DECISION
in the legal dispute
xxx,
– Applicant –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam
, Lange-Geismar-Str. 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
City of Stuttgart – Social Welfare Office –
represented by the Mayor,
Eberhardstr. 33, 70173 Stuttgart
– Respondent –
The 11th Chamber of the Stuttgart Social Court
, on April 17, 2024 in Stuttgart,
through Judge xxx of the Social Court
Decided without oral proceedings:
The respondent must reimburse the applicant's extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
Pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), the court must decide in its judgment, or, if the proceedings are terminated otherwise, upon application by order, whether and to what extent the parties are to reimburse each other's costs. The decision on costs is to be made at the court's discretion, taking into account all circumstances of the individual case. The prospects of success of the action are the primary factor in the decision. In accordance with the legal principles of Section 91a of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) and Section 161 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO), it is generally equitable that the party who loses or would have lost the case should bear the costs. Furthermore, the court must also consider the principle of causation when exercising its discretion. This principle is based on the idea that the costs incurred in court proceedings should be imposed on the party who gave rise to the legal dispute.
In the present case, the applicant's legal representative declared the expedited proceedings concluded by letter dated January 27, 2023, due to the applicant's deportation to Switzerland.
The court is convinced that the applicant's application for interim relief would have been successful had the event rendering the case moot (here: deportation) not occurred. In this respect, reference is made to the court's established and well-known case law. Accordingly, the respondent must also bear the applicant's extrajudicial costs.
This decision is final and cannot be appealed (§ 172 paragraph 3 no. 3 SGG).
