DECISION
L 8 AY 32/21 NZB
S 42 AY 34/21 Social Court Hildesheim
In the legal dispute
1. xxx,
2. xxx,
3. xxx,
4. xxx,
5. xxx,
6. xxx,
7. xxx,
– Plaintiff and appellant –
Legal representative:
for 1-7: Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Hildesheim District 908 Legal Department,
represented by the District Administrator,
Bischof-Janssen-Straße 31, 31134 Hildesheim
– Defendant and Respondent –
The 8th Senate of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court decided on April 5, 2022 in Celle through Judges xxx and xxx and Judge xxx:
The appeal against the judgment of the Hildesheim Social Court of June 18, 2021, is granted upon the plaintiffs' complaint.
The plaintiffs are granted legal aid for the appeal proceedings, with the appointment of attorney Adam, Göttingen. Payment in installments is not ordered.
REASONS:
The plaintiffs' appeal against the refusal to grant leave to appeal in the judgment of the Hildesheim Social Court of June 18, 2021, which was filed in due form and time (§ 145 para. 1 sentence 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG)), is also admissible in all other respects, in particular because the value of the subject matter of the appeal does not exceed €750.00 (§ 144 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 1 SGG) and the legal dispute does not concern recurring or ongoing benefits for more than one year (§ 144 para. 1 sentence 2 SGG). The dispute concerns, taking into account the claim for the period from January 30, 2021, onwards, the amount of the benefits claimed. The judgment of the Social Court (SG) of 29 February 2021 (which was not appealed) also grants higher monetary benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at the level of benefits pursuant to Section 2 of the AsylbLG for the period from 1 December 2019 to 29 January 2020, thus totaling €717.00 based on two full months (December 2019: €2,257.00 less €1,920.00 already granted; January 2020: €2,300.00 less €1,920.00 already granted).
The appeal is well-founded because the appeal must be admitted due to the fundamental importance of the case (§ 144 para. 2 no. 1 of the Social Court Act). A case is of fundamental importance if the decision to be made has an impact beyond the individual case (broad effect) and depends on the answer to a legal question requiring clarification. The question has broad effect if it has general significance beyond the individual case in an indefinite number of cases or at least a majority of further cases, i.e., if it develops or standardizes the law in the public interest. Admission is precluded if the action raises a question of fundamental importance, but the legal dispute must already be decided for other reasons and the legal question raised is therefore irrelevant. In this case, the question is not relevant to the decision or capable of clarification and is therefore – at least for this reason – not admissible. The fundamental importance serves to establish legal unity and to develop the law (cf. Wehrhahn in jurisPK-SGG, 1st ed. 2017, § 144 SGG, as of 05.11.2021, para. 31 with further references). Based on this, the legal question raised by the plaintiffs in their appeal, namely whether the monetary benefits specified in Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) (in their versions applicable from September 1, 2019) are constitutional, is of fundamental importance because the Senate, in its decision of January 26, 2021 – L 8 AY 21/19 – referred the question to the Federal Constitutional Court for a ruling as to whether the essentially identical predecessor provisions, Section 3 Paragraph 2 Sentences 1 and 2 of the AsylbLG and Section 3 Paragraph 2 Sentence 5 in conjunction with Paragraph 1 Sentences 5 and 8 of the AsylbLG in the version applicable in 2018 as published on October 20, 2015 (Federal Law Gazette I 1722) and March 11, 2016 (Federal Law Gazette I 390) and by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs on October 26, 2015 (Federal Law Gazette I 1793) are compatible with the Basic Law. The proceedings are pending before the Federal Constitutional Court under file number 1 BvL 5/21.
With the admission of the appeal, the complaint procedure continues as an appeal procedure; there is no need to file an appeal (Section 145 Paragraph 5 of the Social Court Act).
The decision on costs remains reserved for the appeal proceedings (Leitherer in Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer/Schmidt, SGG, 13th ed. 2020, § 145 para. 10).
The requirements for granting legal aid pursuant to Section 73a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) for the second-instance proceedings are met. For the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs' legal action has the necessary sufficient prospect of success. The plaintiffs also meet the financial requirements. The appointment of legal counsel is based on Section 121 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).
This decision is final and cannot be appealed, § 177 SGG.
