DECISION
In the complaint process
xxx,
Plaintiff, applicant and complainant,
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen,
against
Lahn-Dill-Kreis, represented by the district committee,
- legal department -,
Karl-Kellner-Ring 51, 35576 Wetzlar,
Defendant, respondent and respondent,
The 4th Senate of the Hessian State Social Court in Darmstadt decided on September 23, 2022 through the presiding judge at the State Social Court xxx, the judge at the State Social Court xxx and the judge at the State Social Court xxx:
In response to the plaintiff's complaint of August 16, 2022, the decision of the Gießen Social Court of July 21, 2022 is overturned and the plaintiff is granted legal aid for the first instance proceedings, S 18 AY 51/20.
The parties involved do not have to reimburse each other for any costs for the complaint procedure.
REASONS
The plaintiff's complaint of August 16, 2022 against the decision of the Gießen Social Court of July 21, 2022 with the (corresponding) request,
to annul the decision of the Gießen Social Court of July 21, 2022 and to grant him legal aid for the first instance proceedings (ref.: S 18 AY 51/20) with the assistance of lawyer Adam,
is justified.
According 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), a party who, due to their personal and economic circumstances, cannot afford the costs of the litigation, can only afford them in part or only in installments, is entitled to legal aid upon their application to be granted if the intended legal action offers a reasonable chance of success and does not appear to be wanton.
The standard for the prospects of success required in this respect must be determined in the light of the equality of legal protection guaranteed by fundamental rights. It follows from the principle of equality in Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with the principle of the rule of law from Article 20 Paragraph 3 GG. What is required here is an equalization of the legal protection options of a poor person with those of a well-off person who sensibly weighs up his chances of success taking into account the cost risk. There is a sufficient chance of success in this sense if the court considers the applicant's legal position to be at least justifiable based on the description of the facts and the available documents and is actually convinced of the necessity and possibility of providing evidence, i.e. there is a not remote possibility of achieving the legal protection objective In any case, the use of judicial legal protection must be enforced with the aid of all legal remedies provided for by procedural law (BVerfGE 81, 347 <357>; established case law, see also: Federal Constitutional Court, decisions of April 16, 2019, 1 BvR 2111/17; of September 4, 2017, 1 BvR 2443/16 and of February 14, 2017, 1 BvR 2507/16 - juris - for questions regarding the taking of evidence). If the court deems it necessary to obtain an expert report or other evidence of its own motion, the prospect of success cannot usually be denied (Schmidt in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer, SGG, commentary, 13th edition 2020, § 73a paragraph 7a). Legal aid may not be denied to the poor party for constitutional reasons, especially if the decision in the main matter depends on the answer to a difficult, as yet unresolved legal question (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of February 12, 2020, 1 BvR 1246/19).
These requirements are met here.
The question of the assessment of the amount of benefits for asylum seekers in shared accommodation, which is also relevant for the present proceedings, is pending before the Federal Constitutional Court under the reference number: 1 BvL 3/21.
Costs in the complaint procedure will not be reimbursed (Section 73a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGG in conjunction with Section 127 Paragraph 4 ZPO).
This decision is incontestable in accordance with Section 177 SGG.
