DECISION
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Applicant –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55,
37073 Göttingen
against
State of Rhineland-Palatinate,
represented by the Supervisory and Service Directorate,
Willy-Brandt-Platz 3,
54290 Trier
– Respondent –
The 16th Chamber of the Social Court of Speyer decided on May 27, 2025, through Judge xxx of the Social Court:
1. The respondent is ordered by way of preliminary injunction to grant the applicant, for the period from 24 April 2025 to 30 June 2025, but at the latest until the decision on the applicant's objection of 3 April 2025 becomes final or until the applicant leaves the federal territory, benefits to cover personal needs of daily life (necessary personal needs) pursuant to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 AsylbLG in the amount of EUR 204 per month, insofar as these are granted as cash benefits.
2. Furthermore, the application is rejected.
3. The respondent shall bear the applicant's necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.
The applicant seeks, by way of an interim injunction, to compel the respondent to grant benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in a lawful amount.
The applicant, born in 1994, is a Somali national and lives in communal accommodation. He receives benefits from the respondent under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) not through an official decision, but rather through de facto approval. The respondent grants the applicant benefits in accordance with Sections 3 et seq. of the AsylbLG. According to the available documents, since January 1, 2025, the applicant has received cash benefits to cover his personal daily needs (necessary personal needs) pursuant to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the AsylbLG, amounting to a total of €196 per month, in the form of regular cash payments every two weeks. The necessary needs pursuant to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the AsylbLG are provided in kind pursuant to Section 3 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the AsylbLG.
The applicant, represented by his subsequent legal counsel, filed an objection to the de facto granting of benefits by letter dated April 3, 2025. As far as can be ascertained, the respondent has not yet ruled on the objection.
On April 24, 2025, the applicant's legal representative filed an application with the Speyer Social Court for an interim injunction, aimed at granting higher benefits.
Regarding the claim for an injunction and the grounds for the injunction, it was initially stated that further explanations would be provided after the files had been reviewed.
The applicant requests:
The respondent is ordered, by way of preliminary injunction, to grant the applicant, provisionally and subject to the right of recovery, until a final and binding decision is reached on the applicant's objection of April 3, 2025, against the de facto provision of benefits by the respondent, in accordance with the legal opinion of the court, the basic benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in full from the date of receipt of this application by the court, insofar as these benefits are granted as monetary benefits.
The respondent requests that
the application be dismissed.
The grounds for the rejection were that the application was inadmissible. Firstly, the application was entirely vague. Secondly, the applicant had failed to demonstrate whether and to what extent his rights had been violated, nor had he explained why he had any legitimate interest in legal protection. Furthermore, the application was also unfounded.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate either grounds for an injunction or a substantive claim. Regarding the grounds for an injunction, it should be noted that—insofar as the applicant states that a response will be given (only) after reviewing the case file—it is unclear why the applicant cannot already explain (at least) why there is a particular urgency for issuing the requested preliminary injunction. With regard to the substantive claim, it must be assumed that the applicant, with the application for preliminary legal protection, is asserting a claim to full benefits. In this regard, it should be noted that the applicant has not received any "reduced benefits" to date. Rather, the applicant receives "full benefits" in accordance with the statutory regulations and the corresponding standard rate under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), which are regularly paid to him twice a week. The applicant last received the full amount of €91.50 in benefits on April 22, 2025.
