DECISION
In the litigation
xxx,
– plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
District xxx,
– defendant –
The 34th Chamber of the Hildesheim Social Court decided on November 21, 2014 through the Chairman, Director of the Social Court xxx:
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff's out-of-court costs.
REASONS
I.
What is still in dispute is whether the parties involved 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 objection decision was issued on August 20, 2014, the plaintiff declared the legal dispute settled and requested that the defendant be ordered to reimburse his out-of-court costs.
The defendant requests that
the application be rejected.
He points out that a notice was given by electronic mail on July 30, 2014, according to which a decision on the objection would probably be made in the 34th calendar week after the involvement of socially experienced third parties. Procedural delays due to meeting schedules and holidays should be acceptable.
Because of the details of the facts and the status of the dispute, reference is made to the court file and the administrative file that was available and was the subject of the judicial decision-making.
II.
The application for costs is successful.
According to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court decides upon application by order whether and to what extent the parties involved have to reimburse each other's costs if the proceedings - as here - are ended other than by a disputed decision.
The reason for this cost decision is at the dutiful discretion of the court. In addition to the outcome of the proceedings, the criteria that guide its discretion must also take into account the circumstances that led to the action being taken against the court and the completion of the application (cf. Leitherer, in: Meyer—Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer, SGG, 10th edition, § 193 , paragraph 13, with further references).
The exercise of the discretion granted to the court results in the plaintiff being able to claim reimbursement of his extrajudicial costs from the defendant. The latter gave reason to file a lawsuit because it did not decide on the plaintiff's objection within the three-month period specified in Section 88 (2) SGG. The action for failure to act, which was permissibly filed after the expiry of the blocking period, was well founded until the objection decision was issued, because a sufficient reason within the meaning of Section 88 (1) SGG that could justify the delayed decision is not apparent from the file and has not been presented by the defendant. The notification in electronic form dated July 30, 2014, that the decision is expected to be made in the 34th calendar week, does not explain the inaction until then (see: Leitherer, ibid., para. 13c, with further references).
The appeal against this basic cost decision is welcome. Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 SOG excluded.
