VERDICT
In the legal dispute
1. xxx,
2. xxx,
both resident xxx
– plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam, Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen,
against
District xxx,
– defendant –
The 42nd Chamber of the Hildesheim Social Court recognized the following at the oral hearing on February 23, 2015 by the social court judge xxx as chairman and the honorary judges xxx and xxx:
By modifying the decision of January 8, 2013 in the form of the objection decision of February 25, 2013, the defendant is obliged to provide the plaintiffs with further benefits from September 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 in accordance with Section 6 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG to compensate for the energy costs for hot water supply in the sense. H.v. Pay 17.20 euros per month.
The defendant bears the plaintiff's extrajudicial costs.
The appeal is allowed.
FACT
The parties involved are arguing about the costs of hot water supply.
The plaintiffs, who receive ongoing benefits from the defendant in accordance with Sections 1 and 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), live in an apartment they have rented in xxx. You heat the domestic water using a gas-powered instantaneous water heater. For this purpose, the company xxx, as an energy supplier, demands €26.00 per month from the plaintiffs. In the form of discounts. In fact, the plaintiffs pay €30.00 per month, which is transferred directly from the defendant to xxx and is withheld from the ongoing benefits to the plaintiffs according to the AsylbLG.
With a decision dated January 8, 2013, the defendant re-regulated the benefits for the period from September 2012 to the extent that the reduction in benefits that had been made until then in the form of a so-called hot water flat rate was no longer applicable. On January 17, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an objection and asserted an additional requirement in corresponding application of Section 30 Para. 7 SGB XII to reimburse the energy costs for hot water preparation. With an objection notice dated February 25, 2013, the defendant rejected the objection. The plaintiffs would only be entitled to ongoing benefits in the amount of the transitional regulation made by the Federal Constitutional Court on July 18, 2012. The plaintiffs would have to accept that the hot water costs were “left out” when calculating the benefits according to Section 3 AsylbLG due to the flat-rate calculation method. Individual additional benefits that go beyond the benefits under the Federal Constitutional Court's transitional regulations cannot be granted. Section 30 Paragraph 7 SGB XII does not apply to those entitled to benefits under the AsylbLG.
The plaintiffs filed suit on March 4, 2013. They believe that the Federal Constitutional Court, in its decision of August 17, 2012, would have permitted an analogous granting of claims in accordance with Section 30 (7) SGB XII. Otherwise, the constitutionality of the “new benefits” under the transitional regulation would not be guaranteed.
The plaintiffs request that
the defendant be sentenced, amending the decision of January 8, 2013 in the form of the objection decision of February 25, 2013, to provide them with further benefits from September 1, 2012 in accordance with Section 6 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG to compensate for the energy costs for hot water supply in the sense. H.v. Pay 17.20 euros per month.
The defendant requests
that the lawsuit be dismissed.
He counters the plaintiffs' arguments and defends the contested decisions.
For further details of the facts and the arguments of those involved, reference is made to the court file and the defendant's administrative procedures. these documents were the subject of the oral hearing.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The admissible action is well founded. The plaintiffs are entitled to the benefits claimed in the lawsuit; which is why the contested decision of January 8, 2013 in the form of the objection decision of February 25, 2013 must be changed so that the plaintiffs receive a further €17.20 per month for hot water preparation.
The basis for the plaintiff's request is Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence in conjunction with Paragraph 2 Sentence AsylbLG.
According to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 AsylbLG, among other things, the plaintiff's “necessary needs” for household goods and consumables, which also includes electricity, must be covered by the defendant.
The necessary need is not defined by the AsylbLG itself. Put another way: It is to be filled in by case law as an indefinite legal term. The chamber initially follows the prevailing legal opinion on the definition of “necessary costs” in civil procedural law. This includes those costs that were incurred as a result of actions by the parties that, at the time they were carried out, appeared objectively necessary and suitable for pursuing or defending the law in dispute (cf. Thomas-Putzo, ZPO, § 91 RNo. 9).
What is objectively necessary and suitable for covering the plaintiffs' electricity needs is (only) the full payment of the entire costs of electricity consumption in the plaintiffs' accommodation. This result also fits into the AsylbLG benefit system. For people entitled to basic benefits (such as the plaintiffs), the necessary needs for food, accommodation, heating, clothing, health and personal care and household goods and consumer goods are initially covered by benefits in kind in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 AsylbLG. With the granting of benefits in kind in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 AsylbLG, the foreigner is regularly in a reception facility (Section 44 Asylum Procedure Act (AsylVfG), shared accommodation (Section 53 AsylVfG), departure facility (Section 61 Paragraph 2 Residence Act) or in other living space (transitional home). , dormitory, etc.). The costs for accommodating those entitled to benefits are generally lower in such facilities than for decentralized accommodation in apartments. For this reason, too, in the literature (Frerichs, in jurisPK-SGB XII, § 3 AsylbLG Rn. 53 to Rn. 55) and in parts of the case law (State Social Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of April 15, 2013, L 20 AY 112/12 B, juris) are of the opinion that the necessary need for accommodation within the meaning of Section 3 AsylbLG In this respect, it is already conceptually lower than the need for accommodation with “reasonable” expenses within the meaning of Section 35 Paragraph 2 SGB in exceptional cases (cf. Frerichs, aaO, Rn 30 with reference to BSG, judgment of October 6, 2011, Ref. B 14 AS 171/10 R). What characterizes the system in asylum seeker benefits law is the specific, individual coverage of needs through benefits in kind. Because it depends on the specific needs of the beneficiary, it is not possible to determine a monthly value of the benefits that is comparable to the flat-rate standard benefit. Even if the assistance under the AsylbLG were granted as a cash benefit, this would not lead to a comparability of the regulations of SGB II and the AsylbLG. This follows from the fact that the amounts in Section 3 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 AsylbLG, neither with nor without pocket money in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 AsylbLG, do not represent an identical percentage compared to SGB II.