After reviewing the files, the applicant argued that, compared to the benefits received in 2024, he had been receiving lower benefits since January 1, 2025. This was apparently justified by the fact that the adjustment of the standard benefit levels for 2025, as stipulated in the Ordinance on Determining the Percentages Relevant for Updating the Standard Benefit Levels pursuant to Section 28a and for Updating the Partial Amount pursuant to Section 34 Paragraph 3a Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), and Supplementing the Annex to Sections 28 and 34 of the SGB XII (Standard Benefit Level Adjustment Ordinance 2025 – RBSFV 2025), resulted in euro amounts that were lower than those in 2024. Unlike in the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Book XII (SGB XII), the grandfathering clause in Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the SGB XII appears to be considered inapplicable in the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). While the euro amounts for recipients of subsistence benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Book XII (SGB XII), will remain unchanged in 2025, benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) will be reduced. This is unlawful. On the one hand, the grandfathering clause in Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the SGB XII is directly applicable to the calculation of the euro amounts in Section 3a of the AsylbLG, and on the other hand, the grandfathering clause arises from the wording of the RBSFV 2025 (Regulation on Benefits for Asylum Seekers) itself. This, in turn, follows from the wording of Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the AsylbLG and from the legislator's intent. Section 3a, paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) reads: "The monetary amounts according to paragraphs 1 and 2 are adjusted annually on January 1st in accordance with the rate of change pursuant to Section 28a of Book Twelve of the Social Code (SGB XII) in conjunction with the Ordinance on the Adjustment of Standard Needs Levels pursuant to Section 40, sentence 1, number 1 of Book Twelve of the Social Code (SGB XII)." The explanatory memorandum to the Act (Bundestag printed matter 18/2592, p. 25) states: "The amounts stipulated in the Act for the year 2014 for cash needs and the monetary amounts pursuant to paragraph 2 result from the adjustment of the amounts determined in the 2008 Income and Expenditure Survey (EVS). The adjustments made to the standard needs under Book Twelve of the Social Code (SGB XII) were precisely replicated. This applies to both the rates of change and the individual calculation rules." The provision in Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is clearly a calculation rule that, according to the legislator's intent, is to be "exactly replicated" in the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the AsylbLG, therefore, refers, according to the legislator's intent, to the entirety of Section 28a SGB XII, and thus also to Section 28a Paragraph 5 SGB XII, and not merely to the rate of change in isolation, since the reference to the individual calculation rules in the explanatory memorandum to the law would otherwise have been superfluous (see also Marburg Social Court, decision of February 14, 2025, S 16 AY 11/24 ER; Halle Social Court, decision of March 17, 2025, S 17 AY 3/25 ER; Stuttgart Social Court, judgment of March 25, 2025, S 9 AY 4251/23). The reference in Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) to the "Regulation on the Adjustment of Standard Needs Levels pursuant to Section 40 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the Twelfth Book of the Social Code" also results in the direct application of the grandfathering provision from Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the Twelfth Book of the Social Code. According to Section 40 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the Twelfth Book of the Social Code, the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS), in agreement with the Federal Ministry of Finance, is to determine, by statutory instrument with the approval of the Federal Council, the percentages relevant for the adjustment of the standard needs levels pursuant to Section 28a and for the adjustment of the partial amount pursuant to Section 34 Paragraph 3a Sentence 1 of the Twelfth Book of the Social Code. Section 1 of the RBSFV 2025 states: “(1) The rate of change for the basic update of the standard benefit levels pursuant to Section 28a paragraph 3 of Book Twelve of the Social Code as of January 1, 2025, is 4.60 percent. The rate of change for the supplementary update of the standard benefit levels pursuant to Section 28a paragraph 4 of Book Twelve of the Social Code as of January 1, 2025, is 0.7 percent. (2) The standard benefit levels pursuant to Section 8 paragraph 1 of the Standard Benefit Determination Act will be updated in accordance with the rates of change pursuant to paragraph 1 as of January 1, 2025. The resulting euro amounts for the standard benefit levels are lower than the euro amounts determined for 2024. Pursuant to Section 28a paragraph 5 of Book Twelve of the Social Code, the euro amounts for the standard benefit levels determined for 2024 will therefore also apply as of January 1, 2025.” 