DECISION
In the legal dispute
xxx,
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam, Lange Geismarstraße 55,
37073 Göttingen
– Applicant –
against
Altmarkkreis Salzwedel, represented by the District Administrator,
Karl-Marx-Straße 32, 29410 Salzwedel
– Respondent –
The 25th Chamber of the Social Court of Magdeburg decided on April 5, 2024, through its presiding judge, Judge xxx of the Social Court:
1. The suspensive effect of the objection of March 7, 2024, against the decision of February 22, 2024, is ordered.
2. By way of preliminary injunction, the respondent is ordered to grant the applicant, provisionally and subject to the right of recovery, benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1 for the period from March 10, 2024, onwards, taking into account any benefits already granted, until a final and binding decision is reached on the applicant's objection of March 13, 2024, against the respondent's decision of February 15, 2024, but no
, 2024. 3. The application is otherwise dismissed.
4. The respondent shall reimburse the applicant three-quarters of his extrajudicial costs.
5. The applicant is granted legal aid without payment in installments, with the appointment of lawyer Sven Adam, Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen.
REASONS
I.
The parties are in dispute in preliminary proceedings concerning a decision by the respondent dated February 22, 2024, by which the benefits granted to the applicant by decision of February 15, 2024, pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), were limited to those pursuant to Section 1a, paragraph 7 of the AsylbLG. Furthermore, the applicant seeks, by way of preliminary injunction, the granting of so-called analogous benefits pursuant to Section 2 of the AsylbLG at standard benefit level 1.
The applicant, born on [date redacted] 1994, states that he is of Syrian nationality. He currently resides in communal accommodation. Most recently, the respondent granted him basic benefits pursuant to Section 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for the period beginning January 1, 2024, in the amount of €413 per month, taking into account standard benefit level 2, by decision dated February 15, 2024. By letter dated March 13, 2024, the applicant filed an objection and requests benefits pursuant to Section 2 of the AsylbLG. He also requests that he be granted 100% of the standard benefit rates pursuant to Section 3a of the AsylbLG. The provisions of Sections 3, 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 lit. b, Paragraph 2 No. 2 lit. b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) are manifestly unconstitutional, as they violate the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living guaranteed by Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with the social state principle of Article 20 Paragraph 1 GG (cf. Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of February 9, 2010 – Case No.: 1 BvL 1/09, BVerfGE 125, 175) and contravene the general principle of equality, Article 3 Paragraph 1 GG. The objection has not yet been decided.
According to his own statement, the applicant entered the Federal Republic of Germany on May 23, 2022. On May 27, 2022, he submitted a formal asylum application, which was rejected as inadmissible by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) in a decision dated August 8, 2022, because Lithuania had become responsible for processing the asylum application in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation. Deportation to Lithuania was ordered. By decision of the Magdeburg Administrative Court (VG) dated September 5, 2022, file number 3 B 262/22 MD, the suspensive effect of the applicant's action of August 22, 2022, against the deportation order in the BAMF decision of August 8, 2022, was initially granted. By further decision of the Administrative Court dated January 29, 2024, and amending the decision of the court dated September 5, 2022, the application for an order suspending the effect of the applicant's action against the decision of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) dated August 8, 2020, was rejected. This final decision of the Administrative Court, file number 3 B 24/24 MD, was issued ex officio pursuant to Section 80 Paragraph 7 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO) due to changed circumstances.
In a status notification dated February 1, 2024, the immigration authority informed the respondent that the applicant might meet the criteria of Section 1a Paragraph 7 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG): The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) had determined in its decision of August 8, 2022, that the applicant was not entitled to asylum, that his temporary residence permit had expired on January 29, 2024, pursuant to Section 67 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act (AsylG), and that the deportation order had been enforceable since January 29, 2024. Transfer proceedings to Lithuania had been initiated.
Subsequently, the respondent notified the applicant by letter dated February 1, 2024, of a planned reduction in benefits pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 7 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) effective February 16, 2024. The applicant did not respond.
By decision dated February 22, 2024, the respondent revoked the benefits previously granted under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) with effect from March 1, 2024, and granted the applicant benefits pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 7 of the AsylbLG in the amount of €206 per month for the period from March 1, 2024, to August 31, 2024. The applicant filed an objection to this decision on March 7, 2024, which has not yet been decided.
