DECISION
In the legal dispute
1. xxx,
represented by
xxx,
2. xxx,
represented by
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
for 1-2: Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Göttingen District, represented by xxx,
– Defendant –
The 39th Chamber of the Hildesheim Social Court decided on October 19, 2017, through Judge xxx of the Social Court:
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiffs for their necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.
After the plaintiffs declared the proceedings settled by letter dated 26 September 2016, the parties are now only in dispute over the costs.
By decision dated December 19, 2014, the plaintiffs' father was granted benefits under Book Two of the German Social Code (SGB II) for the benefit period from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015. In this decision, the defendant took into account costs for accommodation and heating in the amount of EUR 326.00 per month.
By decision dated March 10, 2015, the defendant amended the benefit award for the period in question and included the plaintiffs in the decision. The amount of the costs for accommodation and heating remained unchanged.
The defendant rejected the objection filed against this decision on March 13, 2015, as inadmissible by a decision dated May 7, 2015. The decision of March 10, 2015, had become the subject of the legal proceedings S 39 AS 110/15, which were directed against the original grant decision of December 19, 2014.
In their lawsuit filed on May 13, 2015, the plaintiffs claimed higher costs for accommodation and heating. They declared the legal dispute settled after the defendant, by decision dated November 24, 2015, had approved the actual costs for accommodation and heating for the disputed benefit period.
II.
Pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Courts Act, the court shall, upon application, decide by order whether and to what extent the parties shall reimburse each other's costs if the proceedings are terminated—as in this case—other than by judgment.
The court must make the decision on costs at its own discretion, whereby the exercise of this discretion must primarily take into account the likely outcome of the proceedings, which is to be assessed based on the factual and legal situation as it existed up to the point of settlement. Further criteria for the decision on costs include, in particular, 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 legal dispute.
In the present case, the defendant's assumption of costs is justified. By decision dated November 24, 2015, the defendant granted the plaintiffs' claim and retroactively approved the accommodation and heating costs they had claimed. Due to the defendant's remedial decision, this claim belongs to the plaintiffs themselves and not to the plaintiffs' father. Therefore, the question of whether the approved accommodation and heating costs constitute a claim of the father, with reference to the decision of the Federal Social Court of February 17, 2016 (Case No. B 4 AS 2/15 R), is irrelevant.
This decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
