DECISION
In the legal dispute
1. xxx
– Plaintiff –
2. xxx
– Plaintiff –
3. xxx
– Plaintiff –
4. xxx
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative: for 1-4:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
City of Kaiserslautern,
represented by the Mayor, Willy-Brandt-Platz 1,
67657 Kaiserslautern
– Defendant –
The 15th Chamber of the Social Court of Speyer decided on July 28, 2023, through
Judge xxx of the Social Court
:
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiffs for their necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
According to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court decides by order, upon application, whether and to what extent the parties must reimburse each other's costs if the proceedings are terminated other than by judgment. The SGG does not explicitly specify the conditions under which costs are to be reimbursed. Sections 91 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) are not directly applicable; however, the principles established therein are generally to be considered when deciding on costs, taking into account the specific characteristics of social court proceedings. After the legal dispute is terminated by a declaration of settlement, the court decides at its equitable discretion, taking into account the previous state of the case and the legal arguments (see Section 91a ZPO). The decisive factors are, firstly, the likely outcome of the proceedings, but also who gave cause for the filing of the lawsuit, or whether the situation changed after the issuance of the contested administrative act and the losing party responded to this change by immediately acknowledging the claim. Furthermore, the specific reason for seeking legal protection or the incurrence of unnecessary costs by a party to the proceedings may also be taken into account as part of the discretionary considerations.
Based on the foregoing, it is equitable in this case to order the defendant to bear the plaintiffs' extrajudicial costs. The action for failure to act, seeking a decision on the review application of June 15, 2022, was initially well-founded. The six-month period stipulated in Section 88 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) had expired by the time the action was filed on January 8, 2023. The defendant had not issued a decision on the application before the action was filed. A decision was finally issued on March 29, 2023. Based on the current state of the proceedings, there were no legitimate grounds for the delay in the decision. The defendant's stated reason, namely that its focus was on providing for Ukrainian refugees due to a prioritization, is generally understandable, but does not constitute a sufficient reason within the meaning of Section 88 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG). A "sufficient reason" exists only if the authority was objectively prevented from deciding on the application or objection within the standard processing time due to the specific circumstances of the individual case (see Claus in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGG, 2nd ed., Section 88 SGG (as of June 15, 2022), para. 33). Based on the current state of the facts and legal arguments, this was not the case here. The stated reason for the delay, namely the prioritization of other matters, does not constitute a special circumstance of the present case. Furthermore, the review request merely raised a constitutionally grounded legal question, which the defendant could decide without further factual investigation.
Against this background, the plaintiffs were justified in seeking to enforce the decision on their application by filing an action for failure to act.
The decision is final (§ 172 para. 3 no. 3 SGG).
