DECISION
in the proceedings
xxx,
– Applicant –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam
, Lange-Geismar-Str. 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
City of Pforzheim,
represented by the Mayor,
Marktplatz 4, 75175 Pforzheim
– Respondent –
The 12th Chamber of the Social Court of Karlsruhe decided on April 2, 2025 in Karlsruhe through Judge xxx of the Social Court without oral proceedings:
1. The respondent is ordered by way of preliminary injunction to grant the applicant additional benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for the period from 12 March 2025 to 30 April 2025 in accordance with standard benefit level 1.
2. The applicant is granted legal aid without payment of installments for the first instance expedited proceedings before the social court, with the appointment of lawyer Adam (Lange-Geismar-Str. 55, 37073 Göttingen).
3. The respondent shall reimburse the applicant for her extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.
The applicant seeks, by way of preliminary legal protection, the granting of monetary benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), disregarding the legally fictitious reduction in standard benefits for people who have to live in German reception facilities during their refuge.
The applicant, born in 1993, is a Nigerian national. She entered the Federal Republic of Germany in 2019 and formally sought protection from persecution in her home country on May 16, 2019. She exhausted all administrative legal remedies against the rejection decision of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. However, on March 2, 2020, the Administrative Court of Mannheim (case no. A 9 S 567/20) rejected the applicant's appeal against the dismissal of her action by the Administrative Court of Karlsruhe on November 12, 2019 (case no. A 4 K 3832/19). Since then, the applicant has been subject to deportation. However, her deportation is repeatedly suspended for further six-month periods (so-called "Duldung"). The temporary residence permits of the applicant and her three children (born in 2017, 2021 and 2024) were last extended on January 29, 2025 until July 28, 2025.
The applicant's family of four has meanwhile been assigned to the respondent as the lower-level reception authority. Since July 15, 2024, the respondent has been housing the single mother and her children in communal accommodation. The respondent charges the applicant fees for this.
In addition to the accommodation costs, the applicant has received benefits to secure her livelihood from the respondent since August 1, 2021, and continuing until recently, in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), by way of ongoing amended decisions.
Specifically, the respondent amended the following:
- They submitted their amended decision of 26 June 2024 on 26 July 2024 in order to calculate the benefit amount from July 2024 onwards;
- their amended decision of 26 July 2024 on 14 November 2024, in order to calculate the benefit amount from January 2025.
- They submitted their amended decision of 14 November 2024 on 20 February 2024 in order to calculate the benefits from March 2025.
In its recalculations, the respondent did not take into account any income (which might reduce the claim). Instead, it based its calculations on the legally stipulated standard rates of need (individually adjusted to the respective age and accommodation in the communal housing) as well as the costs for accommodation and heating in the form of the fees for accommodation in the communal housing. However, the applicant had signed a declaration stating that she would not receive payment of the family's claims for benefits against the respondent for accommodation and heating costs, so that the respondent could transfer these payments directly from its own fund (for asylum seeker benefits) to its own fund (for accommodation in communal housing), thus avoiding the need for the parties to transfer the money back and forth.
However, the respondent apparently handled these internal transfers incorrectly between September 2024 and February 2025. The applicant seems to have internally calculated fees for the communal accommodation that were too low. Consequently, the respondent and her children were likely paid unjustified benefits for accommodation and heating. Due to this administrative error, overpayments totaling €548.55 to the applicant apparently accumulated over the six-month period.
Because of this administrative error and the resulting overpayments, the respondent sought to enforce reimbursement claims against the applicant between April 2025 and September 2025 by partially withholding the benefits to which she was entitled under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). Without holding a prior hearing or issuing any corresponding cancellation, reimbursement, or offsetting notices, the respondent decided, in the aforementioned amending notice of February 20, 2025, that she would pay the applicant..
- In April 2025: €90 less than approved;
- In May 2025: €90 less than approved;
- In June 2025: €90 less than approved;
- In July 2025: €90 less than approved;
- In August 2025: €64.37 less than approved;
- In September 2025: €124.18 less than approved;
that the asylum seeker benefits would be partially withheld instead and paid out. In the amended decision, she merely stated the following:
"It has been determined that the system has underpaid the fee to the fee office. This outstanding amount must now be settled. With your consent, €90.00 will be deducted from your monthly payments from April 2025 to July 2025, €64.37 in August 2025, and €124.18 in September 2025."
