DECISION
in the legal dispute
1. xxx,
– Applicant –
2. xxx,
– Applicant –
3. xxx,
– Applicant –
4. xxx,
– Applicant –
Procedural representative: Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange-Geismar-Str. 55, 37073 Göttingen
– regarding items 1, 2, 3, 4 –
against
City of Stuttgart – Job Center –
represented by the Mayor,
Rosensteinstr. 11, 70191 Stuttgart
– Respondent –
The 7th Chamber of the Stuttgart Social Court
, on February 21, 2025 in Stuttgart,
through Judge xxx of the Social Court
Decided without oral proceedings:
The respondent must reimburse the applicants for their extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.
The applicants request that the respondent reimburse them for the extrajudicial costs incurred as a result of their application for preliminary legal protection filed with the Stuttgart Social Court on December 4, 2024.
The applicants were receiving benefits from the respondent to secure their livelihood under Book Two of the German Social Code (SGB II). Most recently, they were granted benefits in the amount of €1,753 per month for the period from September 1, 2024 to November 30, 2024, by a grant notice dated September 11, 2024.
On October 23, 2024, applicant no. 1 applied for the continuation of benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) for herself and three of her children (applicants nos. 2 to 4) beyond November 30, 2024.
By decision dated December 5, 2024, the respondent granted the applicants the requested benefits in the amount of €2,593.00 for the period until January 31, 2025, and €2,723.00 until February 28, 2025. According to the dispatch mark, the decision dated December 5, 2024, was mailed on December 5, 2024.
On December 8, 2024, the applicants filed an application for preliminary legal protection with the Stuttgart Social Court and requested that the respondent be ordered by way of a preliminary injunction to provisionally provide the requested benefits.
According to the postmark, the notification was delivered to the plaintiff's attorney on December 9, 2024. The notification, dated December 5, 2024, was received there on December 10, 2024.
The respondent declared the legal dispute settled by letter dated December 11, 2024.
The applicants also declared the legal dispute settled by letter dated December 11, 2024, and requested that the respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. They point out that the decision of December 5, 2024, was only received by their authorized representative on December 10, 2024. They maintain that the application was admissible and well-founded upon receipt because the respondent had failed to provide the requested benefits in a timely manner, contrary to Section 42 Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
The respondent pointed out that, according to the notation, the decision was sent on December 5, 2024, and therefore it was unclear why it was only delivered on December 9, 2024. An application for preliminary legal protection was not necessary, as the decision had already been prepared and sent before the application was received.
II.
The admissible application is well-founded.
According to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Courts Act, the court must decide in its judgment whether and to what extent the parties are to reimburse each other's costs; it decides by order upon application if the proceedings – as in this case – have been concluded other than by judgment. The content of this decision is determined at the court's discretion, irrespective of the parties' applications (see Mayer-Ladewig/Keller/Leiterer, SGG – Commentary, 11th edition 2014, Section 193, marginal notes 13 et seq.). In principle, the court must consider all circumstances of the individual case when exercising its discretion appropriately or equitably. If the case is settled without a judgment, the outcome of the proceedings, assessed according to the previous state of the case and the legal arguments at the time of settlement, is the decisive factor (see Federal Social Court, order of September 7, 1998, SozR 3-1500 Section 193 No. 10). However, it is equally important to consider whether an insurance provider gave cause for the lawsuit or whether the factual and legal situation changed after the decision was issued. If a party takes this into account immediately, they may not have to bear any costs. The latter is a consequence of the principle of causation and reflects the legal principle of Section 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Based on these requirements, the respondent must reimburse the applicants for their extrajudicial costs.
According to Section 39 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), an administrative act becomes effective with respect to the person for whom it is intended or who is affected by it at the time it is communicated to them. In this case, that was the receipt by the authorized representative on December 10, 2024, since the decision was served exclusively on him as the authorized representative.
When the application was submitted on December 8, 2024, the applicants or their authorized representatives had not yet received a decision. The reason for the delay between the dispatch of the decision on December 5, 2024, and the transport on December 9, 2024, is irrelevant.
The decisive factor is that the applicants had already submitted the application for continued benefits on October 23, 2024. The application merely indicated a change (additional income) compared to the previous benefit, so no significant processing effort is apparent. The respondent also does not claim any such effort.
Benefits to secure subsistence must be paid monthly in advance in accordance with Section 42 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). Particularly when these benefits – as in this case – constitute a large part or all of the recipient's income, delays pose a threat to their livelihood, especially given upcoming payments at the beginning of the month (rent, etc.).
The applicants had submitted their application in a timely manner and waited for a processing period of over six weeks before filing the application for preliminary legal protection. The permit had not yet been issued at the time of filing (so).
Therefore, the respondent initiated the proceedings and the imposition of extrajudicial costs is justified.
This decision is final and cannot be appealed, § 172 para. 3 no. 3 SGG.
