DECISION
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
County xxx,
– Defendant –
The 34th Chamber of the Hildesheim Social Court decided on November 21, 2014, through its presiding judge, Director of the Social Court xxx:
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff's extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.
It is still disputed whether the parties have to reimburse each other for costs.
The plaintiff filed an action for failure to act on August 5, 2014, because the defendant had not yet decided on his objection of April 30, 2014, against the decision of April 24, 2014. After the decision on the objection was issued on August 20, 2014, the plaintiff declared the legal dispute settled and requested that the defendant be ordered to reimburse his extrajudicial costs.
The defendant requests that
the application be rejected.
He points out that an email was sent on July 30, 2014, indicating that a decision on the appeal, following the involvement of socially experienced third parties, is expected in calendar week 34. Procedural delays due to the court's schedule, including scheduling conflicts and holidays, should be accepted.
For details of the facts and the legal arguments, reference is made to the court file and the administrative file that were available and formed the basis of the court's decision.
II.
The application for costs is successful.
According to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), the court decides by order, upon application, whether and to what extent the parties have to reimburse each other's costs if the proceedings — as in this case — are terminated other than by a contested decision.
The decision on costs is, in principle, at the court's discretion. As criteria guiding this discretion, the court must consider not only the outcome of the proceedings but also the circumstances that led to the court's involvement and the resolution of the application (see Leitherer, in: Meyer—Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer, SGG, 10th edition, § 193, marginal note 13, with further references).
The exercise of the court's discretion leads to the conclusion that the plaintiff can claim reimbursement of his extrajudicial costs from the defendant. The defendant gave cause for the action by failing to decide on the plaintiff's objection within the three-month period stipulated in Section 88 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG). The action for failure to act, which was admissible after the expiry of the waiting period, was also well-founded until the issuance of the decision on the objection, as no sufficient reason within the meaning of Section 88 Paragraph 1 of the SGG that could justify the delayed decision is apparent from the case file and has not been presented by the defendant. The electronic notification of July 30, 2014, stating that a decision was expected in the 34th calendar week, does not explain the inaction that continued until then (cf. Leitherer, loc. cit., para. 13c, with further references).
The appeal against this decision on costs is excluded pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 SOG.