With regard to this partial withholding of asylum seeker benefits, the applicant objected to the amendment decision of 20 February 2025 on 10 March 2025.
Furthermore, on March 10, 2025, the applicant also filed an application for preliminary legal protection with the Karlsruhe Social Court (case number: S 12 AY 631/25 ER) and requested legal aid for this purpose, including the appointment of her legal representative. Through her representative, she further argues that she is entitled to benefits at standard benefit level 1 instead of the benefits granted at standard benefit level 2. She contends that the provisions of Sections 3, 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 b, and Paragraph 2 No. 2 b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) are manifestly unconstitutional, as they violate the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living guaranteed by Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with the social state principle of Article 20 Paragraph 1 GG, and contravene the general principle of equality resulting from Article 3 Paragraph 1 GG. The fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living applies equally to German and foreign nationals residing in the Federal Republic of Germany. To ensure the transparency and judicial review of the scope of statutory assistance commensurate with the importance of this fundamental right, the determination of benefits must be justifiable based on reliable figures and sound calculation methods. Regarding the specific needs for benefits under Sections 3, 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 b, and Paragraph 2 No. 2 b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), the legislature has not conducted any investigations, but has merely asserted that communal accommodation for residents of such accommodations results in cost savings comparable to those achieved in two-person households. The reason given for the reduction in benefits, according to the explanatory memorandum to the law (see BT-Drs. 19/10052, p. 25), is an alleged "solidarity in communal accommodation" and the resulting synergy and cost savings. However, due to the lack of shared financial management, which is comparable to that of partners, individuals living together do not benefit from cost savings comparable to those of couples. The legislature cannot refer benefit recipients to cost-saving opportunities that are not feasible for them. Regarding the needs of those entitled to benefits under Sections 3, 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 b, Paragraph 2 No. 2 b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), no differences in needs are apparent compared to single adult benefit recipients living in an apartment as defined in Section 8 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Standard Needs Assessment Act or to single adult benefit recipients under Book Twelve of the Social Code – Social Assistance – (SGB XII) living in accommodation. Despite their identical need for assistance, the legislature is treating these groups more favorably than they actually are. Several courts have already expressed concerns regarding the constitutionality of granting benefits at needs level 2 in cases where benefits under Sections 2, 3, and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act are received by individuals living in communal accommodation (for example, reference to the Social Court).<SG> Landshut, Decision of October 24, 2019 – S 11 AY 64/19 ER; Social Court Kassel, Decision of November 26, 2019 – S 11 AY 19/19 ER; Social Court Freiburg, Decision of December 3, 2019 – S 9 AY 4605/19 ER; Social Court Munich, Notice of January 31, 2020 – S 42 AY 4/20 ER; Social Court Hanover, Decision of December 20, 2019 – S 53 AY 107/19 ER; Social Court Leipzig, Decision of January 8, 2020 – S 10 AY 40/19 ER; Social Court Frankfurt, Decision of January 14, 2020 – S 30 AY 26/19 ER; Social Court Dresden, decision of 04.02.2020 – S 20 AY 86/19 ER; State Social Court<LSG> Saxony, decision of 23 March 2020 – L 8 AY 4/20 B ER; Social Court Kassel, judgment of 19 November 2020 – S 12 AY22/20; Social Court Marburg, court order of 31 December 2020 – S 9 AY 1/20; Higher Social Court Hesse, decision of 13 April 2021 – L 4 AY 3/21 B ER). Furthermore, the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), in its decision of October 19, 2022 (see BVerfG, decision of October 19, 2022 – 1 BvL 3/21, juris), declared Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Number 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) incompatible with Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with the social welfare principle of Article 20 Paragraph 1 GG, insofar as a standard allowance for a single adult is only recognized at the level of standard allowance level 2. In this context, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that, until new regulations are enacted, for all non-final decisions of beneficiaries of benefits under Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 AsylbLG, a standard allowance at the level of the currently applicable standard allowance level 1 must be applied for each single adult when calculating benefits for accommodation in communal accommodation or a reception center. In his view, everything indicates that the needs of those entitled to benefits under Sections 3, 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 b, Paragraph 2 No. 2 b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) do not differ from those of other single adult beneficiaries of benefits under Section 2 of the AsylbLG. The constitutionally guaranteed minimum subsistence level is therefore no longer secure. If subsistence-level benefits are not available, it should regularly be assumed that grounds for an injunction exist within the meaning of Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Social Courts Act (SGG).
