COURT ORDER
In the legal dispute
xxx,
Plaintiff,
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam
Lange, Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Lahn-Dill district, represented by the district council, legal department,
Karl-Kellner-Ring 51, 35576 Wetzlar,
Defendant,
The 18th Chamber of the Social Court of Gießen, without oral proceedings, rendered the following judgment on January 23, 2023, through its presiding judge, Judge xxx of the Social Court:
The decision of 09.03.2021, as amended by the appeal decision of 05.07.2021, is hereby amended.
The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff benefits for the period from 1 April to 30 June 2021 in accordance with Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in conjunction with the Standard Needs Assessment Act and Sections 28a and 40 of the SGB XII, with the proviso that, in the case of accommodation in communal accommodation within the meaning of Section 53 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act or in a reception facility pursuant to Section 44 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act, a standard need in the amount of the respective current standard need level 1 shall be used as the basis for calculating benefits for each single adult.
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for the necessary extrajudicial costs incurred in pursuing his legal rights appropriately.
The plaintiff is granted legal aid without installment payments for the first instance proceedings, starting on July 9, 2021, with the appointment of attorney Adam. The appointment is subject to the same conditions as for an attorney practicing within the district of the court hearing the case.
FACTS
The dispute concerns the amount of benefits to be paid to the plaintiff.
By decision dated 09.03.2021, the defendant paid the plaintiff benefits in the amount of EUR 328.00 per month from 01.03.2021.
The objection was unsuccessful (objection decision dated 05.07.2021).
The lawsuit filed on July 5, 2021, is directed against this.
The plaintiff requests that
the defendant, by amending the benefit award for the period 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 as amended by the objection decision of 05.07.2021, be ordered to grant the plaintiff the requested benefits for the period 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 in the statutory amount, taking into account the legal opinion of the court.
The defendant requests
that the action be dismissed.
The court had the defendant's files before it.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Pursuant to Section 105 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court was able to decide by court order without an oral hearing, as the case does not present any particular difficulties of a factual or legal nature and the facts are clear; the parties involved were heard on this matter.
The lawsuit is successful.
The contested decisions are unlawful and violate the plaintiff's rights, § 54 para. 2 SGG.
The plaintiff has a claim against the defendant for higher benefits. This claim arises from the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of October 19, 2022. In its decision of October 19, 2022 (1 BvL 3/21), published on November 24, 2022, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is incompatible with the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living guaranteed by Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 GG. The decision concerns single adults who live in so-called collective accommodations and have been lawfully residing in the Federal Republic of Germany for at least 18 months. As of September 1, 2019, the legislature has assigned these individuals a 10% lower entitlement to subsistence benefits, basing them not on the standard benefit level 1, but on the newly created "special needs level" of standard benefit level 2 as defined in Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). According to the Federal Constitutional Court, this is incompatible with the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living. It is not apparent that savings are regularly achieved, or even can be achieved, through shared resources in communal accommodations that would justify a 10% reduction in benefits. While the legislature can, in principle, consider a potential for savings that is not utilized by those in need but is actually available and reasonable, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity of state benefits, there is a lack of sufficiently robust evidence to support the assumption that the necessary conditions for such savings are actually met in communal accommodations.
The decision on costs is based on § 193 SGG.
Since the action is successful according to the above explanations, legal aid was to be granted with the appointment of lawyer Adam, § 73a para. 1 sentence 1 SGG in conjunction with § 114 para. 1 ZPO.
The following is information on legal remedies.
