DECISION
in the proceedings
xxx,
– Applicant and Respondent –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam
Lange, Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
The State of Baden-Württemberg,
represented by the District Office of Schwäbisch Hall,
represented by the District Administrator,
Münzstr. 1, 74523 Schwäbisch Hall
– Respondent and Appellant –
The 7th Senate of the State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg in Stuttgart
ruled on February 11, 2025, by
the presiding judge at the State Social Court xxx,
the judge at the State Social Court xxx and
the judge at the State Social Court xxx
Decided without oral proceedings:
The respondent's appeal against the decision of the Heilbronn Social Court of December 28, 2024 is dismissed as inadmissible.
The respondent shall also bear the applicant's extrajudicial costs in the appeal proceedings.
The applicant is granted legal aid for the appeal proceedings L 7 AY 180/25 ER-B from 27 January 2025 and lawyer Adam, Göttingen, is appointed as his counsel.
REASONS
The appeal filed by the respondent on January 21, 2025 with the State Social Court (LSG) of Baden-Württemberg against the decision of the Social Court of Heilbronn (SG) of December 28, 2025, which was served on December 30, 2024, is unsuccessful.
In the contested decision, the Social Court (SG) ordered the respondent, by way of preliminary injunction, to grant the applicant benefits pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 1 and Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) from December 7, 2024, until a final and binding decision is reached on the objection to the decision of November 21, 2024, but no later than May 31, 2025, taking into account benefits already received. The appeal against this decision is, however, inadmissible and therefore already lacks merit.
Pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 1 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), appeals against decisions of the social courts, with the exception of judgments and decisions of the presiding judges of these courts, may be lodged with the Higher Social Court, unless otherwise provided in this Act. The appeal is excluded, inter alia, pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 1 SGG, in preliminary injunction proceedings if an appeal on the merits would require leave to appeal. An appeal requires leave to appeal pursuant to Section 144 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 SGG if the value of the subject matter of the appeal does not exceed EUR 750 in an action concerning a monetary, service, or in-kind benefit or an administrative act directed at such a benefit. This does not apply, pursuant to Section 144 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 SGG, if the appeal concerns recurring or ongoing benefits for more than one year.
In the present case, the appeal pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 1 in conjunction with Section 144 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) is inadmissible – contrary to the respondent's assertion in his statement of grounds of appeal submitted on February 3, 2025 – because neither the value of the subject matter of the appeal exceeds the amount of 750 euros – which the respondent himself does not assume – nor are recurring or ongoing benefits for more than one year affected.
The concept of "main issue" in Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 1 of the Social Court Procedure Act (SGG) is based on the hypothetical question of whether a potential appeal in proceedings concerning the main issue of the application pursued in the preliminary injunction proceedings would require leave to appeal (see also, regarding the following, Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of August 2, 2018 – L 9 SO 413/18 B ER – juris para. 4; Higher Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt, decision of March 4, 2021 – L 5 AS 494/15 B ER – juris para. 18; Schmidt in Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th edition 2023, Section 172 para. 6f). Just as with the admissibility of an appeal, the scope of the subject matter of the appeal is also decisive for the admissibility of a complaint. The court must base its decision on what the Social Court granted in the contested decision – here, from the respondent's perspective, to the applicant – and what the appellant is specifically challenging (see also Burkiczak in Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGG, 2nd ed., as of January 28, 2025, § 86b para. 629). If the application in the preliminary injunction proceedings differs from the application in the main proceedings, then, pursuant to § 172 para. 3 no. 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the focus must be on the request in the preliminary injunction proceedings and the subject matter of the appeal therein, and, contrary to the respondent's assertion, not on that of the main proceedings. While the subject matter of the dispute in preliminary injunction proceedings cannot be broader than in the main proceedings (Senate decision of April 4, 2023 – L 7 AY 335/23 ER-B – juris para. 17); conversely, the request in the expedited proceedings can – as here – fall short of the claim to be asserted in a main proceeding.
This is the case here. The Social Court (SG) has ordered the respondent, by way of preliminary injunction, to grant the applicant benefits pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 1 and Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) from December 7, 2024, until a final and binding decision is reached on the objection to the decision of November 21, 2024, but no later than May 31, 2025, taking into account benefits already received. The respondent is only aggrieved to this extent (benefits for the period from December 7, 2024, until May 31, 2025, at the latest, in the amount of EUR 460 instead of EUR 413, and from January 1, 2025, EUR 441 instead of EUR 397), and the scope of the appeal is determined solely by this amount. Therefore, the value of the subject matter of the appeal does not exceed €750 and no benefits for more than one year are affected. The appeal was thus to be dismissed as inadmissible.
The decision on costs is based on a corresponding application of Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
Since this is an appeal by the respondent, the applicant was to be granted legal aid without an order for payment in installments from January 27, 2025, pursuant to Sections 73a Paragraph 1 of the Social Courts Act (SGG) in conjunction with Sections 114, 115, 119 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2, 121 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and attorney Adam, Göttingen, was to be appointed as his counsel.
This decision is not subject to appeal (§ 177 SGG).
