DECISION
in the proceedings
xxx,
– Applicant –
Legal representative: Attorney Sven Adam
, Lange-Geismar-Str. 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
State of Baden-Württemberg,
represented by the Ludwigsburg District Office, Asylum Department,
Hindenburgstr. 40, 71638 Ludwigsburg
– Respondent –
The 16th Chamber of the Social Court of Heilbronn
on February 21, 2024 in Heilbronn
through Judge xxx of the Social Court
without oral proceedings:
The respondent must reimburse the applicant's extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.
The applicant seeks reimbursement from the respondent for his extrajudicial costs incurred in preliminary legal protection proceedings initiated by application dated January 8, 2024.
The applicant is a Nigerian national and submitted an asylum application in Germany on December xx, 2017. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees rejected this asylum application as inadmissible by decision dated April 23, 2020, pursuant to Section 29, Paragraph 1, No. 2 of the Asylum Act. By decision dated December 14, 2023, the respondent reduced the applicant's benefits pursuant to Section 1a, Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act for six months, from December 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, by revoking the most recently issued benefit decision and granting reduced benefits for six months.
The applicant, through his authorized representative, filed an objection to this decision on January 8, 2024. At the same time, he submitted an application for preliminary legal protection to the Heilbronn Social Court. He bases this application primarily on constitutional concerns regarding the provisions of Section 1a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
The respondent declared in a letter dated January 17, 2024, that the contested decision was overturned. The applicant's representative declared the proceedings concluded in a letter dated January 19, 2024.
II.
The applicant's extrajudicial costs must be reimbursed.
Pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Procedure Act (SGG), the court must decide in its judgment whether and to what extent the parties are to reimburse each other's costs; it decides by order upon application if the proceedings – as in this case – have been concluded other than by judgment. The content of this decision is determined at the court's discretion, irrespective of the parties' applications (see Meyer-Ladewig, SGG, 14th ed. 2020, Section 193, marginal notes 13 et seq.). In principle, the court must consider all circumstances of the individual case when exercising its discretion appropriately or equitably. In cases resolved without a judgment, the outcome of the proceedings, assessed according to the previous state of the facts and the legal arguments at the time of resolution, is of primary importance (see Federal Social Court, decision of September 7, 1998 – NZS 1999, 264). However, it is equally important to consider whether a social security institution gave cause for the action or whether the factual and legal situation has changed since the decision was issued. If a party takes this into account immediately, they may not have to bear any costs. The latter is a consequence of the principle of causation and reflects the legal principle of Section 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Based on the aforementioned principles, the applicant must reimburse the extrajudicial costs, taking into account that the application was entirely successful, which is why the respondent also acknowledged the claim. It is also not equitable to exempt someone who, by issuing an administrative act, gives rise to legal remedies, from the burden of costs simply because they immediately acknowledge the claim in court proceedings. This would only be justified, as is also evident from the literature cited by the respondent, if the immediate acknowledgment were a reaction to a change in the factual or legal situation. However, no such change in the factual or legal situation has occurred here.
This decision is final and cannot be appealed pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
