VERDICT
S 26 AS 39/23
In the legal dispute:
1. xxx,
2. xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
for 1-2: Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Göttingen District,
represented by the District Administrator,
Reinhäuser Landstraße 4, 37083 Göttingen
– Defendant –
The 26th Chamber of the Social Court of Hildesheim, without oral proceedings pursuant to Section 124 Paragraph 2 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), rendered the following judgment on April 11, 2024, through Judge xxx and Lay Judges:
1. The defendant is ordered, by amending the decision of October 4, 2022 as modified by the appeal decision of December 29, 2022, to grant the plaintiffs further heating allowances in the amount of 75.76 euros for the period from December 1, 2022 to November 30, 2023.
2. The defendant shall reimburse the plaintiffs for their extrajudicial costs.
3. The appeal is not admitted.
FACTS
The plaintiffs are seeking to obtain higher winter fire relief for the period from December 1, 2022 to November 30, 2023, from funds under the Social Code Book Two (SGB II) – basic income support for job seekers.
The plaintiffs, born in 1964 and 1965, are of working age and married to each other. During the period in question, they received unemployment benefit II (see the notice of approval dated November 21, 2022). They have an oil heating system which they have to refuel at their own expense. During this time, they had no disposable income and no assets that could be liquidated.
The defendant granted the plaintiffs, upon their application, a one-time winter fire aid payment of €2,010 by decision dated October 4, 2022, for the procurement of fuels for the period from December 1, 2022 to November 30, 2023.
The plaintiffs filed an objection on November 4, 2022, arguing that the subsidy should be paid out immediately due to the oil shortage. Subsequently, the plaintiffs purchased heating oil in the amount of €2,085.56 (see invoice from company xxx heating oil dated December 1, 2022).
The defendant rejected the objection with a notice of objection dated December 29, 2022, stating as grounds that the maximum amount had been granted according to the Federal Heating Cost Index.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on January 30, 2023.
They argue that
no prior request to reduce costs was issued. Furthermore, heating oil prices have risen, meaning the nationwide heating cost index is not a relevant criterion. The defendant, by decision dated November 20, 2023, granted a winter fire subsidy of €2,150.33 for the subsequent period.
The plaintiffs request that
the defendant, by amending the decision of October 4, 2022 as modified by the appeal decision of December 29, 2022, be ordered to grant them the requested benefits for self-procured heating oil in the period from December 1, 2022 to November 30, 2023, in accordance with the legal opinion of the court, in the legally prescribed amount.
The defendant requests
that the action be dismissed.
He argues, with reference to the issued decisions:
No request to reduce heating costs has been issued.
The parties unanimously waived their right to an oral hearing.
Regarding the further submissions of the parties, reference is made to the contents of the court file and the administrative file.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The lawsuit is successful.
The chamber was able to decide the legal dispute without an oral hearing because the parties had waived this right in accordance with Section 124 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
The defendant's decision of October 4, 2022, as amended by the appeal decision of December 29, 2022, is unlawful to the extent stated and infringes the plaintiffs' rights in this respect.
The plaintiffs are entitled to a further winter fire aid payment of 75.76 euros for the period in dispute.
In the absence of a request to reduce heating costs, the actual heating costs must generally be granted within the framework of unemployment benefit II. The amount is limited by the extent of the actual expenses incurred. The plaintiffs purchased heating oil worth €2,085.56 on December 1, 2022, and no other expenses were incurred or documented for the period in dispute. A fictitious grant would contradict the principle of covering basic needs.
The decision on costs follows from Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
Pursuant to Section 144, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, No. 1, and Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the appeal requires leave to appeal because the defendant's claim is below the threshold of €750. Leave to appeal is denied because the case is not of fundamental importance and does not deviate from a decision of the Higher Social Court, the Federal Social Court, or the Joint Senate of the Highest Courts.
The following is information on legal remedies.