2025." Therefore, the clear wording in Section 1 Paragraph 2 of the RBSFV 2025, to which Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) refers, means that Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) applies directly to the calculation of euro amounts from January 1, 2025. Furthermore, the fact that the legislator intended to prevent a reduction in the standard benefit rates across the entire subsistence security sector is also evident from the explanatory memorandum to Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the SGB XII (Bundestag printed matter 20/3873, page 110). The text states: “In exceptional cases, the annual adjustment of the standard benefit rates may, due to corresponding changes in the mixed index and the current change rates of the price index relevant to standard benefit rates in the second quarter, result in the standard benefit rates for the coming calendar year being lower than in the current calendar year. This is prevented by paragraph 5. The applicable amounts continue to be paid until an adjustment results in a higher amount. Comparable regulations have existed in the past in laws determining standard benefit rates when the amount of a standard benefit rate was below the applicable amount after recalculation. The difference is reduced by the subsequent adjustment(s).” Therefore, benefits in 2025 are to be granted in principle without any reduction compared to the benefits in 2024. Furthermore, the applicant argues that, in his assessment, the rate of change for the supplementary update pursuant to Section 28a Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), would lead to a negative development with regard to the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), as the reduction in the rate of change for the supplementary update was clearly due to developments in energy prices. This is particularly relevant because electricity costs (Section 04 of Section 5 Paragraph 1 of the Standard Needs Assessment Act – RBEG) are not included in the basic benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG, and therefore it is possible that the reduction in benefits for the period from January 1, 2025, compared to the benefits in the previous year, is largely based on the development of prices for goods (electricity) that are not covered by the basic benefits under the AsylbLG. For detailed explanations in this regard, reference is made to pages 36 et seq. of the court file.
The respondent contested the applicant's arguments. It stated that, insofar as the applicant argued that it was unlawful for the euro amounts of 2024 to remain unchanged in 2025 for recipients of subsistence benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Book XII (SGB XII), while benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) would be reduced, thus making the grandfathering provision in Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the SGB XII directly applicable to the calculation of the euro amounts in Section 3a of the AsylbLG, and that the grandfathering provision also arose from the wording of the RBSFV 2025 itself, the respondent countered that the applicant had still not substantiated a claim for an injunction and, moreover, had failed to demonstrate grounds for such an injunction. In the present case, the monetary benefits had been paid out in the correct amount. The amounts paid to the applicant for the period from January 1, 2025, onwards under standard benefit level 1 were determined based on the announcement regarding the amount of the benefit rates pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (see Federal Law Gazette 2024 I No. 325 of October 29, 2024). Contrary to the applicant's view, the grandfathering provision of Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is not applicable in the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (see also Heilbronn Social Court, decision of February 17, 2025, S 15 AY 181/25). Neither Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) nor Section 9 of the AsylbLG refer to the protection of acquired rights under Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), nor does the AsylbLG expressly contain such a protection of acquired rights clause – unlike in the benefit law under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Book XII (SGB XII), where the protection of acquired rights provision of Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the SGB XII ensures that the standard benefit rate remains unchanged in amount for the coming year (cf. Frerichs, in: Schlegel/Voelzke, juris-PK on Section 3a AsylbLG, 4th edition, as of December 23, 2024, marginal note 100.3 and Siefert, jurisPR-SozR 22/2024 note 1 at the end). The Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs has updated the amount of the monthly payments pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for the period from 1 January 2025 and published them in the Federal Law Gazette pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 of the AsylbLG (see "Announcement on the amount of the benefit rates pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act for the period from 1 January 2025" of 23 October 2024, Federal Law Gazette 2024 I No. 325). The update, in accordance with Section 3a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), would be based on the update of the standard benefit levels regulated in Section 134 Paragraph 1 Sentences 1 and 