DECISION
S 15 AS 4211/20 ER
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Applicant –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Jobcenter Northeim,
represented by the management,
Scharnhorstplatz 14, 37154 Northeim
– Respondent –
The 15th Chamber of the Hildesheim Social Court decided on December 23, 2020, through Judge xxx of the Social Court:
The respondent is obligated in principle to reimburse the applicant for the necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
Pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), the court decides by order upon application if the proceedings are concluded other than by judgment. The present legal dispute was concluded by a joint declaration of settlement and thus other than by judgment. The respondent has filed a motion for costs.
In deciding on costs pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court must exercise its equitable discretion, taking into account the current state of the case and the legal arguments. The decisive factor is, in particular, the prospects of success of the action, i.e., the likely outcome of the proceedings. However, other criteria must also be considered within the scope of this discretion. The reasons for filing and resolving the application, as well as the reason for the application, may be relevant in this regard.
In the present case, the court exercised its discretion, taking into account the circumstances of the legal dispute, by ordering the respondent to reimburse the applicant's necessary extrajudicial costs.
In exercising its discretion, the court considered the outcome of the proceedings. Ultimately, the respondent revoked the reduction notices at issue here, thus placing himself in the role of the losing party.
Insofar as the respondent rejects reimbursement of costs on the grounds of a lack of grounds for an injunction, i.e., a lack of particular urgency, it overlooks the fact that the subject of this case was not an application for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), but rather an application for an order suspending the enforcement of the administrative act pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the SGG. Such an application is justified if a balancing of interests shows that the applicant's private interest in suspending the contested administrative act outweighs the public interest in its enforcement. A key criterion is the prospects of success in the main proceedings, which must be examined summarily. Here, the respondent revoked the reduction notices and thereby acknowledged their illegality. Had the case been contested, the decision would therefore, in all likelihood, have been in favor of the applicant. Unlike decisions under paragraph 2, in these cases no particular urgency is usually required (MKLS/Keller, 13th ed. 2020, SGG § 86b Rn.12f with further references)
This decision is final and cannot be appealed pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
