COURT ORDER
In the legal dispute between
1. xxx,
2. xxx,
3. xxx,
represented by
1. xxx,
4. xxx,
represented by
1. xxx,
5. xxx,
represented by
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
for 1-5: Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
County xxx
– Defendant –
The 42nd Chamber of the Social Court of Hildesheim, on September 24, 2015, pursuant to Section 105 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), rendered the following judgment through Judge xxx of the Social Court:
The defendant is ordered, with the annulment of the decision of February 27, 2012 as amended by the appeal decision of March 8, 2013, to grant the plaintiffs basic benefits pursuant to Sections 3 to 7 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for the period from March 1 to July 31, 2012, in a constitutionally compliant amount according to the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 18, 2012, taking into account any benefits already provided.
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiffs for their extrajudicial costs.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The plaintiffs seek the granting of basic benefits pursuant to Sections 3 to 7 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsyIbLG) in a constitutionally compliant amount according to the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of July 18, 2012 (1 BvL 10/10 and 2/11) for the period from March 1 to July 31, 2012.
The first plaintiff, born in 1980, his wife, the second plaintiff, born in 1981, and their children, the third to fifth plaintiffs, born on [date] 2006, [date] 2008 and [date] 2002, respectively, are from Afghanistan and their stay in Germany is tolerated. During the period in question, they possessed neither realizable assets nor usable income.
By decision dated February 27, 2012, the defendant granted the plaintiffs basic benefits for the month of March 2012 in the amount of €1,367.89. The decision was personally handed to the plaintiffs on the day of the allocation. The decision contained the following information regarding legal remedies:
"An objection may be lodged against this decision within one month of notification. The objection must be
submitted in writing or recorded at the district office xxx."
In the meantime, the defendant, by decision of August 20, 2012, approved basic benefits in a constitutionally compliant amount from August 1, 2012.
The plaintiffs filed an objection on January 21, 2013, against the decision of February 27, 2012, arguing that constitutionally compliant basic benefits should also be granted for the period from March 1 to July 31, 2012. They contended that the instructions on legal remedies were unclear and contradictory, and therefore did not meet the legal requirements. Furthermore, they argued that it was not clearly identifiable which authority should be contacted, thus rendering the one-year time limit applicable.
The defendant rejected the objection with a notice of objection dated March 8, 2013, stating as grounds that the objection was inadmissible due to the expiry of the one-month objection period and that the decision was legally binding.
The plaintiffs argue that
the instructions on legal remedies in the decision of February 27, 2013, are clearly unclear and contradictory and do not meet the requirements of Section 36 of Book Ten of the German Social Code – Social Administrative Procedure and Social Data Protection – (SGB X). They contend that the instructions suggest there are apparently several bodies to which an objection can be lodged, as evidenced by the blank space provided. The word "or" indicates that at least one other authority has the power to accept the objection. Therefore, they argue, the one-year time limit for lodging an objection applies. The plaintiffs maintain that they are entitled to the provision of benefits that comply with the constitution.
The plaintiffs request that
the defendant, by amending the decision of February 27, 2012 as modified by the appeal decision of March 8, 2013, be ordered to grant the plaintiffs the requested benefits in the statutory amount on a monthly basis for the period from March 1 to July 31, 2012, in accordance with the legal opinion of the court.
The defendant requests
that the action be dismissed.
Referring to the issued notices, he states:
The benefits officer xxx personally handed the plaintiffs the notice dated February 27, 2012, in the presence of other employees and the landlord. The instructions on legal remedies appear incomplete at first glance, but contain all relevant points, so it is clear to whom an appeal should be filed.
The parties involved were heard by the chamber about the possibility of deciding by court order.
Regarding the further submissions of the parties, reference is made to the contents of the court file and the administrative records consulted.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The lawsuit is successful.
The legal dispute will be decided by court order pursuant to Section 105 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) after hearing the parties involved and without oral proceedings, because the facts are clear and the case does not present any particular difficulties of a legal or factual nature.
The defendant's decision of February 27, 2012, as amended by the decision on the objection of March 8, 2013, proves to be unlawful and infringes the plaintiffs' own rights.
The court is convinced that the success of the action is not precluded by the fact that the decision of February 27, 2012, would be legally binding pursuant to Section 77 of the Social Court Act (SGG). This is because the one-month objection period stipulated in Section 84 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the SGG did not begin upon notification, as the instructions on legal remedies were defective and did not comply with the requirements of Section 36 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), or Section 66 Paragraph 1 of the SGG. Accordingly, if an authority issues a written administrative act, the aggrieved party must be informed in writing about the legal remedy, the authority or court to which the legal remedy must be submitted, its location, the applicable deadline, and the required form. Section 66 Paragraph 1 of the SGG sets out identical requirements for instructions on legal remedies and, in Paragraph 2, stipulates that an incorrect instruction results in the commencement of a one-year period.
The instructions regarding the permissible legal remedy must include the legal remedy itself, the court or administrative body to which it must be submitted, and the applicable time limit. They must be complete and accurate; otherwise, the time limit does not begin to run (see Keller, in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer, Commentary on the Social Court Act [SGG], 11th edition 2014, § 66, para. 5). The Chamber is convinced that the specific instructions regarding legal remedies in the decision of February 27, 2012, do not meet these requirements. The instructions state verbatim:
"The objection must be submitted in writing or for the record to the (blank line) or to the district of xxx."
To an objective observer, the impression arises that the objection could be lodged not only with the defendant but also with another authority (with the/the – blank line –). This makes the instruction objectively incorrect and creates the impression of incompleteness, as if the author had deleted an authority's name without removing the words "with the/the" and "or".
Therefore, pursuant to Section 66 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the one-year time limit applies, which was met with the filing of the objection on January 21, 2013, so that no finality has occurred. In this context, it is irrelevant whether the decision of February 27, 2012 was personally handed to the plaintiffs, because the delivery does not replace or remedy the defective legal remedies information.
The plaintiffs are entitled to basic benefits for the period from March 1 to July 31, 2012, in a constitutionally compliant amount according to the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 18, 2012, taking into account benefits already received, because this period has not yet been definitively settled. The Chamber fully concurs with the reasoning of the Federal Constitutional Court.
The decision on costs follows from Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
Pursuant to Section 144 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1, Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the appeal does not require leave to appeal because the defendant's grievance exceeds the threshold of 750 euros.
The following is information on legal remedies.