On March 10, 2024, the applicant requested preliminary legal protection from the court. His initial application sought only to suspend the enforcement of the objection filed on March 7, 2024. In a further letter dated March 13, 2024, the applicant now also requests that he be granted benefits pursuant to Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). The applicant argues that Section 1a Paragraph 7 of the AsylbLG is unconstitutional. He contends that a constitutionally compliant interpretation would require the additional, unwritten element of an individually culpable breach of duty. However, he argues that no such individual breach of duty can be attributed to him. Furthermore, he asserts that he should have been switched to benefits under Section 2 of the AsylbLG as of November 23, 2023, since he has been in Germany since May 23, 2022. Alternatively, the applicant argues that, with regard to benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), he should be granted benefits at standard benefit level 1 instead of standard benefit level 2. He contends that the provisions of Sections 3 and 3a, paragraph 1, no. 2b, and paragraph 2, no. 2b of the AsylbLG are manifestly unconstitutional, as they violate the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living guaranteed by Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with the social welfare principle of Article 20, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG), and contravene the general principle of equality. In addition to numerous first-instance decisions of social courts in preliminary injunction proceedings, he also referred to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of October 19, 2022, published on November 23, 2022, under file number 1 BvL 3/21. In its ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court declared Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Number 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) incompatible with Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with the social welfare principle enshrined in Article 20 Paragraph 1 GG, insofar as a single adult is only granted a standard allowance at the level of standard allowance level 2. The Federal Constitutional Court's decision is also applicable to the provisions of Section 3a Paragraph 1 Number 2b and Section 3a Paragraph 2 Number 2b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
The applicant requests verbatim that
the suspensive effect of the applicant's objection of March 7, 2024, against the respondent's decision of February 22, 2024, be reinstated and that the respondent be ordered by way of an interim injunction to grant the applicant, provisionally and subject to the right of recovery, so-called analogous benefits pursuant to Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in the standard benefit level 1 until a final and binding decision is reached on the applicant's objection of March 7, 2024, against the respondent's decision of February 22, 2024, and on the objection of March 13, 2024, against the decision of February 15, 2024.
The respondent requests that
the application be dismissed.
The prerequisites for ordering the suspensive effect of the applicant's objection of March 7, 2024, are not met. The applicant fulfills the criteria of Section 1a Paragraph 7 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). Therefore, the respondent cannot make any other decision.
For persons living in communal accommodations and receiving benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG, the provision of benefits for necessary personal needs and other necessary expenses is based on standard benefit level 2. The supervisory authority has not ordered an analogous application of the Federal Constitutional Court's decision under file number 1 BvL 3/21. Therefore, the statutory regulations remain in effect.
For further details of the parties' submissions and the facts of the case, reference is made to the administrative files of the respondent and the court file, which were the subject of the decision-making process.
II.
The application for preliminary legal protection is admissible and largely justified.
Interpreted according to the principle of most-favored-nation treatment, the subject matter of these preliminary injunction proceedings is twofold: firstly, the suspension of the effect of the objection of March 7, 2024, against the decision of February 22, 2024 (see point 1); and secondly, the obligation of the respondent to grant the applicant benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG); alternatively, the obligation to grant benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG at standard benefit level 1 (see point 2). While the application of the legally represented applicant does not contain an explicit alternative request, it is clear from the submission of the applicant's attorney dated March 13, 2024, that the applicant alternatively seeks the basic benefits granted under Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG at standard benefit level 1.
The court is not bound by the applicant's written application (§ 123 Social Court Act – SGG). However, his request is expressed with sufficient clarity.
1.
With regard to the desired purpose, the suspensive effect of the objection of March 7, 2024, against the decision of February 22, 2024, must be ordered. A restoration of the suspensive effect of the objection is therefore not possible – contrary to the application of the applicant's representative. Pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 1 No. 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court may, upon application, order the suspensive effect in whole or in part in cases where an objection or appeal does not have suspensive effect. The request for an order of suspensive effect is admissible. According to Section 11 Paragraph 4 No. 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), an objection and an appeal against an administrative act in which a restriction of the entitlement to benefits under Section 1a AsylbLG is established do not have suspensive effect. An order for the suspensive effect of the objection is possible. The contested decision of 22 February 2024 has not yet become legally binding due to the timely and formally correct objection filed on 7 March 2024 (§ 77 SGG).
