DECISION
In the litigation
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 Hildesheim Social Court decided on January 24, 2019 through the judge at the Social Court xxx:
The respondent must reimburse the applicant's necessary out-of-court costs.
REASONS
I
After the respondent approved the benefits in a decision dated December 19, 2018 and the applicant then declared the procedure closed, the parties involved are only arguing about the costs.
On April 9, 2018, after receiving a residence permit, the applicant submitted an application for benefits in accordance with Book II of the Social Security Code (SGB II). Documents from the immigration authorities were also sent showing that the applicant was accommodated in collective accommodation in Göttingen, as well as information on the current account and the chosen health insurance company.
On May 30, 2018, he was asked by the responsible officer to provide documents/documents required to process the application. Otherwise, the services could be denied due to lack of cooperation. Attached to this letter was a “running list” that specified the documents to be submitted. This included information on earnings, child benefit, a declaration of how the child has earned a living in the past three months, unemployment benefit I certificate, information on bank details, the customer number of the employment agency, questions about school qualifications and the parents' address as well as the social security number desired.
The applicant asked the clerk responsible for him by email on June 5, 2018 what he should do because he had no money and had been referred to him by the social welfare office last week. He was then informed that he should submit the documents that had been requested in the letter dated May 30, 2018. In an email dated July 11, 2018, the applicant apologized for not being able to submit the necessary documents yet because he was still “preparing” them.
With a decision dated July 16, 2018, the respondent denied the benefits due to a lack of cooperation.
The applicant lodged an objection to this on October 26, 2018. The requested documents are all irrelevant for the approval of the requested benefits. On November 9th, 2018, the applicant applied for benefits again for the period from November 1st, 2018. Documents were again requested from the applicant (letter from the applicant dated November 14, 2018).
On November 12, 2018, the applicant applied to the social court for interim legal protection. The rental agreement for the applicant's current accommodation was disclosed, it was explained that he had no assets and there were no maintenance claims against his parents living in Hong Kong . Information about school leaving certificates was provided and it was stated that there were no claims to child benefit or unemployment benefit I. The social security number was also provided (see written statement dated November 23, 2018). The respondent issued the corresponding decision on December 19, 2019.
The applicant requests a decision on costs at the expense of the respondent and states that the data and documents he requested were not necessary and in some cases do not even exist.
II.
According to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act, the court must, upon application, decide by order whether and to what extent the parties involved have to reimburse each other for costs if the proceedings - as here - are ended other than through a judgment.
The court must make the decision on costs according to its appropriate discretion, whereby the exercise of discretion must primarily take into account the probable outcome of the proceedings, which must be assessed based on the current status of the facts and dispute up to the time of settlement. Further criteria for the cost decision are, above all, the outcome of the process, the circumstances that led to the lawsuit being filed and the circumstances that led to the settlement of the legal dispute.
In the present case, assumption of costs by the respondent is justified. As early as May 2018, the documents available to him when he submitted the application as a result of being sent by other authorities gave the respondent evidence that, in the present case, SGB II benefits were being granted to the applicant due to his legal residence status (refugee, ongoing asylum procedure). Special features of the individual case would have to be taken into account, in particular due to the declared consent to inspect the data under AsylbLG. In the court's opinion, the resulting information (if it is contained as copies in the administrative file sent by the respondent) would have been suitable for omitting parts of the information contained in the document to the applicant. After handing over the docket to the applicant, the respondent should have realized, at the latest after the applicant's email request on June 5, 2018, that the applicant was overwhelmed by the request for the documents. This becomes clear from the applicant's emails from 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 would have been responsible for informing and advising the applicant about the necessary steps in accordance with Sections 14, 15 SGB I and Section 14 Paragraph 2 SGB II. He clearly did not do this sufficiently. As a result, he must therefore bear the costs of the proceedings.
In accordance with Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 SGG, this decision cannot be appealed.
