DECISION
S 27 AY 100/23
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Holzminden District
Legal Department and Municipal Supervision,
represented by the District Administrator,
Bürgermeister-Schrader-Straße 24, 37603 Holzminden
– Defendant –
The 27th Chamber of the Social Court of Hildesheim decided on September 25, 2023, through Judge xxx of the Social Court:
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for the necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
It is reasonable that the defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for the necessary extrajudicial costs.
The decision on costs is made pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Courts Act (SGG). According to this provision, the court decides by order upon application if the proceedings are concluded other than by judgment. If the legal dispute is settled by withdrawal of the action, accepted admission of liability, or a joint declaration of settlement, the court must decide on the matter at its equitable discretion, taking into account the previous state of the case and the merits of the dispute, in accordance with the legal principles of Section 91a of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) and Section 161 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO) (Leitherer in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer, SGG, 13th edition, Section 193, marginal notes 13, 13d). The court must consider the prospects of success of the main claim, as well as the grounds for the application for legal protection and for the settlement. The principle of causation must also be observed, i.e., to what extent the defendant gave cause for the action (Leitherer, ibid., marginal note 12b). However, there is generally no obligation to conduct further investigations (see LSG Lower Saxony-Bremen, decision of 19.12.2007, L 5 B 1/07 BL, juris Rn. 7).
In the present case, the main legal dispute was resolved in a manner other than by judgment. Therefore, upon the application of the parties, the allocation of costs had to be decided at the court's discretion, taking into account the facts and the state of the proceedings.
In the present case, the court deems it appropriate that the defendant must reimburse the plaintiff's necessary extrajudicial costs. This is based primarily on the consideration that the defendant only decided on the plaintiff's application of May 10, 2021, with a decision dated August 8, 2023 (posted on August 10, 2023), and that the plaintiff had already filed an action for failure to act on August 6, 2023. The defendant did not provide sufficient justification for his delay within the meaning of Section 88 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), and is therefore responsible for the processing time.
The decision is unappealable pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
