VERDICT
In the litigation
xxx,
— Plaintiff —
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
City of Göttingen, represented by the mayor,
Hiroshimaplatz 1-4, 37083 Göttingen
— Defendant —
The 42nd Chamber of the Hildesheim Social Court recognized the following without an oral hearing in accordance with Section 124 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG) on October 2nd, 2019 by the social court judge xxx and the honorary judges xxx and xxx:
- Amending the decision of March 22, 2019 in the form of the objection decision of April 29, 2019, the defendant is sentenced to award the plaintiff privileged benefits in accordance with Section 2 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG in conjunction with SGB XII in the amount of 315.47 euros for April 2019 grant.
- The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for his extrajudicial costs.
- The appeal is allowed.
ACT
The plaintiff seeks the granting of higher privileged benefits in accordance with Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with the Social Code Twelfth Book (SGB XII) - social assistance - analogously for the month of April 2019.
The plaintiff, born in 19xx, is a Gambian citizen and entered the federal territory in 2015. On July 18, 2017, he concluded a vocational training contract to become a roofing technician from August 1, 2017 until the end of July 2020, whereby he was to receive a training fee of EUR 800 in the second year of training. In April 2019 he achieved 880 euros gross or 705.98 euros net. He had no usable assets.
In a decision dated March 22, 2019, the defendant granted the plaintiff privileged benefits for the period from December 1, 2018 to April 30, 2019, whereby EUR 0 was allocated to the month of April because it did not include any allowance in the training fee.
The plaintiff filed an objection on April 5, 2019, arguing that the proportional heating costs were wrongly not taken into account. In addition, the failure to take into account the income allowance in accordance with Section 82 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB
With a remedial decision dated April 29, 2019, the defendant approved proportional heating costs and otherwise rejected the objection. The reason given was that, according to the decree of the Lower Saxony Ministry of the Interior and Sport of March 4, 2019, the deduction of the tax allowance according to Section 82 Paragraph 3 SGB XII was not necessary.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against this on May 15, 2019.
He submits:
The defendant rightly assumes that there is a case of hardship in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB XII. However, he wrongly did not take the tax allowance into account from April 1, 2019. This defeats the purpose of equating those entitled to benefits with those under SGB II. The benefit purpose of creating incentives for employment does not disappear.
The plaintiff requests
to order the defendant, amending the decision of March 22, 2019 in the form of the objection decision of April 29, 2019, to grant the plaintiff the requested benefits at the statutory rate on a monthly basis from April 1, 2019, taking into account the legal opinion of the court.
The defendant requests
reject the complaint.
With reference to the decisions issued, he states:
Due to the decree and the additional information, the plaintiff is not entitled to a deduction of the allowances in accordance with Section 82 Paragraph 3 SGB XII. For reasons of equal treatment, no allowance can be set.
The parties involved agreed not to hold an oral hearing.
With regard to the further submissions of those involved, reference is made to the content of the court file and the administrative process involved.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The lawsuit is successful.
The chamber was able to decide the legal dispute without an oral hearing because the parties involved waived this in accordance with Section 124 Paragraph 2 SGG.
The defendant's decision of March 22, 2019 in the form of the objection decision of April 29, 2019 turns out to be unlawful to the extent stated and violates the plaintiff's own rights.
The plaintiff is entitled to privileged benefits amounting to 315.47 euros in the disputed month of April 2019. The plaintiff is entitled to benefits according to Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 4 AsylbLG and, after a 15-month reservation, without having improperly influenced the duration of his stay in the federal territory, has the eligibility requirements of Section 2 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG, especially as a case of hardship according to Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB XII was rightly affirmed by the defendant.
In April 2019, the plaintiff (undisputedly) needed help amounting to 804.25 euros. The Chamber is convinced that the adjusted income should be deducted from this. The plaintiff received a training allowance of EUR 880 gross or EUR 705.98 net. According to Section 82 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 SGB The defendant's argument that the decree of the Lower Saxony Ministry of the Interior of March 4, 2019 should be followed is not convincing. The regulation of the federal legislature in Section 82 Paragraph 3 SGB Only the federal legislature and not a state ministry has the authority to change or completely suspend the standard order of Section 82 Paragraph 3 SGB XII. As long as federal standards are in force and have not been declared unconstitutional, the administration and courts are bound by them in accordance with Article 20 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law in the context of the application of the law. The Chamber is convinced that the decree is irrelevant to the application of the law in the present individual case, which is determined solely by federal standards. Furthermore, the non-application of Section 82 Paragraph 3 SGB . The tax-free allowance regulation must be applied to these, especially since and because it has an incentive function. It is not clear why the incentive function should not apply to those entitled to analogue benefits. The Chamber is convinced that a corresponding will cannot be assumed by the legislature or this is not reflected in the wording of the law, so that unequal treatment contradicts the principle of equal treatment since no permissible differentiation criterion can be used.
In this case, in addition to the allowance according to Section 82 Paragraph 3 SGB .78 euros can be credited towards the need for assistance. This results in the determined entitlement to benefits of 315.47 euros (804.25 euros less 488.78 euros). The contested decision of March 22, 2019 in the form of the objection decision only concerns the period from December 2018 to April 2019, so that the following period cannot be the subject of these legal proceedings.
The cost decision follows from Section 193 Paragraph 1 SGG.
According to Section 144 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1, Paragraph 2 SGG, the appeal requires admission because the defendant's complaint of 315.47 euros is below the threshold of 750 euros. The appeal is allowed because the case is of fundamental importance.
Instructions on legal remedies follow.
