DECISION
L 8 AY 37/24
S 27 AY 148/21 Social Court Hildesheim
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff and appellant –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange-Geismar-Straße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Göttingen District Office, Legal Department,
represented by the District Administrator,
Reinhäuser Landstraße 4, 37083 Göttingen
– Defendant and Respondent –
The 8th Senate of the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court decided on March 25, 2025 in Celle through Judge xxx, Judge xxx and Judge xxx:
The plaintiff is granted legal aid for the second instance and attorney Adam, Göttingen, is appointed to represent him. Payment in installments is not ordered.
REASONS
The plaintiff is to be granted legal aid (PKH) as requested.
Pursuant to Section 73a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 114 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), a party who, according to their personal and economic circumstances, cannot afford the costs of litigation, can only afford them in part or in installments, receives legal aid upon application if the intended legal action or defense offers sufficient prospects of success and does not appear frivolous.
The plaintiff's appeal against the judgment of the Hildesheim Social Court of November 5, 2024, which was filed in due form and time (§ 151 SGG) and is also admissible in all other respects, in particular with a value of the subject matter of the appeal of €1,032.00 (restriction of entitlement pursuant to § 1a AsylbLG in the amount of €172.00 per month over a period of six months), is admissible without leave to appeal (§§ 143, 144 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 1 SGG), has sufficient prospects of success. The legal action is also not frivolous. The contested judgment may have wrongly dismissed the plaintiff's (combined) action for annulment and performance (§ 54 para. 1 and 4, § 56 SGG) against the decision of the defendant district dated 31 August 2021 as amended by the objection decision dated 26 October 2024 (§ 95 SGG) for higher benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act for the period from September 2021 to February 2022.
After a summary review of the facts and the law, the dispute concerning the legality of the restriction of benefits under Section 1a Paragraph 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) raises several factual and legal questions that are not easy to answer, particularly regarding the possibility of deporting the plaintiff, an Iranian national, during the period in question and the compatibility of the legal consequences of a restriction of benefits under Section 1a AsylbLG with the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living under Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) (see, in this regard, Senate decision of December 4, 2019 – L 8 AY 36/19 B ER – juris para. 6 et seq.; Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, decision of November 8, 2024 – L 20 AY 16/24 B ER – juris para. 56; Higher Social Court of Saxony, decision of December 16, 2021 – L 8 AY 8/21 B ER – juris para. 17 and of 22 February 2021 – L 8 AY 9/20 B ER – juris para. 59; Janda, info also 2020, 103 ff.; Oppermann in jurisPK-SGB XII, 4th ed. 2024, § 1a AsylbLG para. 241 ff.; Hohm in GK-AsylbLG, § 1a para. 582 ff.; Siefert in Siefert, AsylbLG, 2nd ed. 2020, § 1a para. 6 ff.; no constitutional concerns, however, Bavarian State Social Court, judgment of 10 September 2024 – L 8 AY 11/24 – juris para. 87 ff.).
Given his personal and economic circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to bear the costs of the litigation himself, even partially or in installments.
The appointment of the lawyer is based on Section 73a of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 121 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).
This decision is final and cannot be appealed by the parties to the proceedings, § 177 SGG.