If one follows the aforementioned legal opinion, then one cannot determine the needs, and thus also the need for electricity, of recipients of basic services in the same way with the needs of those entitled to analogue benefits according to Section 2 AsylbLG or of benefit recipients according to SGB II and XII. The Chamber can initially leave open whether the aforementioned legal opinion would (only) be followed if a beneficiary was placed in an institution. Because in the case to be decided here the facts are different. The plaintiffs rented the disputed apartment in xxx with the knowledge and consent of the defendant. As long as the defendant allows the plaintiffs to live in this privately rented apartment, he must also cover the (full) electricity costs of this apartment. From the outset, the AsyIbLG does not recognize any limitation to an upper level of adequacy, however determined, as is provided for, for example, in the case of basic security benefits according to SGB II or SGB 1 sentence 2 SGB XII). There is no need for such a limitation, since the law itself even allows for accommodation in shared accommodation in accordance with paragraph 2 of analogous benefits under Section 2 AsylbLG and, in any case, regularly outside of the benefits under Section 2 AsylbLG for durable and consumer goods - as explained above – only provides for the granting of benefits in kind (Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 AsylbLG); In such accommodations, the service provider can, according to the AsylbLG, control the amount of electricity costs that are too high from the outset.
Insofar as the defendant objects that when these costs are assumed according to Section 3 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 AsylbLG, costs that are unreasonable under social welfare law are not to be borne, this legal opinion for those entitled to basic benefits according to Sections 1 and 3 AsylbLG is, in the opinion of the Chamber, found in the law no support. The law deals with Section 2 Paragraph 1 i. According to the provisions of SGB According to the 14th Senate of the BSG, what characterizes the system in asylum seeker benefit law is the specific, individual coverage of needs through benefits in kind (§ 3 Para. 1 Sentence 3 AsylbLG; see Frerichs in jurisPK-SGB XII, § 3 AsyIbLG RdNo. 30). Because it depends on the specific needs of the beneficiary, it is not possible to determine a monthly value of the benefits that is comparable to the flat-rate standard benefit. Even if the assistance under the AsylbLG is granted as a cash benefit, this does not lead to a comparability of the regulations of SGB II and the AsylbLG. This follows from the fact that the amounts in Section 3 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 AsylbLG do not represent an identical percentage compared to SGB II, either with or without pocket money in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 AsylbLG.
If in individual cases, under certain circumstances, those entitled to basic benefits are better off because they can claim benefits in kind according to the case law of the adjudicating chamber (see decision of February 1, 2012, S 42 AY 177/10 ER, juris para. 79 ff.), that is to accept. In this regard, the chamber draws attention to the approach of the legislature in the area of SGB II / SGB According to the concept of the standard rates there, SGB II and SGB
According to this, it is the responsibility of the recipient of assistance in the area of AsylbLG to independently meet their needs in the individual need groups from the basic services. Since, according to the legal concept of basic services, there is no static basket of goods defined that is available to those in need of help, but rather they manage with the money made available to them and, if necessary, make their necessary living by reallocating the resources available to the individual need groups This is the reason provided by the legislature and therefore objectively justified for the unequal treatment between those entitled to analogue benefits and those entitled to basic benefits.
Even after the transitional regulation from the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling of July 18, 2012, those entitled to basic benefits do not receive a standard rate, but are still entitled to benefits in kind, which can only be replaced by replacement or cash benefits in cases of necessity in the sense of the Chamber's case law. This entitlement exists for the individual needs of the benefit recipients listed in Section 3 Paragraph 1. In this respect, these needs must be considered individually and it cannot therefore be ruled out that for another group of needs that can possibly be covered by benefits in kind, the benefit authority may make savings by deciding to grant benefits in kind.
Since the plaintiffs expressly only claim additional benefits of €17.20 per month, the defendant's sentence had to be limited accordingly.
It remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs' claim can be based on an analogous grant of claim in accordance with Section 30 (7) SGB XII, regardless of the above considerations.
The cost decision is based on Section 193 SGG.
Since the undefined legal concept of “necessary needs” in Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 AsylbLG has not yet been conclusively clarified by the higher and highest courts, the case is of fundamental importance, which is why the appeal according to Section 144 Paragraph 2 No. 1 SGG is to be permitted.
Instructions on legal remedies follow.
