DECISION
In the legal dispute
1. xxx,
2. xxx,
3. xxx,
plaintiffs no. 2 and 3, represented by plaintiff no. 1,
– plaintiffs –
Legal representative:
for 1-3: Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
xxx
– Defendant –
The 43rd Chamber of the Hildesheim Social Court decided on January 19, 2016, through Judge xxx of the Social Court:
The defendant shall bear the necessary extrajudicial costs of the plaintiffs.
REASONS
Following the plaintiffs' declaration of settlement, the only remaining point of contention between the parties is the question of who bears the costs.
Pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), the court must decide by order, upon application, whether and to what extent the parties must reimburse each other's costs if the proceedings – as in this case – are terminated other than by judgment.
This decision on costs is at the court's discretion, taking into account the current state of the case and the legal arguments, with particular emphasis on the prospects of success (Leitherer in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer, SGG, 11th edition, § 193, marginal note 13 with further references). Further criteria for the cost decision include, above all, the outcome of the proceedings, the circumstances that led to the filing of the lawsuit, and the circumstances that led to the settlement of the dispute (cf. Niesel, Der Sozialgerichtsprozess, 5th edition, marginal notes 610, 613 with further references).
The exercise of the discretion granted to the court leads to the result that the defendant must reimburse the plaintiffs for their necessary extrajudicial costs.
In this context, it was decisive that the defendant made a de facto acknowledgment by issuing the amending decision of 07.05.2015.
Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the present legal proceedings were not inadmissible due to lis pendens. In this regard, the court refers to the decisions of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court of June 23, 2015 (L 7 AS 750/13) and the Thuringian State Social Court of July 24, 2012 (L 4 AS 1353/11 B), which are known to both parties from other legal disputes. The court fully concurs with the reasoning presented therein.
The defendant's argument that the plaintiffs incurred unnecessary costs is also unfounded. No malicious intent or abusive litigation can be established in this case. Any potential synergy effects on the part of the legal representative, however, must be taken into account when determining costs.
This decision is unappealable according to § 172 para. 3 no. 3 SGG.
