DECISION
In administrative law matters
Mr. xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Göttingen district
represented by the district administrator,
Reinhäuser Landstrasse 4, 37083 Göttingen
– Defendant –
due to involvement in cost contributions
The Göttingen Administrative Court - 2nd Chamber - decided on April 2, 2020:
The plaintiff is granted legal aid once the application is submitted and lawyer Adam from Göttingen is assigned.
REASONS:
The application for approval of legal aid with the assistance of lawyer Adam is justified because the plaintiff is not in a position to bear the costs of the litigation due to his personal and economic circumstances and the legal prosecution offers a sufficient prospect of success (§ 166 VwGO in conjunction with § 114 paragraph 1 sentence 1 ZPO).
Legal basis of the defendant's decision of May 7, 2019, which is challenged in the lawsuit, with which he was informed by the plaintiff for the period from January 1st. The plaintiff, born on xx.xx.xxxx, has been receiving help in the form of home education since September 14, 2017 in accordance with § 41 in conjunction with § 34 SGB VIII. He earned net income totaling 1,237.60 euros from a mini-job between May and December 2018. The defendant calculated the above-mentioned cost contribution spread over the entire year and taking into account the credit factor of 75% in accordance with Section 94 Paragraph 6 Sentence 1 SGB VIII.
The defendant probably wrongly refused to apply Section 94 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 SGB VIII when calculating the cost contribution. According to this provision, a lower cost contribution can be charged or the cost contribution can be waived entirely if the income comes from an activity that serves the purpose of the service.
According to the legislature, the purposes of youth welfare measures include integrating young people into society and educating and motivating them to live an independent, self-responsible life (BT-Ds 17/13023, p. 15). The opinion is expressed in the literature that any type of employment serves the purpose of self-employment as the goal of youth welfare measures (see Schindler, in: Münder, Meysen, Trenczek (ed.), Frankfurt Commentary SGB VIII, 8th edition 2019, § 94 Rn. 16). This alone justifies the approval of legal aid.
But even if one wanted to agree with the defendant, from the reference contained in Section 94 Paragraph 6 Sentence 3 SGB VIII, that in particular income from social and cultural activities in which the focus is not on employment but on commitment, As a result of the fact that not every earned income serves the purpose of youth welfare, the path to the application of Section 94 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 SGB VIII is not blocked. It seems too narrow if the defendant bases his legal assessment primarily on the fact that the auxiliary work carried out by the plaintiff in his mini-job in a pizzeria was solely intended to earn money. Rather, it emerges from the available reports in the aid plan procedure that the plaintiff has had problems with the responsible use of money in the past and that work was done to get this problem under control when providing aid. Furthermore, the plaintiff's increasing independence was a key aim of the help. Part-time employment can be beneficial to both goals, even if it was just a temporary job. The assistance plan reports also mention several times that the plaintiff intends to obtain a driver's license and that he should be encouraged to save money for this, among other things. The bank statements he presented (transfer to a driving school in May 2019) indicate that he is using his money for this goal. According to the legal justification for Section 93 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 SGB VIII (BT-Ds 17/13023, p. 15), taking on an activity can e.g. B. as a newspaper delivery person to finance your driving license can be an expression of special personal responsibility in individual cases. There is therefore much to suggest that the scope of application of Section 94 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 SGB VIII has been opened and the contested decision will have to be repealed due to a loss of discretion. The defendant will have to exercise the discretion granted to him, although it seems quite conceivable to the Chamber that he will come to the conclusion that he will completely refrain from charging a contribution to costs.
This decision is incontestable for those involved in the procedure (Section 166 VwGO, Section 127 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 ZPO).