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), pursuant to Section 28a Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the SGB XII, effective January 1, 2025. This update would consist of a basic update with a change rate of 4.6% and a supplementary update with a change rate of 0.7%; both change rates would be derived from Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the 2025 Standard Benefit Levels Ordinance (RBSFV 2025). However, the basic update for January 1, 2025, would not be based on the euro amounts applicable in 2024 for the respective benefit levels, but rather on the amounts resulting from the basic update of the benefit levels as of January 1, 2024. This ensures that the basis for the annual update is consistently the amounts updated using the mixed index, which are increased for the respective calendar year by the supplementary update. This is evident from the relevant explanatory memorandum to the RBSFV 2025 (see Federal Council Document 453/24, p. 4, Explanatory Memorandum A. I 1 a RBSFV 2025, as well as Hohm, GK-AsylbLG – Commentary on the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act, Section 3a AsylbLG, para. 97.11). Ultimately, however, the applicant has not credibly demonstrated grounds for an injunction in the sense of particular urgency. Due to the adjustment of the standard rates on January 1, 2025, the applicant's total needs for necessary personal expenses in standard rate level 1 have decreased from €204 per month to €196 per month. This corresponds to a difference of €8. The applicant has still not demonstrated or substantiated how he is suffering from a concrete shortfall in his basic needs that could be considered a threat to his livelihood and would justify a court decision in expedited proceedings. Rather, his submissions remain entirely vague and unsubstantiated. Finally, it should be noted that, in the respondent's view, benefits exceeding those provided by law cannot be granted in preliminary injunction proceedings. This is because the clear wording of the relevant regulation(s) sets the limit of any interpretation, even a constitutionally compliant one (see, among others, Federal Social Court, Judgment of December 7, 1989 – 12 RK 26/88, para. 16). Thus, a complete disregard for the statutory provision(s) would infringe upon the Federal Constitutional Court's monopoly of unconstitutionality under Article 100 of the Basic Law and would be incompatible with the Basic Law.
For further details of the facts and the legal arguments, reference is made to the contents of the court file and the administrative file of the respondent. These will form the basis of the court's decision-making process.
II.
The application is admissible and justified to the extent stated.
The provisional legal protection in social court proceedings is governed by the provisions in §§ 86a, 86b SGG.
Pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court of first instance may, insofar as – as here – no case under Paragraph 1 applies, issue a preliminary injunction concerning the subject matter of the dispute upon application. The necessary element is the risk that a change in the existing state of affairs could frustrate or significantly impede the realization of a right of the applicant. According to Sentence 2, a preliminary injunction is also permissible to regulate a provisional state of affairs with regard to a disputed legal relationship if such regulation appears necessary to avert substantial disadvantages. In preliminary legal protection proceedings, a substantive claim must be subjected to summary review, and the final decision may not, in principle, be prejudged. Only in exceptional cases may this principle be deviated from if the disputed benefits serve to ensure a life of human dignity. This duty of the state is based on the constitutionally protected human dignity in conjunction with the constitutionally enshrined social welfare mandate (cf. Federal Constitutional Court, decision of May 12, 2005, 1 BvR 569/05). It follows that in these cases it may be necessary, in particular, to anticipate a decision on the merits if otherwise a right would be thwarted or a merely provisional arrangement is unreasonable. The requested preliminary injunction, which can only be issued in the form of a regulatory order pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Social Court Procedure Act (SGG), can only be granted if the asserted claim is sufficiently probable (claim for an injunction) and if, due to its non-fulfillment, serious and otherwise unavoidable disadvantages are imminent, even subsequently by a decision on the merits (see, in particular, Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of February 25, 2009, 1 BvR 120/09; similarly, Higher Social Court of Rhineland-Palatinate, Decision of February 12, 2010, L 1 SO 84/09 B ER). The claim for an injunction is thus the substantive legal claim on which the request is based, while the ground for an injunction lies in the urgency (see, for example, Higher Social Court of Rhineland-Palatinate, Decision of October 18, 2007, L 1 ER 242/07 AS). According to 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), these prerequisites for the claim must be substantiated to a degree of probability (Keller in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th edition 2023, SGG Section 86b marginal note 16b, 41).