The application is also well-founded with regard to the order for suspensive effect, because the private interest in deferral outweighs the public interest in immediate enforcement. The private interest in deferral prevails if there are serious doubts about the legality of the contested administrative act or if enforcement would result in undue hardship for the addressee not justified by overriding public interests. Serious doubts about the legality of an administrative act exist if the success of the legal remedy is more likely than its failure (Meyer-Ladewig, SGG, 8th ed., § 86a para. 27). The requirements for the prospects of success are lower the more severe the effect of the administrative measure or the more easily it can be reversed (cf. Binder in Hk-SGG, § 86b para. 13 ff.). In the event of an uncertain outcome, the consequences that would arise if the preliminary injunction were not granted in favor of the applicant, but the lawsuit were later successful, must be weighed against those that would arise if the requested preliminary injunction were granted, but the lawsuit were unsuccessful.
Due to unresolved and complex constitutional questions that cannot and need not be definitively resolved in expedited proceedings (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 14 February 2017 – 1 BvR 2507/16 para. 19), the suspensive effect of the objection against the decision of 22 February 2024 must be ordered as a result of the balancing of interests to be carried out.
The legal basis for the benefit restriction is Sections 1a Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 and 14 Paragraph 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG): Individuals entitled to benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 1 Number 1 or 5 of the AsylbLG, whose asylum application has been rejected as inadmissible by a decision of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) pursuant to Section 29 Paragraph 1 Number 1 in conjunction with Section 31 Paragraph 6 of the Asylum Act (AsylG) and for whom deportation has been ordered pursuant to Section 34a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Alternative 2 of the Asylum Act, receive benefits only in accordance with Section 1a Paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG, even if the decision is not yet legally binding (Section 1a Paragraph 7 Sentence 1 of the AsylbLG). This does not apply if a court has ordered the suspension of the deportation order (Section 1a Paragraph 7 Sentence 2 of the AsylbLG). The benefit restrictions under this law are limited to six months (Section 14 Paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG). The applicant indisputably fulfills these written requirements: The applicant is generally entitled to benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). Furthermore, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected the asylum application as inadmissible in its decision of August 8, 2022, and ordered the applicant's deportation to Lithuania pursuant to Section 34a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Act (AsylG), because Lithuania is responsible for the applicant's further asylum procedure pursuant to Article 18 Paragraph 1 Letter c of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 26, 2013 (Dublin III Regulation). However, it remains unclear under the highest court's rulings whether, by way of a teleological-systematic reduction of the provision, it should also be required as an unwritten element of the offense that the person entitled to benefits has engaged in conduct contrary to their obligations. This, in turn, would likely require that the respondent be informed, within a specified timeframe, of the possibility of voluntary departure to avoid consequences under benefit law – which did not occur in this case. The court merely refers in this regard to the case law of the Bavarian State Social Court, which states that a restriction of benefits without reference to misconduct contradicts the existing sanction systems in both the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act and the basic income support for jobseekers and social assistance, according to which the reduction of benefits always requires specific, reprehensible conduct or omission on the part of the benefit recipient. Therefore, for the restriction of entitlement under Section 1a Paragraph 7 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) to be justified by means of a norm-preserving, teleological reduction, it must be required that the beneficiary be accused of conduct contrary to their obligations (BayLSG, decisions of 6 September 2022, file no. L 8 AY 73/22 B ER, of 11 April 2022, file no. L 8 AY 34/22 B ER, of 15 March 2022, file no. L 8 AY 7/22 B ER and of 18 January 2022, file no. L 8 AY 103/21 B ER, as well as judgment of 31 May 2023, file no. L 8 AY 7/23). This legal question is currently pending before the Federal Social Court (BSG) under file number B 8 AY 6/23 R (appeal against the judgment of the Bavarian State Social Court of 31.05.2023).
