SOCIAL COURT WÜRZBURG
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange-Geismar-Straße 55,
37073 Göttingen
against
1. Rhön-Grabfeld District -SHV- 2.3. Office for Social Affairs,
represented by the District Administrator,
Spörleinstraße 11, 97616 Bad Neustadt
– Defendant –
2. Free State of Bavaria, represented by the Government of Lower Franconia,
which is represented by the President of the Government,
Peterplatz 9, 97070 Würzburg
– Defendant –
Matters under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act
The presiding judge of the 4th Chamber, Judge xxx of the Social Court, issues the following decision without oral proceedings on June 19, 2024
DECISION
The defendant no. 1 shall reimburse the plaintiff for the necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.
After the action for failure to act was settled, the parties still dispute the extrajudicial costs.
The action for failure to act, filed on March 7, 2024, was declared settled by a letter from the plaintiff's attorney dated May 17, 2024, after the second defendant issued the decision on the objection on May 15, 2024.
The plaintiff's attorney, by letter dated 17 May 2024, applied pursuant to Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG) to order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The plaintiff's legal representative had lodged an objection against the decision of defendant no. 1 dated 14 November 2023 by letter dated 16 November 2023.
The plaintiff's legal representative filed an action for failure to act against the defendants before the Social Court on March 7, 2024, because no decision had yet been made on the plaintiff's objection; the reasons for this were unknown, in any case the waiting period of Section 88 of the Social Court Act had expired and the objection had not been decided without sufficient reason.
In a letter dated March 20, 2024, the first defendant stated that the plaintiff's objection could not be granted and that, by letter dated March 21, 2024, the objection had been forwarded to the second defendant for a decision. There was a sufficient reason why a decision on the objection had not been reached within the statutory time limit. The plaintiff's legal representative had overwhelmed the defendants with numerous applications and proceedings, so the delay in the decision was attributable to the plaintiff.
By decision on the objection dated 15 May 2024, the defendant no. 2 decided on the contested objection.
By letter dated 17 May 2024, the plaintiff's attorney declared the main legal dispute settled and requested that, pursuant to Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the defendant no. 1 be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The plaintiff's legal representative assumes that the first defendant failed to decide within the deadline without sufficient reason and therefore has to bear the costs.
The plaintiff requests that
the defendant be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The defendant requests a ruling
that costs are not to be reimbursed.
The second defendant stated in a letter dated 15 May 2024 that the objection had only been received by him on 27 March 2024, and thus after the action for failure to act had been filed, and therefore he was not prepared to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The first defendant stated in a letter dated June 3, 2024, that he was not prepared to bear the costs of the proceedings. He argued that there was sufficient justification for the delay due to the temporary overload of the social services administration. The number of cases under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) had been rising exorbitantly for years – and in its most drastic form since 2022. The overload of the authority constituted sufficient justification.
Regarding further details of the parties' submissions and the facts of the case, reference is made to the court file and the defendant's administrative file.
II.
Since the main issue was resolved by declaration of settlement, but no agreement was reached on the costs and an application for a cost allocation was filed, the court is called upon to decide on the costs pursuant to Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG), taking into account the previous state of the facts and the legal arguments, at its equitable discretion (Leitherer in: Mayer-Ladewig/Keller/Leitherer, 10th ed. SGG, Section 193, marginal note 13).
The decisive factor is generally the likelihood of success in the main proceedings; in cases of uncertainty, a division of the case may be considered (Mayer-Ladewig, loc. cit.). However, it must also be taken into account who caused the lawsuit to be filed.
Based on the foregoing principles, it therefore appears equitable to order the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff's necessary extrajudicial costs.
The action for failure to act was admissible and also justified at the time the action was filed.
The plaintiff's legal representative had filed an objection to the decision of defendant no. 1 dated November 14, 2023, by letter dated November 16, 2023. However, defendant no. 1 only forwarded the objection to defendant no. 2 for a decision by letter dated March 20, 2024.
The action could be brought pursuant to Section 88 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 88 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), after the defendants had failed to decide within a reasonable period without sufficient reason. The three-month decision period for the objection raised by letter dated November 16, 2023, received on November 22, 2023, had already expired when the action was filed.
The submission was made by the defendant no. 1 only on March 20, 2024. The decision on the objection was not issued until May 15, 2024.
When an action for failure to act is settled pursuant to Section 88 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the defendant is generally required to reimburse the extrajudicial costs if the action was filed after the waiting period and the requested administrative act is subsequently issued (Meyer-Ladewig, loc. cit., 12th ed., Section 193, para. 11). This is because everyone is entitled to expect that their application or objection will be decided upon within the time limits specified in Section 88 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
The defendant authority is only exempt from bearing the costs if the affected party was aware, for example, from communications by the authority, that it could not decide within the prescribed time limit for a sufficient reason within the meaning of Section 88 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Social Court Procedure Act (SGG). This follows from the applicable legal principle of Section 161 Paragraph 3 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO). According to this provision, in the case of a settled action for failure to act, the costs are always borne by the defendant if the plaintiff could have expected a decision before filing the action. This ensures that a plaintiff does not have to bear the costs of the action for failure to act after the decision has been issued simply because the authority failed to decide within a reasonable time for a sufficient reason.
It is generally impossible for a plaintiff to clarify this internal administrative requirement. Therefore, Section 161 Paragraph 3 of the German Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) allows it to suffice if the plaintiff, based on the circumstances of the case known to him, could have expected an earlier decision. Only if a sufficient reason exists does it become relevant whether the plaintiff knew or should have known the reason for the delay. Whether such a reason existed here is irrelevant, as the first defendant failed to inform the plaintiff of it before the lawsuit was filed.
However, in the court's opinion, there is no sufficient reason in this case.
In the legal proceedings, the first defendant initially stated that the plaintiff's legal representative had overwhelmed the first defendant with a large number of applications and proceedings, so that the delayed decision lay with the plaintiff.
A sufficient reason for exceeding the standard processing time can indeed be assumed if the delay is caused by (culpable) conduct on the part of the plaintiff or their authorized representative. This is assumed if a temporary, exceptional workload arises at the relevant authority due to a large number of applications and appeals from the same plaintiff (Diehm in Roos/Wahrendorf/Müller, as of May 1, 2024, § 88 SGG, para. 60). However, in light of previous court decisions on this matter (see, for example, the decision of the Higher Social Court of Hesse of July 15, 2008, L 9 B 39/08 SO – 33 Proceedings), this is not a comparable case. In the present case, the court is of the opinion that there is no "large number of applications and appeals.".
Later, the first defendant argued that there was a sufficient reason for the delay due to temporary overload of the social services administration. The number of cases under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) had been rising exorbitantly for years – and in its most drastic form since 2022.
Short-term staffing shortages due to temporary overtime following legislative changes or a reorganization of responsibilities can constitute a "sufficient reason" within the meaning of Section 88 of the Social Court Act (SGG). However, delays due to permanent organizational deficiencies do not constitute a sufficient reason (Diehm in Roos/Wahrendorf/Müller, as of May 1, 2024, Section 88 SGG, paragraphs 55-57).
In the court's view, it is already evident from the defendant's own submissions that there is no basis for assuming a "temporary overload of the social administration," since the defendant himself states that the number of cases under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) has increased exorbitantly for years – in its most drastic form since 2022.
Taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case, the court cannot discern a valid reason, and therefore considers the imposition of costs on the defendant no. 1 to be appropriate.
This decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
