VERDICT
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
City of Göttingen, – Legal Department –, represented by the Mayor,
Hiroshimaplatz 1-4, 37083 Göttingen
– Defendant –
The 42nd Chamber of the Social Court of Hildesheim, without oral proceedings pursuant to Section 124 Paragraph 2 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), rendered the following judgment on October 19, 2018, through Judge xxx and Lay Judges xxx and xxx:
The defendant is ordered, by amending the decision of April 19, 2017, as modified by the partial remedy and objection decision of December 15, 2017, to grant the plaintiff privileged benefits pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), to the extent provided by law, for the period from August 2 to November 11, 2017.
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for her extrajudicial costs.
FACTS
The plaintiff seeks the granting of privileged benefits pursuant to Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with the Social Code Book Twelve (SGB XII) — Social Assistance — by analogy for the period from August 1st to November 11th, 2017.
The plaintiff, born in 19xx, is an Ivorian national and had been receiving benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) since December 2013, most recently privileged benefits. She began vocational training as a hairdresser on August 2, 2017. Her gross monthly salary was €420 in the first year of training.
The city of Göttingen rejected the granting of benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) by decision dated September 8, 2017, arguing that due to the eligibility for funding of the training pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), there was no entitlement to benefits under the SGB XII.
The plaintiff filed an objection on September 12, 2017
Following the termination of the training program, the city granted privileged benefits effective November 12, 2017, by decision dated December 15, 2017. In a partial remedy decision, the city of Göttingen granted privileged benefits for August 1, 2017, and otherwise rejected the appeal. It justified this by stating that the plaintiff was ineligible for benefits due to the eligible nature of her training. No exceptional hardship due to atypical circumstances existed. The lack of entitlement to vocational training assistance (BAB) did not constitute exceptional hardship. The legislature had enacted a specific legal provision for training assistance in Section 132 of the German Social Code, Book III (SGB III).
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on January 8, 2018.
She argues that
the Lower Saxony Ministry of the Interior and Sport issued a decree on October 4, 2017, stipulating that recipients of benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) are to be granted benefits as a hardship case under Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), during eligible vocational training. Reference is made to the decision of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court (LSG) of February 13, 2018 — L 8 AY 1/18 B ER —.
The plaintiff requests that
The defendant is ordered, by amending the decision of April 19, 2017, as modified by the partial remedy and objection decision of December 15, 2017, to grant her privileged benefits pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with the Social Code Book XII (SGB XII) by analogy, to the extent permitted by law, for the period from August 2 to November 11, 2017.
The defendant requests that
to dismiss the lawsuit.
Referring to the issued decisions, she argues that
there is no evidence of particular hardship.
The parties unanimously waived their right to an oral hearing.
Regarding the further submissions of the parties, reference is made to the contents of the court file and the administrative records consulted.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The lawsuit is successful.
The chamber was able to decide the legal dispute without an oral hearing because the parties had waived this right in accordance with Section 124 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
The defendant's decision of April 19, 2017, as amended by the partial remedy and objection decision of December 15, 2017, proves to be unlawful and infringes the plaintiff's own rights.
The plaintiff is, in the opinion of the Chamber, entitled to privileged benefits for the period from August 1st to November 11th, 2017.
According to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsyIbLG), the Social Code Book XII (SGB XII) shall apply accordingly to those beneficiaries who have been residing in the federal territory for 15 months without significant interruption and who have not abusively influenced the duration of their stay, notwithstanding Sections 3 to 7.
The plaintiff was entitled to benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 1 Numbers 4 and 5 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) during the period in dispute, resided in Germany for more than 15 months, and did not herself abuse the legal system by influencing the duration of her stay. In the present case, the court is convinced that, as a trainee, she is not excluded from receiving benefits under Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), because the exception in Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the SGB XII applies. According to this provision, in cases of particular hardship, benefits under Chapters Three and Four can be granted as a subsidy or loan, whereby the hardship case generally necessitates the exercise of discretion.
According to the decree issued by the Lower Saxony Ministry of the Interior and Sport on October 4, 2017, it constitutes an undue hardship if asylum seekers with a high probability of remaining in Germany are excluded from vocational training support as soon as they receive privileged benefits after 15 months. The decision of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court of February 13, 2018, is correct in finding that this constitutes an unjustifiable unequal treatment compared to recipients of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). In this specific case, the benefit should be granted as a subsidy, as a loan would lead to further unequal treatment of the plaintiff.
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.