The claim and the grounds for an injunction are not unrelated but, due to their functional connection, form a dynamic system (see also Keller in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th ed. 2023, SGG § 86b para. 27). If a corresponding action would be manifestly inadmissible or unfounded, there is no right that needs to be protected in preliminary injunction proceedings. The application for a preliminary injunction must then be rejected, even if grounds for an injunction exist. If, on the other hand, the action were obviously admissible and well-founded, the requirements for the grounds for the order would be reduced accordingly, although their existence could not be dispensed with entirely (see, in particular, the decision of the Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court of 15 February 2005, L 5 ER 5/05 KR, the decision of 25 September 2006, L 5 ER 129/06 KR, and the decision of 12 February 2010, L 1 SO 84/09 B ER; see, for example, Jüttner/Wehrhahn in: Breitkreuz/Fichte, SGG, 3rd ed. 2020, SGG § 86b para. 57). In the event of an entirely open outcome of the main proceedings, a comprehensive balancing of interests is required in preliminary injunction proceedings (see Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 12 May 2005, 1 BvR 569/05, decision of 1 February 2010, 1 BvR 20/10, decision of 6 February 2013, 1 BvR 2366/12, and decision of 6 August 2014, 1 BvR 1453/12). These considerations must include, on the one hand, the consequences that would arise if the court did not issue the preliminary injunction but the claim was subsequently upheld in the main proceedings, and on the other hand, the consequences that would arise if the preliminary injunction were issued but the main proceedings were unsuccessful (see Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, decision of 15 February 2005, L 5 ER 5/05 KR; Keller in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th ed. 2023, SGG § 86b para. 29a). The decisive factor for a balancing of interests required when the outcome of the main proceedings is uncertain is whether, taking into account the interests of all those affected, it is unreasonable to expect the applicant to await the decision in the main proceedings (similarly, Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, decision of November 11, 2004, L 5 ER 75/04 KA; see also Keller in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th ed. 2023, SGG § 86b para. 28, 29a). However, the time disadvantages associated with any main proceedings are not sufficient to establish urgency (cf. generally, Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, decision of May 23, 2003, L 5 ER 35/03 KR; Keller in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th ed. 2023, SGG § 86b para. 29a). The same applies to purely non-material disadvantages (see also, among many others, Krodel, NZS, 2002, 180 (182)). With regard to monetary benefits sought for the past, i.e., for the period prior to the application to the court, there is regularly no ground for an order unless a need to catch up is credibly demonstrated (cf. Rhineland-Palatinate State Social Court, decision of 23 September 2010, L 3 AS 369/10 B ER, and decision of 10 November 2010, L 3 AS 535/10 B ER; Keller in: Mayer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, 14th ed. 2023, § 86b SGG Rn. 29a, 35a). This requires that a severe and unreasonable existential hardship persists in the present due to the past denial of benefits (see Bavarian State Social Court, decision of May 25, 2016, L 11 AS 272/16 B ER; Saxon State Social Court, decision of March 28, 2022, L 6 AS 86/22 B ER). Furthermore, it would be unreasonable to expect an applicant to pursue the claim for retroactive benefits in the main proceedings. An application for an interim injunction is inadmissible for lack of a legitimate interest in legal protection, or at least unfounded for lack of a claim to the injunction, if the objective sought by the application for interim relief has been definitively rejected (see generally the decisions of the Higher Social Court of Saarland of 11 August 2005, L 9 B 4/05 AS; the Higher Social Court of Hesse of 24 April 2006, L 9 AS 39/06; the Higher Social Court of Bavaria of 17 November 2008, L 11 B 942/08 AS ER, and of 5 February 2009, L 11 AS 20/09 B ER; Keller in: Mayer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, 14th ed. 2023, SGG § 86b para. 26d). Then there is no right that needs to be protected in expedited proceedings; there is no open main issue within the meaning of Section 86b Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG). Generally, there is no need for legal protection, or at least no ground for an order, if a simpler and reasonable means of achieving the desired outcome is available compared to seeking expedited judicial protection (see Keller in: Mayer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, 14th edition 2023, SGG Section 86b, marginal note 26).