Upon notification of receipt of the urgent application, the social court contacted immediately informed the respondent:
"The enclosed application dated March 10, 2025, is provided for your information and response, along with submission of the administrative files – preferably electronically – within one week of receipt.
The application was received here on March 12, 2025.
Please note that even if the response is not received within the set deadline, proceedings and a decision may still be initiated (§ 104 sentence 4 SGG). After preliminary review, the application for interim relief appears admissible and well-founded.
The objection dated March 10, 2025, against the amended decision of February 20, 2025, is likely to be at least partially admissible and well-founded. The amended decision was probably unlawful, at least due to the withholding of asylum seeker benefits in the following amounts per month
: April to July 2025: €90.00,
August 2025: €64.37, and
September 2025: €124.18
.
The respondent was entitled to withhold any overpayments from the..." The prior course of events cannot be offset using the procedure chosen here.
Regarding the revocation and reimbursement of previous approvals, Section 9 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) refers to Sections 44 to 50 of the German Social
Code, Book X (SGB X). Therefore, for legal reasons, it is insufficient if, in fact, "an insufficient fee was paid to the fee office within the system" and "this arrears now need to be settled." Sections 44 to 50 of the SGB X do not permit the legal consequence of withholding future benefits. Moreover, any withholding of benefits would require a formal revocation, reimbursement, and offsetting notice for the specific benefit period in which the overpayments occurred. The required issuance of a formal revocation, reimbursement, and offsetting notice cannot simply be replaced by the official "requirement of your consent."
On March 12, 2025, the respondent issued a "decision on the objection" regarding the applicant's objection of March 10, 2025, against the amended decision of February 20, 2025. In doing so, she fully remedied the objection with respect to the disputed withholdings.
The applicant submitted the notice of objection dated March 12, 2025, to the court on March 18, 2025, insofar as the action S 12 AY 707/25 ER was brought with the legal objective of obtaining benefits at standard benefit level 1, and the preliminary injunction proceedings S 12 AY 631/25 ER were declared settled insofar as the partial withholding of benefits had been in dispute. The applicant now requests verbatim:
The respondent is ordered by way of preliminary injunction to grant the applicant, provisionally and subject to the right of recovery, the requested benefits in the constitutionally compliant amount at standard benefit level 1 from March 12, 2025, until a final and binding decision is reached on the applicant's action of March 10, 2025, against the respondent's decision of February 20, 2025 (file no.: 0580.595114) as amended by the objection decision of March 12, 2025, taking into account the legal opinion of the court.
The respondent requests that
the application be rejected.
She submits her administrative files to the court and points out in her response to the application that she mistakenly failed to refer to the "objection decision" of March 12, 2025, as a "remedial decision." The respondent does not address the applicant's doubts regarding the constitutionality of the standard benefit level 2 applied to her (due to her accommodation in communal housing).
For further details of the facts and submissions, reference is made to the contents of the administrative files and the case file.
II.
1. Insofar as the court has to decide on the application for preliminary legal protection, it is admissible and well-founded.
The court does not have to decide insofar as the applicant's partial declaration of settlement dated March 18, 2025 is to be interpreted as a partial withdrawal declaration and the urgent proceedings S 12 AY 631/25 ER are settled pursuant to Section 102 Paragraph 1 Sentences 1 and 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG) with regard to the partial withholding of benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) by the amendment notice dated February 20, 2025, which the respondent already revoked with the objection notice dated March 12, 2025.
Furthermore, the application for the issuance of a regulatory order pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Social Courts Act (SGG) is admissible, in particular permissible.
Pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court of first instance may, upon application, issue a preliminary injunction concerning the subject matter of the dispute, provided that a case under Section 86b Paragraph 1 SGG does not exist, if there is a risk that a change in the existing state of affairs could frustrate or significantly impede the realization of a right of the applicant. Pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 SGG, preliminary injunctions are also permissible to regulate a provisional state of affairs with regard to a disputed legal relationship if such regulation appears necessary to avert significant disadvantages.