The balancing of interests must be carried out in favor of the applicant, since subsistence-level benefits are at issue and, if the restriction of entitlement continues, there is a risk of violating the fundamental right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living (Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law), should it transpire in the main proceedings that benefits were wrongfully withheld. According to the Federal Constitutional Court's guidelines, a violation of Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law must be prevented. The urgency of ordering the suspension of the decision arises from the subsistence-level function of the requested social benefits.
After all this, the suspensive effect of the objection of 07.03.2024 against the decision of 22.02.2024 was to be ordered.
2.
The applicant is also entitled to benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1, and not, as previously granted, only at standard benefit level 2. In this respect, the applicant's application for a preliminary injunction is successful. The application for a preliminary injunction is unsuccessful insofar as the applicant seeks so-called analogous benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
Pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court may issue a preliminary injunction concerning the subject matter of the dispute if there is a risk that a change in the existing state of affairs would hinder or substantially prevent the applicant from exercising a right. Preliminary injunctions are also permissible to regulate a provisional state of affairs with regard to a disputed legal relationship if such regulation appears necessary to avert substantial disadvantages. According to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 of the SGG in conjunction with Section 920 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), the prerequisite for issuing a preliminary injunction is the demonstration of both a claim for an injunction (i.e., a substantive claim for performance in the main proceedings) and grounds for an injunction (i.e., the urgency of the regulation to avert substantial disadvantages). A claim for an injunction and grounds for an injunction are deemed credible if their factual prerequisites exist with a high degree of probability (cf. Keller in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer/Schmidt, SGG, 13th edition 2020, § 86b para. 41).
The more serious the threatened violation of fundamental rights and the higher the probability of its occurrence, the more intensive the factual and legal analysis of the matter must be, even in preliminary injunction proceedings. If a clarification of the factual and legal situation commensurate with the threatened violation of fundamental rights is not possible in expedited proceedings—for example, because it would require further factual investigations that cannot be carried out within the short time available—a decision may be made based on a balancing of interests (Federal Constitutional Court).<BVerfG> , Decision of 14 March 2019 – 1 BvR 169/19 – juris Rn. 15 with further references).
The Chamber is convinced that the applicant has credibly demonstrated a claim to benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at the standard benefit level 1, but not to so-called analogous benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
a)
Upon preliminary review, the applicant is not entitled to benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). According to Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG, and notwithstanding Sections 3 and 4 as well as 6 to 7, Book XII of the Social Code and Part 2 of Book IX of the Social Code apply accordingly to those beneficiaries who have resided in Germany for several months without significant interruption and have not abusively influenced the duration of their stay. In the revised version of Section 2, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the AsylbLG, which came into effect on February 27, 2024, a waiting period of 36 months now applies, instead of the previously applicable waiting period of 18 months. The transitional provision in Section 20 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) stipulates that for those entitled to benefits under the AsylbLG who received analogous benefits (Section 2 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG) up to February 26, 2024, Section 2 AsylbLG, as amended by the Act of May 23, 2022, continues to apply. However, Section 20 AsylbLG only provides a transitional provision for those who already received analogous benefits under Section 2 AsylbLG before February 27, 2024. Consequently, a prerequisite is the prior actual provision of benefits (see Filges in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 3rd edition, Section 20 AsylbLG [as of March 8, 2024], marginal note 13), which is not the case here. The applicant has not yet been granted analogous benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) by administrative act (either as a written decision or implicitly by payment).
It is also not apparent that the applicant informed the respondent prior to the amendment of Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) that he was seeking analogous benefits (principle of knowledge pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 AsylbLG in conjunction with Section 18 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII)) or that he even expressly applied for analogous benefits, and that the AsylbLG benefits authority did not grant any approval before February 27, 2024, in either case. Rather, the applicant first raised his claim for benefits under Section 2 AsylbLG with his objection of March 13, 2024, and thus after the amendment of the law. Even when filing the application for preliminary legal protection, the applicant did not address this point in his statement of grounds of application of March 7, 2024.
The application for preliminary relief was therefore to be rejected.
b)
However, after a summary examination, the applicant is entitled to benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in the amount of the standard benefit level 1.
