COURT ORDER
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 xxx
– Defendant –
The 37th Chamber of the Social Court of Hildesheim, on May 24, 2017, pursuant to Section 105 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), rendered the following judgment through Judge xxx:
The defendant is ordered to decide on the objections raised by the plaintiffs by letters dated September 27, 2016 and October 19, 2016 against the decisions of September 23, 2016 and October 7, 2016, also with regard to the claimed additional costs of accommodation and heating for the bathroom radiator.
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiffs for their necessary extrajudicial costs.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The plaintiffs, within the framework of a benefit relationship under the Second Book of the Social Code (SGB II), are requesting from the defendant a decision on their objections against two benefit notices that have been issued.
The plaintiffs receive benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) from the defendant.
The plaintiffs heat their apartment with a night storage heater and the bathroom with a separate radiator powered by household electricity.
By letters dated September 27, 2016 and October 19, 2016, they lodged objections, referring to the concluded proceedings S 26 AS 1599/14, against the benefit notices issued by the defendant on September 23, 2016 and October 7, 2016, arguing that the heating costs for the radiator in the bathroom should also be covered. This radiator is electrically operated.
In the proceedings S 26 AS 1599/14, the defendant was informed, according to the minutes, by the presiding judge of the chamber during an oral hearing, that the heating electricity costs for the bathroom should be taken into account as a need.
With the lawsuits filed on January 27, 2017 before the Social Court (SG) Hildesheim, the plaintiffs seek a decision on their objections.
During the course of the legal proceedings, the defendant informed the plaintiffs by letter dated March 8, 2017, that he had decided on the disputed objections by means of a remedial decision dated February 28, 2017. On the same date, he issued a decision designated as a "remedial decision" and granted the plaintiffs benefits for their accommodation and heating costs for the periods June 2016 to August 2016 and September 2016 to August 2017 in the amount of €77.00 per month for the operation of the night storage heater. The back payments would accrue interest at a rate of €24.60. The decision did not contain any provision regarding the reimbursement of costs for the radiator in the bathroom.
The plaintiffs responded that the proceedings could not be declared concluded because, despite the issuance of the remedial order, a grievance still remained. The disputed claim concerned payments for the operation of the electric radiator in the bathroom, which was not part of the night storage heating system.
The defendant stated that he could not understand the plaintiffs' statements. There were two electricity accounts, one for household electricity and one for the night storage heating, which also powered the radiator in the bathroom. Household electricity was already covered by the standard allowance, so no further costs could be covered for it.
The plaintiffs request in writing, in essence, that
the defendant be ordered to decide on the objections raised by letters of September 27, 2016 and October 19, 2016 against the decisions of September 23, 2016 and October 7, 2016, also with regard to the claimed additional costs of accommodation and heating for the bathroom radiator.
The defendant makes no motion.
He believes he has already decided on the plaintiffs' objections.
Regarding further details concerning the facts and the legal issues, reference is made to the court files, the defendant's administrative files, and the minutes of the oral hearing in case S 26 AS 1599/14, which were available and formed the basis for the decision.
By decision of 24 May 2015, the court joined proceedings S 37 AS 133/17 and S 37 AS 134/17 for a joint decision (§ 113 Social Courts Act [SGG]).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The court decides without oral proceedings by court order because the case does not present any particular difficulties of a factual or legal nature, the facts are clear and the parties involved were heard before the order was issued (§ 105 SGG).
The admissible claim is well-founded.
The plaintiffs are entitled to a decision on their objections of September 27, 2016 and October 19, 2016.
According to Section 88 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), if an application for an administrative act has not been decided on its merits within a reasonable period without sufficient cause, the action is not admissible before the expiry of six months from the date of the application for the administrative act. According to Section 88 Paragraph 2 of the SGG, the same applies if no decision has been made on an objection, with the proviso that a period of three months is considered reasonable.
The plaintiffs filed objections by letters dated September 27, 2016 and October 19, 2016. This is undisputed between the parties.
The defendant also failed to rule on these objections within the legally prescribed three-month period. The remedial order issued by the defendant was only issued on February 28, 2017, during the ongoing legal proceedings. This order did not contain any provision regarding the costs for operating the radiator in the bathroom, meaning that the objection procedure in this respect is not concluded.
The defendant has neither provided a sufficient reason for the failure to issue a decision, nor is one otherwise apparent. The defendant merely claimed to be unable to understand the connection between the costs of accommodation and heating with regard to the night storage heater on the one hand and the radiator in the bathroom on the other, even though he was already aware of the issue due to the concluded proceedings S 26 AS 1599/14 before the Hildesheim Social Court. The plaintiffs' legal representative expressly pointed this out when filing the objection, citing the file number. The court file for these proceedings contains, as Exhibit 7 to the statement of claim, a written confirmation from the plaintiffs' landlord that there is no permanently installed radiator connected to the night storage heater network or any other permanently installed radiator in the plaintiffs' bathroom.
The decision on costs is based on Sections 105 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 and 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG). The defendant was ordered to bear the full costs because he only partially decided on the plaintiffs' objection during the course of the legal proceedings. This concerns the costs of accommodation and heating for the night storage heater. The administrative records show that the defendant had not requested any documents from the plaintiffs regarding this matter, thus making the filing of the lawsuit necessary. As stated above, no decision was made at all regarding the radiator in the bathroom.
The following is information on legal remedies.
