DECISION
In the legal dispute
1. xxx,
2. xxx,
– Plaintiffs –
Legal representative:
for 1-2: Attorney Sven Adam, Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Göttingen District,
– Defendant –
The 24th Chamber of the Social Court of Hildesheim decided on August 24, 2016, through Judge xxx of the Social Court:
The defendant is obligated in principle to reimburse the plaintiffs for their necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
Pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), the court decides by order upon application if the proceedings are terminated other than by judgment. The present legal dispute was terminated by a declaration of settlement and thus other than by judgment. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for costs.
In deciding on costs pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court must exercise its discretion equitably, taking into account the current state of the case and the legal arguments. The decisive factor is, in particular, the prospects of success of the action, i.e., the likely outcome of the proceedings. However, other criteria must also be considered within the scope of this discretion. The reasons for filing and settling the action, as well as the reason for filing the action, may be relevant in this regard.
In the present case, the court exercised its discretion, taking into account the circumstances of the legal dispute, by ordering the defendant to reimburse the plaintiffs for their necessary extrajudicial costs.
In exercising its discretion, the court considered the likely outcome of the proceedings. Based on the facts and the law as they stood at the time of the case's conclusion, the legal dispute would likely have been decided in favor of the plaintiffs.
The defendant had all the necessary information to make a final determination of the benefits to be granted to the plaintiffs before the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit. The certificate from Wüstenrot dated June 18, 2014, clearly and unambiguously stated that the plaintiffs were required to make a monthly payment of €65.00 on the loan. A simple comparison of the loan amount of €30,000.00 with the agreed interest rate of 2.600% would have confirmed to the defendant that the monthly payment of €65.00 consisted solely of the interest portion. The certificate provided no indication that the interest and principal repayment portions changed monthly.
In the legal proceedings, a simple confirmation from the plaintiffs' attorney that monthly interest payments of €65.00 remained unchanged was sufficient for the defendant to definitively determine the benefits. If the defendant had any remaining uncertainties regarding this matter, he could have obtained the relevant information at least during the objection proceedings before issuing the decision on the objection. Instead, in the decision on the objection, the defendant merely stated that it was not the responsibility of the benefit provider to calculate the charges based on the agreed terms. While this might be reasonable for more complex loan agreements with variable interest and principal repayment components, in the present case, given the standardized fixed monthly payment and the simple calculation, it does not represent an excessively high administrative burden.
This decision is final and cannot be appealed pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