Based on the principles set out above, the applicant has, to the satisfaction of the Chamber, credibly demonstrated a claim to an injunction and grounds for an injunction.
Contrary to the respondent's view, the grandfathering provision of Section 28 Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is applicable to the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) (see also Marburg Social Court, decision of February 14, 2025, S 16 AY 11/24 ER, BeckRS 2025, 1966). Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to benefits pursuant to Sections 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 and 3a Paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG (necessary personal needs) in the amount of €204.00 per month.
The Chamber is convinced that the amount of benefits is directly derived from the statutory provisions. The provision of Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is directly applicable to the calculation of the monetary amounts in Section 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) (see also Marburg Social Court, decision of February 14, 2025, S 16 AY 11/24 ER, BeckRS 2025, 1966).
According to the direct wording in § 1 para. 2 RBSFV 2025, to which § 3a para. 4 AsylbLG refers, § 28a para. 5 SGB XII will be applied in the calculation of the monetary amounts from 01.01.2025. This result also corresponds to the legislator's intent (see also Marburg Social Court, decision of February 14, 2025, S 16 AY 11/24 ER, BeckRS 2025, 1966). The draft bill of the Federal Government of September 22, 2014 (BT-Drs. 18/2592, p. 25), which introduced the current Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) as Section 3 Paragraph 4, states: "The amounts stipulated in the law for the year 2014 for cash needs and the monetary amounts according to Paragraph 2 are derived by updating the amounts determined in the 2008 Income and Expenditure Survey (EVS). The updates made to the standard needs under Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) were precisely replicated. This applies to both the rates of change and the individual calculation rules."
According to the legislator's intent, the adjustments made to the standard benefit rates under Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) are to be "exactly replicated" within the scope of application of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). The adjustment of the standard benefit rates under SGB XII undoubtedly includes the grandfathering provision of paragraph 5, as stated in the wording of Section 28a, paragraph 1 of SGB XII. Furthermore, Section 28a, paragraph 5 of SGB XII is clearly a "calculation rule" that is expressly referenced in the draft legislation for the AsylbLG (see also Marburg Social Court, decision of February 14, 2025, S 16 AY 11/24 ER, BeckRS 2025, 1966). According to the legislator's intent, Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) refers to the entirety of Section 28a of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), and thus also to Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the SGB XII, and not merely to individual paragraphs of Section 28a of the SGB XII in isolation, since the reference to the "individual calculation rules" in the explanatory memorandum to the law would otherwise have been completely superfluous (similarly, Social Court of Marburg, decision of February 14, 2025, S 16 AY 11/24 ER, BeckRS 2025, 1966).
The Chamber is not persuaded by the view, held by the Federal Government among others, that the protection of acquired property does not apply to the adjustment of standard benefit rates for asylum seekers (https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/nullrunde-buergergeld-2309118; accessed on May 8, 2025). While this view is also expressed in legal literature and case law (see, for example, Spitzlei in: BeckOK Ausländerrecht, Kluth/Heusch, 43rd ed., as of October 1, 2024, AsylbLG § 3a para. 15, beck-online; Heilbronn Social Court, decision of February 17, 2025, S 15 AY 181/25 ER), the Court finds no compelling arguments in the statements made therein to support this view. Insofar as it is argued, for example, that the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), unlike Section 20 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), does not directly refer to Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), it should be noted that Section 20 of the SGB II also only refers to Section 28a of the SGB XII in general terms, but does not make a direct reference to the grandfathering provision of Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the SGB XII. Accordingly, the court—particularly considering the arguments presented above for the application of Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the SGB XII—sees no convincing grounds for assuming that the reference in Section 3a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the AsylbLG to the rate of change according to Section 28a of the SGB XII is not intended to encompass the grandfathering provision of Paragraph 5.