The conditions of Section 86b Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) are not met. This is because, in the main proceedings, the applicant's request for the granting of further asylum seeker benefits would be appropriately pursued by way of a combined action for annulment and performance pursuant to Section 54 Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
The application for a regulatory order is also well-founded.
A prerequisite for issuing the regulatory order sought by the applicant is the establishment of a prima facie case (cf. Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 920 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)) of a claim for the order and of grounds for the order. Establishing a prima facie case requires that the existence of the alleged facts be more likely than not (Keller, in Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th ed. 2023, Section 128, marginal note 3d). The circumstances at the time of the court's preliminary decision are generally decisive for assessing the prerequisites for the order (Keller, in Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th ed. 2023, Section 86b, marginal notes 27 et seq.).
While the grounds for the injunction concern the question of urgency, the subject of the claim for an injunction is generally the question of the prospects of success of the main legal remedy (Keller, in Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th ed. 2023, § 86b para. 27 et seq.). The claim for an injunction and the grounds for the injunction are not unrelated but, due to their functional connection, form a dynamic system: the greater the prospects of success in the main proceedings, the lower the requirements for the grounds for the injunction, and vice versa (Keller in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th ed. 2023, § 86b para. 27 with further references).
Measured against these standards, the applicant has credibly demonstrated both a claim to an injunction and grounds for such an injunction.
The applicant is entitled to benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in accordance with the standard benefit level 1.
According to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), those entitled to benefits under Section 1 AsylbLG receive benefits to cover their needs for food, accommodation, heating, clothing, healthcare, and household goods and consumables (essential needs). According to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 AsylbLG, they are also granted benefits to cover their personal needs of daily life (essential personal needs). According to Section 3 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 AsylbLG, if the person is accommodated in reception facilities as defined in Section 44 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act, the essential needs are covered by in-kind benefits. If the essential personal needs according to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 AsylbLG are fully covered by cash benefits, these amount to [amount missing in original text] according to Section 3a Paragraph 1 AsylbLG (as amended by the announcement regarding the amount of the benefit rates according to Section 3a Paragraph 4 AsylbLG for the period from January 1, 2025).<vom 23. Oktober 2024, BGBl. 2024 I Nr. 325> ) monthly for
a) Adult beneficiaries who live in an apartment within the meaning of Section 8 of the Standard Needs Assessment Act and for whom neither number 2 letter a nor number 3 letter a applies, as well as for young beneficiaries who do not live in an apartment with at least one parent: 196 euros each;
b) Adult beneficiaries receive €177 each if they
aa) live in an apartment within the meaning of Section 8 of the Standard Needs Assessment Act with a spouse or civil partner or in a marriage-like or civil partnership-like community with a partner (Section 3a paragraph 1 number 2 letter a);
bb) do not live in an apartment because they are accommodated in a reception facility within the meaning of Section 44 paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act or in communal accommodation within the meaning of Section 53 paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act or not only temporarily in comparable other accommodation (Section 3a paragraph 1 number 2 letter b).
The applicant is entitled to benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 1 Number 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), as she has a temporary suspension of deportation pursuant to Section 60a of the Residence Act and is actually residing in Germany as a foreign national. Furthermore, she is in need of assistance within the meaning of Section 7 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the AsylbLG, as she has no income or assets. Circumstances that would justify exclusion from benefits under Sections 1 Paragraphs 2 to 4, 11 Paragraph 2, and 2a of the AsylbLG have neither been presented nor are apparent.
The applicant currently receives benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) corresponding to standard benefit level 2. However, the Social Court of Karlsruhe is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to benefits at standard benefit level 1, even though she is accommodated in a reception center and thus, in principle, fulfills the substantive requirements of Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 b of the AsylbLG. This is because, in light of the applicant's submissions and the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of October 19, 2022 (see Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of October 19, 2022 – 1 BvL 3/21, juris), the court is convinced that the provisions in Section 3a of the AsylbLG raise significant constitutional concerns.
The Social Court of Karlsruhe adopts the following statements made by the Social Court of Trier in its decision of 31 May 2024 in case S 5 AY 76/24:
"In its decision of October 19, 2022, the Federal Constitutional Court stated that the provision of Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (as amended by Article 1 No. 3 of the Third Act Amending the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act of August 13, 2019) is unconstitutional."
