DECISION
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Applicant –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Göttingen District, represented by the District Administrator,
Reinhäuser Landstraße 4, 37083 Göttingen
– Respondent –
The 39th Chamber of the Social Court of Hildesheim decided on January 24, 2019, through Judge xxx of the Social Court:
The respondent must reimburse the applicant for the necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.
After the respondent granted the benefits by decision of December 19, 2018, and the applicant subsequently declared the proceedings settled, the parties are now only disputing the costs.
On April 9, 2018, after receiving a residence permit, the applicant submitted an application for benefits under the Second Book of the German Social Code (SGB II). Subsequently, documents from the immigration authorities were submitted, showing that the applicant was housed in collective accommodation in Göttingen, along with information about his bank account and chosen health insurance provider.
On May 30, 2018, he was requested by the responsible caseworker to submit the documents required for processing his application. Otherwise, benefits could be denied due to lack of cooperation. Enclosed with this letter was a "checklist" listing the documents to be submitted. This included information on his earnings, child benefit, a declaration regarding his means of subsistence over the past three months, a certificate of unemployment benefit I, bank details, his customer number with the employment agency, questions about his school leaving certificate and his parents' address, as well as his social security number.
On June 5, 2018, the applicant emailed his caseworker to inquire about his next steps, explaining that he had no money and had been referred to him by the social welfare office the previous week. He was informed that he should submit the documents requested in the letter dated May 30, 2018. In an email dated July 11, 2018, the applicant apologized for not yet being able to submit the necessary documents, as he was still "preparing" them.
By decision dated July 16, 2018, the respondent refused to provide benefits due to lack of cooperation.
The applicant filed an objection to this decision on October 26, 2018. He argued that all the requested documents were irrelevant to the granting of the requested benefits. On November 9, 2018, the applicant reapplied for benefits for the period beginning November 1, 2018. The applicant was again asked to submit documents (letter from the applicant dated November 14, 2018).
On November 12, 2018, the applicant applied to the Social Court for preliminary legal protection. In this application, the applicant submitted the rental agreement for his current accommodation, stated that he had no assets, and had no maintenance claims against his parents living in Hong Kong. Information regarding his school-leaving qualifications was provided, and it was stated that he was not entitled to child benefit or unemployment benefit I. His social security number was also provided (see letter dated November 23, 2018). The respondent issued the corresponding decision on December 19, 2019.
The applicant requests a cost order against the respondent, arguing that the data and documents he requested were unnecessary and some of them do not even exist.
II.
According to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Courts Act, 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.
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 respondent's assumption of costs is justified. Based on the documents already available to the respondent at the time of application, which had been forwarded by other authorities, the respondent had indications as early as May 2018 that, given the applicant's residency status (refugee, pending asylum procedure), the specific circumstances of the individual case would have to be considered when granting benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II), particularly due to the applicant's declared consent to review the documents pursuant to the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). The information obtained from this review (insofar as it is included as copies in the administrative file sent by the respondent) would, in the court's opinion, have been sufficient to waive parts of the information contained in the document sent to the applicant. After providing the routing slip to the applicant, the respondent should have recognized, at the latest after the applicant's email inquiry of June 5, 2018, that the applicant was overwhelmed by the task of requesting the documents. This is evident from the applicant's emails of July 11, 2018 and August 2, 2018, which show that the applicant has neither sufficient knowledge of German nor knowledge of the administrative procedure.
The respondent was obligated to inform and advise the applicant about the necessary steps in accordance with Sections 14 and 15 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I), and Section 14, Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). He clearly failed to do so adequately. Consequently, he must bear the costs of the proceedings.
This decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