This result is not altered by the respondent's correct reference to the announcement regarding the amount of benefits pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act for the period from January 1, 2025 (Federal Law Gazette I, October 29, 2024, No. 325). According to this announcement, the monthly amount recognized under Section 3a Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act in the applicant's benefit group is €196.00 – i.e., the amounts set by the respondent. This announcement is not legally binding and merely serves an informational purpose for the uniform application of the law, thus having a declaratory effect (see Frerichs in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 4th ed., Section 3a Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (as of April 8, 2025), marginal note 126 with further references). Unlike the updating of standard benefit rates under Section 28a of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), where the annex to Section 28 SGB XII must be supplemented by regulation to include the new standard benefit levels (see Section 40, Sentence 1, No. 2 SGB XII), Section 3a, Paragraph 4, Sentence 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) provides for the mere publication of the new benefit rates by the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS) in the Federal Law Gazette. This publication does not constitute a formal law or any other substantive law (e.g., a statutory instrument or bylaw). It does not even have the status of an administrative regulation binding on the benefit authorities (see also Frerichs in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 4th ed., Section 3a AsylbLG (as of April 8, 2025), marginal note 126 with further references).
Accordingly, a claim to lawfully adjusted benefits does not arise from the announcement, but directly from the law (see also Marburg Social Court, decision of February 14, 2025, S 16 AY 11/24 ER, BeckRS 2025, 1966). Insofar as the change in benefits under Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) is established, the benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) must be adjusted accordingly. The benefit recipient has an enforceable right to be granted benefits in the correctly adjusted amount. The announcement is not legally binding, but serves to ensure the transparency of uniform application of the law. It has merely declaratory effect and is intended to ensure that all benefit providers are informed of the new amount by the Ministry, so that they do not have to perform the necessary calculations themselves. This is supported in particular by the fact that the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS) has no discretion regarding the amount of the adjustment. The regular adjustment is also based on constitutional considerations, according to which the fundamental rights review and further development of the benefit levels based on current circumstances to secure the minimum subsistence level is also mandatory for recipients of benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). In light of the courts' criticism of the lack of review of benefit levels under the AsylbLG, the legislature has enacted new legal regulations for updating benefit needs (see, for example, the Marburg Social Court, decision of February 14, 2025, S 16 AY 11/24 ER, BeckRS 2025, 1966 with further references).
According to this principle, applying Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), the euro amounts determined for 2024 remain valid in the present case because the euro amounts for 2025 are lower than those applicable in the previous year. In this respect, the respondent's argument regarding the Federal Constitutional Court's monopoly on declaring constitutional law unconstitutional is irrelevant in the present case, since the applicant's asserted claim – as explained above – arises from the correct application of the statutory provisions.
The grounds for the injunction arise – even considering the small difference of €8 per month between the amount of benefits already granted by the respondent and the amount the court orders the respondent to pay – from the essential nature of the withheld benefits, which are crucial for the applicant's basic needs. The injunction is necessary to prevent significant disadvantages for the applicant, as the insufficient benefits granted would exclude him from the level of support deemed necessary by the legislature to cover the socio-cultural minimum subsistence level guaranteed under Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. No higher standards of proof are required in this case. Furthermore, less stringent requirements apply to establishing the grounds for the injunction if, as in the present case, the applicant is likely to prevail in the main proceedings.
The application was granted to the extent stated in the judgment. In all other respects, the application was to be rejected. The Chamber exercised its discretion regarding the period of the respondent's obligation by ordering provisional benefits to be paid until June 30, 2025. In doing so, the Chamber considered the provisional nature of the expedited proceedings and the reasonable duration for conducting an objection procedure pursuant to Section 88 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
The decision on costs is based on Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG), which is applicable accordingly in summary court proceedings, and is based on the outcome of the proceedings.
The appeal against this decision is excluded, § 172 para. 3 no. 1 SGG.