The Federal Constitutional Court's decision concerns the parallel provision in Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). However, in the Court's view, the considerations and explanations presented by the Federal Constitutional Court must also apply to the reduction of the benefit allowance at issue here for single benefit recipients in reception centers and communal accommodations under Section 3a AsylbLG, as the constitutional issues outlined above
also arise in this context. Regarding the application of Sections 3 and 3a AsylbLG, there is currently no sufficient basis for comparability with the situation in couples' households when benefit recipients are housed in reception centers and communal accommodations, nor for the assumption of actual cost savings based on this comparison. Therefore, in the absence of sound evidence, it cannot be assumed that those affected generally have reliable opportunities to reduce their expenses for basic needs through shared living arrangements with roommates to the extent assumed by the legislature. Given the realistic interpretation of the actual situation in accommodations, which are characterized by the random, temporary housing of strangers, the assumption of cost savings should only be considered in cases of particularly close relationships and cannot be assumed across the board. Such a bond cannot regularly be compared to that of life partners who support (or intend to support) each other and communicate confidentially (see Frankfurt Social Court, decision of January 14, 2020 – S 30 AY 26/19 ER, juris). Mere cohabitation in communal accommodation or a reception center is insufficient to demonstrate or justify the assumption of actual cost savings and thus a reduced need for basic necessities.
Therefore, Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the constitution, and, through a norm-preserving teleological reduction, "mutual support" must be read into the provision as an unwritten requirement. The court expressly concurs with the legal opinion of the Bavarian State Social Court, the Trier Social Court, and the Heilbronn Social Court (see Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of April 29, 2021 – L 8 AY 122/20, juris; Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of May 31, 2023 – L 8 AY 7/23; Bavarian State Social Court, Judgment of October 30, 2023 – L 8 AY 33/23, juris; Trier Social Court, Decision of April 15, 2024 – S 3 AY 7/24 ER; Trier Social Court, Decision of May 7, 2024 – S 3 AY 65/24 ER; Trier Social Court, Decision of May 14, 2024 – S 3 AY 66/24 ER; Heilbronn Social Court, Decision of March 5, 2024 – S 16 AY 395/24 ER).
Section 3a paragraph 1 number 2 b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) therefore only applies if an actual "mutual support" can be established, as is inherent in the situation described in Section 3a paragraph 1 number 2 a of the AsylbLG. In addition to interpreting the wording, legislative history, overall context, and purpose of the legal provision, one of the recognized methods of interpreting the law is a so-called constitutionally compliant interpretation (see Higher Social Court of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, decision of January 21, 2021 – L 9 AY 27/20 B ER, juris; Federal Constitutional Court, decision of June 19, 1973 – 1 BvL 39/69, juris). Teleological reduction of legal provisions is among the recognized principles of interpretation that are not objectionable under constitutional law (see Federal Constitutional Court, decision of June 19, 1973 – 1 BvL 39/69, juris). It is characterized by the fact that, contrary to its wording, it deems the provision to be interpreted inapplicable with respect to some of the cases it covers because its purpose, legislative history, and the overall context of the relevant regulations argue against its unrestricted application; in cases where a violation of fundamental rights is imminent according to a literal interpretation, a permissible and constitutionally compatible interpretation of the norm contrary to its wording may even be required (see Federal Social Court, judgment of December 19, 2013 – B 2 U 17/12 R, juris; Federal Social Court, judgment of December 4, 2014 – B 2 U 18/13 R, juris).
In the present case, an "mutual support" as an unwritten prerequisite is not apparent either from the submissions of the parties involved or based on the case file. Even considering the view, sometimes expressed in case law, that the application of standard benefit level 2 of Section 3a AsylbLG requires, as an unwritten criterion, "the actual and verifiable communal household management of the benefit recipient with other persons accommodated in the collective accommodation" (see LSG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, decision of 11.05.2020 – L 9 AY 22/19 B ER, juris; LSG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, decision of 21.01.2021 – L 9 AY 27/20 B ER, beck-online; LSG Hessen, decision of 13.04.2021 – L 4 AY 3/21 B ER, beck-online; SG Bremen, decision of 03.07.2020 – S 39 AY 55/20 ER, juris), no other result is reached. Because there is neither evidence nor any presentation of evidence to support this.
The applicant is therefore entitled to the claimed benefit under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in the amount of the standard benefit level 1.