The applicant lives in communal accommodation within the meaning of Section 53 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and indisputably receives benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG. However, in light of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of October 19, 2022, he is entitled to these benefits to the extent of standard benefit level 1. In its decision of October 19, 2022 – 1 BvL 3/21 – published on November 23, 2022, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that special benefit level 2 for a single adult housed in communal accommodation, as provided for in the parallel provision of Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 No. 1 of the AsylbLG, is incompatible with the Basic Law (Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law) (fundamental right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living that ensures human dignity). The legislator's assumption that it is possible and reasonable for those entitled to benefits to utilize the opportunities for shared resources offered in accommodations, and the consideration of the resulting savings when calculating their subsistence needs (see BT-Drs. 19/10052, pp. 24 et seq.), is, in principle, not objectionable under constitutional law according to the principle of subsidiarity. However, this obligation to share resources is only proportionate in the narrower sense if it is sufficiently ensured that the conditions for fulfilling these conditions and thus achieving corresponding savings actually exist in the communal accommodations. For this to be the case, there must be explicit indications of such conditions in the context of shared accommodation (§ 53 AsylG) or reception facilities (§ 44 AsylG) (see BVerfG of 19 October 2022 – 1 BvL 3/21 – juris para. 74 et seq.).
The Federal Constitutional Court has ordered a transitional arrangement according to which, for single adults who are housed in communal accommodation, a standard allowance in the amount of standard allowance level 1 instead of 2 is recognized under the conditions of Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 and Sentence 4 No. 1 AsylbLG.
The Chamber is convinced that this reasoning of the Federal Constitutional Court also applies to the parallel provisions for benefit recipients in collective accommodations under Section 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), since it is highly probable that Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2b AsylbLG and Section 3a Paragraph 2 No. 2b AsylbLG are also unconstitutional (see Frerichs in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 3rd edition, Section 3a AsylbLG (as of November 28, 2022), marginal note 44_18). The circumstances are comparable, as there is no evidence that actual savings are regularly achieved or could be achieved through shared resources in the collective accommodations.
The Federal Government, through the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS), has already announced that the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling should also be applied to the granting of basic benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). The reasoning underlying the unconstitutionality of the provision—namely, that there is no credible evidence that savings are regularly achieved or can be achieved in collective accommodations through shared resources that would justify a 10% reduction in benefits—is of a fundamental nature. The BMAS therefore assumes that the ruling also applies to the parallel provisions in Section 3a, paragraph 1, number 2, and paragraph 2, number 2, of the AsylbLG for benefits under the basic benefits scheme. Individual states (e.g., Berlin) have already stipulated that in the future, all single adults entitled to benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) who are housed in communal accommodation, a reception center, or, if applicable, emergency accommodation, are entitled to the standard benefit rate or the standard benefit level for single adults according to standard benefit level 1, provided they do not live as young adults in their parents' household (regardless of the type of accommodation) (see, for example, the circular from the Berlin Senate Department for Integration, Labour and Social Affairs, Soz No. 01/2023, on the implementation of Sections 2 and 3, 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG)).
Furthermore, grounds for an injunction exist. Given the prevailing prospects of success in the main proceedings, as outlined above, and with reference to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 19 October 2022, a restrictive jurisprudence in preliminary legal protection, focused on demonstrating urgency, is not warranted (Frerichs, loc. cit., para. 44.19).
However, in terms of timing, the grounds for the injunction are limited to benefits from the date of application – in this case, March 10, 2024. This follows from the fact that the granting of social benefits by way of a preliminary injunction is intended only to remedy a present emergency. Therefore, there is generally no ground for an injunction if benefits are sought for the past, i.e., for periods prior to the receipt of the application for preliminary legal protection by the court (LSG NRW, decisions of November 5, 2008, file no. L 19 B 95/08 AS ER; of February 4, 2009, file no. L 9 B 211/08 AS ER; of August 29, 2006, file no. L 20 B 77/06 SO ER).
The decision on costs is based on a corresponding application of Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG) and takes into account the outcome of the proceedings. It should be noted that the applicant was largely successful with his application for interim relief.
According to Section 73a of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), one of the prerequisites for granting legal aid is that the legal action offers sufficient prospects of success and does not appear frivolous. Based on the above explanations, the application for preliminary legal protection has sufficient prospects of success. Therefore, legal aid and the appointment of attorney Adam should be granted for the present legal dispute.
The following is information on legal remedies.
