DECISION
In the legal dispute
xxx,
Applicant,
Legal representative: Attorney Sven Adam
Lange, Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Werra-Meißner district, represented by the district committee, legal department 3.1,
Schlossplatz 1, 37269 Eschwege
Respondent,
The 11th Chamber of the Social Court of Kassel decided on March 9, 2020, through Judge xxx as Chairwoman of the Social Court:
The respondent shall bear the applicant's necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
The admissible application for costs is well-founded. Pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), the court must decide by judgment whether and to what extent the parties must reimburse each other's costs. The court must decide by order upon application if the proceedings are terminated otherwise (as in the present case by the declaration of settlement by the legal representative) (Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 SGG). The SGG does not contain an explicit provision regarding the conditions under which costs are to be reimbursed. Therefore, the legal principles of Sections 91 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) must be considered (see Meyer/Ladewig et al., SGG with commentary, 12th edition, Section 193, marginal notes 13 et seq.). When the legal dispute is settled by a declaration of settlement, the court must apply the legal principle of Section 91a ZPO, according to which the question of costs must be decided at its equitable discretion, taking into account the previous state of the proceedings and the merits of the case.
Even considering the respondent's negative stance on the issue of costs, most recently in the written submission of March 5, 2020, the adjudicating chamber, in view of the outcome of the proceedings with the respondent's admission of liability, considers it appropriate to impose the costs of the preliminary injunction proceedings on him.
The applicant, born in Ethiopia, who initially entered Italy and subsequently came to Germany, was granted benefits under Section 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in the amount of €325.88 by the respondent from January 23, 2018, until further notice, taking into account that the applicant was living in communal accommodation. From May 1, 2019, the benefits were reduced by decision dated April 29, 2019, based on Section 1a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the AsylbLG, and the benefit was lowered to €190.88 per month. The benefit was then granted at this amount for the period from November 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020, by decision dated November 1, 2019. By decision dated December 16, 2019, a further reduction in benefits was imposed based on the 2019 Global Compact for Migration, which came into effect on September 1, 2019, with benefits being reduced to €167 per month as of January 1, 2020. On January 13, 2020, the applicant's legal representative filed an objection with the respondent against the benefit reductions and simultaneously submitted a request for review of the decision to grant benefits dated April 29, 2019. Also on January 13, 2020, the applicant's legal representative applied to the Kassel Social Court for preliminary legal protection. In the preliminary injunction proceedings, the respondent, in view of the relevant case law of the adjudicating and the 12th Chamber of the Social Court of Kassel, refrained from reducing benefits pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and, by decision of February 17, 2020, also recognized the applicant's entitlements pursuant to Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and granted the monthly benefit of €335.58 from January 1, 2020.
The respondent refused to acknowledge costs and maintained that, without having reviewed the case file, the objection had been filed "out of the blue" and an application for a preliminary injunction had been submitted simultaneously. It would have been reasonable to expect the applicant to contact the authority before filing the application for an interim injunction and give it the opportunity to reconsider its decision.
Regardless of the fact that the applicant's legal representative did not address the issue of benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in the objection, review application, and application for preliminary legal protection filed on January 13, 2020, the case file clearly indicates that the proceedings concerned the reduction of benefits from an initial €325.88 per month to €190.88 per month, and finally to a mere €167 per month. Given these substantial benefit reductions, the applicant is not precluded from simultaneously seeking preliminary legal protection from the court while filing the objection and review applications with the respondent. Contrary to the respondent's assertion, it is unreasonable to expect the applicant to await the respondent's review in this situation. The monthly benefit cuts were simply too significant for that. Even though the review in the preliminary injunction proceedings before the Kassel Social Court led the respondent to grant benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) from January 1, 2020, contrary to the applicant's original request, the court's involvement was not premature or untimely because, at least according to the applicant's legal representative, the applicant had not received a written decision from the respondent regarding the benefit reduction effective November 1, 2019. Given the halving of the monthly benefits, it is legitimate to seek immediate legal protection. The fact that the respondent is using the applicant's challenge to the benefit reduction not only as an opportunity to review the benefit reductions but also the applicant's entitlement to so-called analogous benefits under Section 2 of the AsylbLG means that the respondent's decision of February 17, 2020, which is to be considered an acknowledgment in the preliminary injunction proceedings, must be seen as the basis for the respondent's obligation to bear the costs. The massive reduction in benefits not only legitimizes the applicant to seek preliminary legal protection, but the recognition of the application also triggers the respondent's obligation to cover the applicant's extrajudicial costs.
The decision is unappealable pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
