cut but denies €240 repayment

The Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark has set aside a payment reduction imposed on Rana Haddad for missing an assigned integration course, but declined to order the €240 restoration she sought. The Graz Participation Benefits Office had not established that a course place was confirmed; Haddad, in turn, had not proved the amount to be repaid.

The dispute turned on the difference between being assigned a course and actually having a place on it. Although the office’s record showed nonattendance, the court found that this alone could not sustain the reduction.

The assignment and attendance record established two limited facts: Haddad received the assignment, and she did not attend. Its provider-confirmation field was blank. Repeated presentation of that same record did not supply independent evidence that she could have joined the course.

The office acknowledged that it had no separate reduction decision, no further explanation for treating the assignment as usable, and no payment calculation. The court concluded that the reduction lacked record support on the central question of availability. Haddad’s alleged failure to notify her caseworker did not fill that gap.

But the court did not accept Haddad’s account of being wait-listed as a proved fact either. Her side described a provider email saying the course was full, but did not present the email. That account was a submission, not admitted testimony or independently checkable documentary evidence.

The monetary claim required separate proof. Without an accounting or decision establishing what had been withheld, the court could not order €240 restored. The absence of the office’s calculation did not itself prove Haddad’s claimed amount.

Haddad’s side argued that she had applied for the course but was told to wait because it was full. It relied on the described email to contend that her absence reflected an unavailable place, rather than refusal to participate, and sought cancellation of the reduction and repayment.

The office relied on the assignment, recorded absence and lack of timely notice to the caseworker. It nevertheless conceded that its records did not confirm an available place or explain the €240 figure. It asked the court to deny full relief or limit repayment to an amount supported by the evidence.

Haddad had agreed to attend an integration course in connection with working in Graz. Her challenge followed a payment reduction attributed to nonattendance. The hearing ultimately left both the claimed waiting-list status and the amount withheld unresolved.

The partial relief reflects two distinct evidentiary requirements: the office needed support for its reduction, while Haddad needed proof of the money she sought to recover. Setting aside the reduction did not establish that the course was full, that she was wait-listed, or that €240 had actually been withheld. No specific payment was ordered.