DECISION
In the legal dispute
xxx,
Plaintiff,
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam
, Lange-Geismar-Straße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Kassel District,
represented by the District Committee,
Department of Supervision and Public Order,
Wilhelmshöher Allee 19-21, 34117 Kassel,
Defendant,
The 11th Chamber of the Social Court of Kassel decided on August 17, 2023, through its presiding judge, Judge xxx:
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for his costs.
REASONS
I.
The plaintiff originally sought benefits according to the standard benefit level 1 for the period in dispute from March 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020.
The defendant granted the plaintiff, who lives in communal accommodation, benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at the level of standard benefit rate 2 (decision of June 25, 2020, partially revoked by decision of August 28, 2020). The objection filed against this decision on June 3, 2020, seeking benefits at the level of standard benefit rate 1 and relating only to the period from March 1, 2020 to April 30, 2020, was unsuccessful (objection decision of September 10, 2020). The objection filed on September 4, 2020, against the decision of August 28, 2020, which continued to seek benefits at the level of the standard benefit rate 1 but now extended to the entire period in dispute from March 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020, was also unsuccessful (objection decision of December 9, 2020).
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Kassel Social Court on September 24, 2020.
He argued that the application of standard benefit level 2 to him was unconstitutional.
The court granted legal aid and ordered the proceedings to be suspended, as an appeal and a referral under Article 100 of the Basic Law concerning the legal question at issue here were pending (decision of 23 February 2021).
Following the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) under file number 1 BvL 3/21 of October 19, 2022, the defendant acknowledged the claim in the amount of the difference between standard benefit level 1 and standard benefit level 2 and agreed to cover 31% of the plaintiff's costs. In this regard, he referred to the remedial decision of March 8, 2023.
The plaintiff accepted the acknowledgment to settle the legal dispute and declared the legal dispute settled in all other respects.
He now requests
a ruling that the defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for his costs.
The defendant argues that full cost coverage is inappropriate. The plaintiff based his claim on benefits at the statutory rate and, in his objection and statement of claim, questioned the constitutionality of Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), thus also seeking benefits under Section 2 of the AsylbLG. However, his claim was not granted in this respect, resulting in a success rate of 31%.
II.
The decision on costs is based on Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG). The legal dispute of the plaintiff, who is privileged to bear costs, was resolved by the accepted admission of liability, unlike by a judgment, and the plaintiff has filed a motion for costs. The decision on costs is at the court's discretion and is primarily based on the prospects of success, unless considerations of causation or other reasons justify a different decision.
The lawsuit was entirely successful. The defendant acknowledged benefits at the level of standard benefit rate 1 for the entire period in dispute.
The court is convinced that the plaintiff did not, in particular, seek benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). Relevant for the interpretation of the claim is the so-called principle of party disposition expressed in Section 123 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), meaning that the plaintiff determines the precise subject matter of the dispute, i.e., defines what the court decides. Section 123 SGG clarifies that the decisive factor is not the external form of the application, but its discernible content, the actual objective of the legal protection sought. The starting point for determining what constitutes the subject matter of the dispute in the specific proceedings is therefore the application and the plaintiff's other submissions. According to the general legal principle of Section 133 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the true intention of the declarant must be ascertained (cf. Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of February 24, 2011 – B 14 AS 49/10 R –, SozR 4-4200 § 21 No. 10 –, juris para. 12). In determining the scope of the claim, both the facts presented and those documented in the file or otherwise established during the proceedings can serve as a basis. The principle of party disposition also dictates that the court, in its decision, may not exceed or award anything other than what the plaintiff has (after interpretation) submitted to it for decision ("ne ultra petita," cf. also Federal Social Court, Judgment of May 27, 2014 – B 5 RE 6/14 R –, SozR 4-2600 § 106 No. 4 –, juris para. 19).
While the defendant is correct in asserting that the plaintiff's claim is unproductive, as it refers to benefits "at the statutory rate," which could potentially include those under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), it is clear from the plaintiff's objections, his statement of claim, and the defendant's other administrative files that his actual objective from the outset was to obtain (higher) benefits corresponding to standard benefit level 2, rather than the benefits originally granted here according to standard benefit level 1. The defendant was also aware of this, as is evident from the defendant's letter to the Regional Council dated May 4, 2020 (page 123 of the administrative file). The defendant has therefore fully satisfied the plaintiff's request.
The fact that the plaintiff, in his objection and statement of claim, sought a comparison between Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and Section 2 of the AsylbLG in order to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG, does not mean that he actually sought benefits under Section 2 of the AsylbLG. Reference should also be made here to the letter from the plaintiff's legal representative dated April 19, 2020 (pp. 120 et seq. of the administrative file). It is evident there as well that an adjustment to the standard benefit level 1 is being sought, nothing more and nothing less.
Finally, it should be noted that in cases involving unconstitutional laws, a cost order must always be issued against the defendant authority. Insofar as the Federal Constitutional Court has considered cost allocations in favor of plaintiffs, this only concerned situations in which benefits could not be awarded retroactively in a constitutionally compliant amount, but the unconstitutionality of the regulations should nevertheless be taken into account in favor of the affected parties (Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of February 9, 2010 – 1 BvL 1/09, BVerfGE 125, 175, Juris para. 219; Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of July 18, 2012 – 1 BvL 10/10, BVerfGE 132, 134, para. 113).
The appeal against this decision is excluded, § 172 para. 3 SGG.