There is also a ground for an injunction, since the existence of a claim for an injunction means that less stringent requirements apply to the grounds for the injunction. While the mere fact that basic services are affected is generally not sufficient to establish an irreparable disadvantage (see Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 19 September 2017 – 1 BvR 1719/17, juris; Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg, decision of 28 August 2019 – L 7 AY2735/19 ER-B, juris). In view of the specific amount of the disputed benefits and the fact that, in addition to the applicant, her children also indirectly depend on these benefits to cover their living expenses, the requested increase in benefits is particularly relevant because, due to the administrative error in connection with the failed transfers of the housing and heating benefits not payable to her between September 2024 and February 2025, the applicant received an overpayment totaling €548.55 and might have to make corresponding repayments. This would be the case, for example, if the parties were to reach an out-of-court settlement regarding any potential reimbursement claims by the respondent and the applicant's claim to a constitutionally compliant standard benefit rate, stipulating that..
- The respondent grants the applicant benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) beyond April 30, 2025, until the court's decision on the action S 12 AY 707/25 becomes unappealable, in accordance with the standard benefit level 1
- The applicant shall pay monthly installments to the respondent in the amount of the difference between standard benefit levels 1 and 2 to settle any reimbursement claims of the respondent arising from the benefit period September 2024 to February 2025, and
- A set-off is made between the currently granted standard benefit payments and the current monthly reimbursement installments.
Since, in addition to the claim for an injunction, grounds for an injunction have also been credibly demonstrated, the court must issue an order compelling the respondent to comply with the application.
However, the court, exercising its discretion under Section 86b Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), restricts its order in four respects:
Firstly, the order is issued subject to the reservation of the right to reclaim the provisionally granted monetary benefits. This will be decided after the final and unappealable decision on the action (S 12 AY 707/25) of March 18, 2025, against the respondent's decision of February 20, 2025, as amended by the objection decision of March 12, 2025.
Secondly, the court, as requested, limits the provisional obligation to perform from the date of the urgent application to the court on March 12, 2025.
Thirdly, the court limits the provisional obligation to pay benefits until the applicant possibly leaves the federal territory, because the entitlement to benefits would cease upon departure.
Fourth, the court also limits the provisional obligation to pay benefits to April 30, 2025. This is because, according to judicial discretion, a preliminary injunction in cases involving the receipt of asylum seeker benefits must generally be limited in time if – as here – the factual and legal situation cannot be conclusively examined due to the urgency of the matter, the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to wait for the subsistence benefits to which she is entitled, and, on the other hand, factual changes could occur at any time that would result in the respondent's obligation to pay benefits ceasing. Since the current benefit period then expires, the court considers April 30, 2025, to be an appropriate end date.
2. The applicant shall also be granted legal aid for the present expedited proceedings, including the appointment of his or her legal representative.
Pursuant to Sections 73a of the Social Court Act (SGG) and 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), a party who, due to their personal and financial circumstances, cannot afford the costs of litigation, or can only afford them in part or in installments, is entitled to legal aid upon application, provided that the intended legal action or defense has a reasonable prospect of success and does not appear frivolous. In accordance with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party must utilize their income and assets in accordance with the statutory provisions.
Since the applicant receives asylum seeker benefits, she is unable, due to her personal and financial circumstances, to finance the legal proceedings from her own resources. For the reasons set out in point 1, her application for interim relief also has a reasonable prospect of success and is not frivolous.
3. The decision on costs follows from the corresponding application of Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG) and takes into account the applicant's complete success.
4. This decision cannot be appealed to the State Social Court of Baden-Württemberg because of points 1 and 3 of its operative provisions, as the amount in dispute for the unsuccessful respondent does not reach the minimum amount for appeal.
In preliminary legal protection proceedings, the exclusion of appeals applies pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 144 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1, Sentence 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG). Accordingly, in the main proceedings, an appeal against a decision containing this preliminary injunction would require leave to appeal in the judgment of the Social Court or a leave to appeal decision of the Higher Social Court, since the legally stipulated amount in dispute of €750 is not met.
5. However, the decision may be appealed by the public treasury due to the legal aid granted under point 2 of the operative part, in accordance with the attached instructions on legal remedies (§ 127 para. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
The following is information on legal remedies.
