DECISION
In the legal dispute
xxx,
Applicant,
Legal Representative: Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen,
against
xxx,
Respondent,
The 11th Chamber of the Social Court of Kassel decided on October 22, 2014, through Judge xxx as Chairwoman of the Social Court:
The respondent shall bear the applicant's necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.
issue in dispute is whether and, if so, to what extent the respondent has to bear the applicant's extrajudicial costs.
In the proceedings for preliminary legal protection pending before the Kassel Social Court since August 14, 2014, the applicant's reduction of benefits under Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) by the respondent was in dispute. The applicant had filed an objection with the respondent on August 14, 2014, against the continuously reduced benefit payments. By letter dated August 19, 2014, the respondent, in view of the benefit reduction having already lasted for more than three years, declared its willingness to grant full benefits under Section 3 of the AsylbLG provisionally from August 14, 2014, until a decision is reached in the main proceedings. Thereupon, the applicant's legal representative declared the preliminary proceedings concluded and requested a cost order against the respondent pursuant to Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG). He explained that, due to the reduction of benefits under Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), a threat of preliminary legal protection in the event of a lack of redress was unreasonable. Furthermore, the respondent himself had expressed in the preliminary proceedings that he did not consider the claim to be justified. From this, it could be concluded that the respondent would not have been willing to grant benefits without the reduction under Section 1a AsylbLG even without preliminary legal protection.
The respondent is unwilling to reimburse the applicant's extrajudicial costs. He argues that, according to the jurisprudence of the Hessian State Social Court, the reduction of benefits under Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is not inherently unlawful. The applicant's legal representative failed to demonstrate the prerequisites for an injunction in the application for preliminary legal protection dated August 14, 2014. Furthermore, neither the applicant nor his representative had contacted the respondent regarding the benefit reduction prior to filing the application for preliminary relief. The objection and the application for preliminary relief were filed simultaneously, and it was during this process that the issue of the benefit reduction was first raised. The preliminary proceedings could have been avoided if the applicant had first addressed his request to the relevant authority. In any case, the Federal Constitutional Court has not explicitly ruled that a benefit reduction under Section 1a of the AsylbLG is unconstitutional. Only in this case does the respondent consider an expedited procedure without prior contact with the granting authority to be necessary.
II.
The admissible application for costs is well-founded. Pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), the court must decide by judgment whether and to what extent the parties must reimburse each other's costs. This also applies in principle to preliminary injunction proceedings, which are decided by order. The court must decide by order upon application if the proceedings are terminated otherwise (as in the present case by declaration of settlement) (Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGG). When the legal dispute is settled by declaration of settlement, the court must apply the legal principle of Section 91a of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), according to which the question of costs must be decided at its equitable discretion, taking into account the previous state of the proceedings and the merits of the case. The court ultimately interprets the respondent's statements in the brief dated August 19, 2014, as an acknowledgment of the applicant's claim in the preliminary injunction proceedings for benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) without the reduction pursuant to Section 1a. In the opinion of the adjudicating chamber, this also implicitly obligates the respondent to bear the applicant's extrajudicial costs. Contrary to the respondent's assertion, the applicant sufficiently and credibly demonstrated the grounds for and the claim to the injunction when his application for preliminary legal protection was received by the Kassel Social Court on August 14, 2014. It is irrelevant that the respondent believes that the Federal Constitutional Court's decision regarding the amount of benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) alone does not establish the unconstitutionality of Section 1a of the AsylbLG. In any case, the respondent himself, based on the duration of the reduction under Section 1a of the AsylbLG in the applicant's case exceeding three years, no longer considers the reduction lawful and acknowledges the applicant's corresponding claim in the application proceedings. The respondent is thus following a decision on appeal by the Hessian State Social Court of December 18, 2013 (L 4 AY 16/13 BER). In light of this decision, the court finds it incomprehensible why the respondent initially intends to refer the applicant to the objection procedure and considers the application for preliminary relief superfluous. However, insofar as the safeguarding of the constitutionally guaranteed minimum subsistence level of a benefit recipient is at stake within the context of the application of Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), and the request for preliminary legal protection prompts the respondent to grant full benefits immediately, it is justified in such circumstances to order the respondent to bear the applicant's extrajudicial costs, i.e., the costs of the applicant's legal representative. To require an applicant in such a situation to await the outcome of the objection procedure (especially with an uncertain result) is unreasonable.
The decision is unappealable pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
