DECISION
In the legal dispute
1. xxx,
2. xxx,
3. xxx,
4. xxx,
5. xxx,
residing at 1 to 5: xxx
– Plaintiff –
For items 1 to 5, legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
1. Eichsfeld District,
represented by the District Administrator,
Friedensplatz 8, 37308 Heilbad Heiligenstadt
2. Free State of Thuringia,
represented by the President of the
Thuringian State Administration Office,
Jorge-Semprün-Platz 4, 99423 Weimar
– Defendant –
The 15th Chamber of the Social Court of Nordhausen, through its presiding judge, Judge xxx, decided without oral proceedings on April 5, 2024:
The defendant no. 1) shall bear the necessary extrajudicial costs of the plaintiffs.
REASONS:
Pursuant 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 – as in this case – are concluded by order other than by judgment or, in the case of preliminary legal protection, by order. In the present proceedings, the main proceedings have been settled by mutual declarations of settlement. The parties have applied for a court order regarding costs. The court must decide on the reimbursement of costs at its equitable discretion, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case. In making this equitable decision, which must consider the previous state of the proceedings and the legal arguments, both the prospects of success of the legal protection claim and the reasons for filing the action or application must be taken into account (Thuringian Higher Social Court, Order of February 15, 2008 – L 9 B 133/07 AS with further references). Within the framework of discretionary decision-making, the general principles of cost contained in Section 91 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) can be taken into account in order to establish a sufficiently reliable standard of review for the exercise of discretion required by Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Court Act (SGG). It generally follows from this that it is appropriate to exercise discretion by focusing on the actual (external) outcome of the proceedings, i.e., to impose the costs of the proceedings on the party who (materially) brought about the event rendering the case moot (acknowledgment of the asserted claim by the defendant, voluntary waiver of the legal proceedings by the applicant – cf. Leitherer in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer, SGG, 10th ed. 2012, Section 193, marginal notes 13 et seq.). It is generally equitable that the losing party bears the costs. In cases of partial failure, apportionment will be appropriate (Meyer-Ladewig, ibid., marginal note 12a). The court must consider all circumstances of the individual case. This includes the court's ability to consider the reason for the lawsuit (Meyer-Ladewig, loc. cit., para. 12).
In the present case, taking these principles into account, it is reasonable for the court to order the first defendant to bear the plaintiffs' necessary extrajudicial costs. According to his own statements, the first defendant only issued a partial remedy decision. The remaining part of the case was therefore to be submitted to the appeals authority for a decision, which did not occur in the present case before the lawsuit was filed. Consequently, the second defendant could not make a timely decision. The plaintiffs were also not required to inquire about the status of the proceedings, as they could reasonably rely on the first defendant fulfilling his legal obligation.
The decision is unappealable pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
