VERDICT
In the legal dispute
1. xxx,
2. xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
for 1-2: Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
City of Göttingen,
represented by the Mayor,
Hiroshimaplatz 1-4, 37083 Göttingen
– Defendant –
The 27th Chamber of the Social Court of Hildesheim, in the oral proceedings of October 1, 2024, with Judge xxx of the Social Court and Lay Judges xxx and xxx presiding, has ruled as follows:
The defendant is ordered, by amending the decision of November 30, 2021, as modified by the appeal decision of March 15, 2022, and as modified by the amending decision of September 14, 2023, to grant and retroactively pay the plaintiffs further benefits in the amount of €7.47 per month for the period from December 2021 up to and including January 2022.
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiffs for their necessary extrajudicial costs.
FACTS
The amount of benefits under Section 2 AsylbLG is disputed, in particular the consideration of higher accommodation costs.
The plaintiffs are Pakistani nationals and first entered the Federal Republic of Germany on [date omitted] 2020. During the period in dispute, they lived with their son in an apartment within the defendant's jurisdiction. Rent for this apartment amounted to €790.00 including utilities, plus €110.00 for heating.
By decision dated November 30, 2021, the defendant granted the plaintiffs analogous benefits pursuant to Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for the period from December 2021 to March 2022 inclusive. The defendant took into account a monthly rent totaling €625.00 (basic rent and utilities) and €106.31 for heating costs. The plaintiff's share amounted to €178.34 basic rent, €35.43 heating costs, and €30.00 utilities. The plaintiff's share amounted to €178.33 basic rent, €35.44 heating costs, and €30.00 utilities.
The plaintiffs filed an objection to this decision on December 21, 2021. They argued that the housing costs considered by the defendant were too low. The defendant lacked a coherent concept as required by case law and should therefore have used the values from the housing benefit table plus a 10% safety margin.
By decision dated March 7, 2022, the defendant revoked the plaintiffs' entitlement to benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) effective February 1, 2022. The plaintiffs now possessed a residence permit and no longer met the requirements for receiving benefits under the AsylbLG. By decision on the objection dated March 15, 2022, the defendant rejected the plaintiffs' objection to the decision of November 30, 2021. The defendant stated that, even when granting benefits under the AsylbLG, it was only required to consider reasonable housing costs. These costs had been correctly determined in accordance with established case law.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against this decision by letter dated April 19, 2022, which was received by the Hildesheim Social Court on the same day.
By decision dated September 14, 2023, the defendant granted the plaintiffs further benefits pursuant to Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and now considered the amount of €778.80 (basic rent and utilities) as accommodation costs, as well as €106.31 for heating costs. Specifically, the defendant allocated €229.60 for basic rent, €35.43 for heating costs, and €30.00 for utilities to the male plaintiff, and €229.60 for basic rent, €35.44 for heating costs, and €30.00 for utilities to the female plaintiff.
The plaintiffs argue that they should also be entitled to the additional amount of €11.20 per month, proportionate to their share. They contend that moving would be neither economically viable nor reasonable given this difference. They maintain that the costs are reasonable in this specific case.
The plaintiffs request that
the defendant, by amending the decision of November 30, 2021, as modified by the objection decision of March 15, 2022, as modified by the amendment decision of September 14, 2023, be ordered to grant and retroactively pay the plaintiffs further benefits in the amount of €7.47 per month for the period from December 2021 up to and including January 2022.
The defendant requests that
the action be dismissed.
She sees no reason to assume costs beyond the partial acknowledgment.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The court was able to decide in the defendant's absence because the defendant had been duly summoned to the oral hearing on October 1, 2024, and the summons had indicated that the hearing and decision could proceed even in her absence. Furthermore, the defendant had informed the court prior to the oral hearing that she would not be sending a representative.
The action, admissible pursuant to Section 54, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Social Court Act (SGG), is also well-founded. The contested administrative act is unlawful insofar as it does not take into account the actual costs of accommodation as a need and infringes the plaintiffs' rights.
The plaintiffs are, in principle, entitled to benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) because they resided in Germany for 18 months (the then-applicable statutory period) without significant interruption during the period in dispute and did not deliberately influence the duration of their stay. This is evident, not least, from the contested benefit award. The documents submitted to the court do not indicate that this assessment could be erroneous. Therefore, the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is applicable to the plaintiffs.
For benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), housing costs are recognized up to the amount of the actual expenses (§ 35 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB XII). This is subject to a limit that is reasonable according to the specific circumstances of the individual case (§ 35 para. 2 SGB XII). According to established case law of the Federal Social Court, the limit of what is reasonable is determined by the locally responsible benefit provider within the framework of a so-called conclusive concept. For the period in dispute here, the defendant did not have such a concept as defined by case law. Therefore, it relied on the values from the housing benefit table, plus a 10% safety margin, which, according to established case law of the Federal Social Court, must also be considered in cases where the costs cannot be determined, and implemented this in the decision of September 14, 2023. Thus, the value considered by the defendant represented the reasonable housing costs.
However, it is always necessary to examine all the circumstances of the individual case to determine whether, even if the reasonable limit is exceeded, the assumption of the actual costs is justified in exceptional circumstances (e.g., due to the subjective unreasonableness of the change of residence for health reasons or due to obvious uneconomicalness) (cf. Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, judgment of November 27, 2014, L 8 SO 112/11, para. 30, cited according to juris). Considering the economic viability of the move, such a move was unreasonable for the plaintiffs. The monthly difference to the generally reasonable costs amounted to €11.20. Based on general experience, individuals who would just barely not be eligible for benefits under the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) or Book II (SGB II), would forgo a move to reduce such an amount, because the additional costs expected from a move far exceed this amount and thus make a move not worthwhile. This must also be taken into account for recipients of transfer payments, especially since the additional costs would also have to be borne by the taxpayer.
Taking into account the remaining difference and the fact that the apartment was occupied by three people, this results in an amount of €3.73 or €3.74 per person per month. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the additional benefits and payments specified in the judgment.
The decision on costs is based on Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) and is based on the outcome of the proceedings.
The following is information on legal remedies.
