VERDICT
In the legal dispute
1. xxx,
2. xxx,
- plaintiffs -
Proc.-Bev.:
for 1-2: Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
District xxx,
– defendant –
The 43rd Chamber of the Hildesheim Social Court recognized the following at the oral hearing on February 17, 2014 by the social court judge xxx and the honorary judges xxx and xxx:
1. The decision of June 9, 2011 in the form of the decision of March 19, 2012 in the form of the objection decision of June 29, 2012 is amended. The defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiffs additional heating costs for the month of February 2010. H.v. 195.75 € to be approved.
2. The defendant bears the plaintiffs' necessary out-of-court costs.
FACT
The parties involved are in dispute over the assumption of additional payment for heating costs as part of basic security benefits in accordance with the Second Book of the Social Security Code (SGB II).
The plaintiffs form a community of needs and have been receiving benefits under SGB II from the defendant since 2004. They live in a household with the son of plaintiff 1, who is not entitled to benefits under SGB II. The plaintiffs' apartment is equipped with gas heating.
By decision dated October 25, 2007, the defendant only took over an amount of EUR 86.35 per month of the plaintiffs' gas discount of EUR 89 per month for the service period from September to December 2007. These are the reasonable monthly heating costs. For further details of this notice, see page 265ff. referred to the administrative file.
Subsequently, the defendant then took over the full advance payment to be paid by the plaintiffs on a pro rata basis. For further details of the relevant approval notices, reference is made to the defendant's administrative file.
On January 22, 2010, the plaintiffs sent the defendant the 2009 annual consumption statement from Stadtwerke xxx with a request to take it over. This invoice showed a remaining claim of EUR 293.64. For further details see page 501ff. referred to the administrative file.
By decision dated February 18, 2010, the defendant granted the plaintiffs benefits for the period February to June 2010 and took over an amount of EUR 140.98 from the annual consumption bill. No further payments could be made. For further details of the notice, see page 505ff. referred to the administrative file. This decision initially became final.
On December 23, 2011, the plaintiffs applied for a review of the decision dated February 18, 2010 in accordance with Section 44 of the Tenth Book of the Social Code (SGB X). The defendant must grant higher accommodation costs and assume the entire additional demand from the energy supplier.
By decision dated March 19, 2012, the defendant granted the plaintiffs higher accommodation costs and refused to approve additional heating costs. For further details of this notice, see page 12ff. referred to the court file.
The plaintiffs lodged an objection to this on March 28, 2012, which the defendant rejected as unfounded in a notice of objection dated June 29, 2012 regarding the heating costs. For further details of the objection notice, see page 16ff. referred to the court file.
On July 4, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against this before the Social Court (SG) Hildesheim and supplemented and deepened their arguments from the administrative procedure. The plaintiffs were not informed in advance about the excessive heating costs as part of a so-called cost reduction request.
The plaintiffs request that
the defendant be obliged to amend the decision of February 18, 2010 in the form of the decision of March 19, 2012 in the form of the objection decision of June 29, 2012 to pay the plaintiffs further heating costs for the month of February 2010 in the amount of: H.v. 195.75 € to be approved.
The defendant requests
that the lawsuit be dismissed.
He refers to the contested notices. A cost reduction request was not necessary. The plaintiffs had already been made aware of the existing appropriate limit for heating costs in the decision dated October 25, 2007.
For further details of the facts and the status of the dispute, reference is made to the court file and the defendant's administrative file, which were available to the court and became the basis for the decision-making.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The permissible action for rescission and obligation is justified.
The contested decisions are illegal and violate the plaintiffs' rights in accordance with Section 54 (2) of the Social Court Act (SGG).
The plaintiffs are entitled to additional heating costs of EUR 54.78 for the month of February 2010.
The additional payment amount from the plaintiffs' energy supplier is part of their current needs in the month due (here February 2010). However, with regard to the appropriateness of these costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, the time of consumption (here year 2009) must be taken into account.
According to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II, heating needs are recognized in the amount of the actual expenses, provided these are appropriate. To the extent that the expenses for heating exceed the extent appropriate to the specific nature of the individual case, they are to be recognized as a need as long as the recipient of the benefit is not able or reasonable to reduce expenses by changing residence or other measures, but usually for a maximum of six Months (see Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGB II).
In this case, the court assumes that the plaintiffs' heating costs in 2009 were unreasonable. The defendant used the values of the heating mirror as a basis in an unobjectionable manner. Exceeding the upper limit values of this heating level represents an indication of inappropriateness, which the plaintiffs did not counter with further presentations on the specifics of the individual case (building structure, etc.).
Nevertheless, the defendant must bear the remaining proportionate costs, since the plaintiffs were subjectively unable to reduce their costs.
In the context of heating costs, the person entitled to benefits must also be aware that the service provider is assuming unreasonable costs (see Luik in: Eicher, SGB II, § 22 Rn 120ff. with further references). In particular, it must be clear to him which appropriateness limit the service provider is basing its calculations on.
The court is convinced that this was not the case in this case. A formal request to reduce costs may be unnecessary if the recipient of the benefit is aware of the relevant factors that justify the inappropriateness of his costs. The service provider is therefore generally not prevented from following up on previous information letters or notices (see BSG: judgment of November 7, 2006, B 7b AS 10/06 R). However, this assumes that no relevant changes to the factual and legal situation have occurred in the meantime (see Luik ibid).
In this case, the plaintiffs were informed at the end of 2007 that their heating costs were unreasonable at the time. However, in the court's opinion, the defendant could no longer continue with this for the period in dispute here. In this context, it should be noted that from 2008 onwards, the defendant initially took the full amount of heating costs into account in its performance calculations. The warning function emanating from a request to reduce costs no longer existed for the plaintiffs. It should also be taken into account that the defendant's adequacy limit is not a static value and that different values applied in 2007 than in the relevant year of 2009. The plaintiffs were therefore not even aware of the defendant's relevant adequacy limit. They therefore lacked the subjective opportunity to reduce costs.
For this reason, the defendant was not entitled to reduce the assumption of the costs actually incurred to what he considered appropriate.
Of the additional payment of EUR 293.64 incurred for the entire household, an amount of EUR 195.76 can generally be taken over (2/3). Deducting the EUR 140.98 already paid directly by the defendant to the supplier, an amount of EUR 54.78 must therefore still be granted.
The cost decision follows from Section 193 SGG.
Instructions on legal remedies follow.
