DECISION
In the appeal proceedings
L 4 AY 9/25 B ER
S 7 AY 8/25 ER (Fulda Social Court)
1. xxx,
Applicant and respondent,
2. xxx,
Applicant and respondent,
Legal representative: for 1.-2.:
Attorney Sven Adam
Lange, Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen,
against
Fulda District, represented by the District Committee
– Legal Affairs Department –,
Wörthstraße 15, 36037 Fulda,
Respondent and appellant,
The 4th Senate of the Hessian State Social Court in Darmstadt decided on July 22, 2025, through the presiding judge of the State Social Court xxx:
The respondent's application to suspend the enforcement of the decision of the Fulda Social Court of June 4, 2025 – S 7 AY 8/25 ER – is dismissed as inadmissible.
REASONS
The respondent's application, as specified in the written submission of July 14, 2025,
to suspend the enforcement of the decision of the Fulda Social Court of June 4, 2025 – S 7 AY 8/25 ER,
is already inadmissible. According to Section 199 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), if an appeal does not have suspensive effect, the presiding judge of the court that has to decide on the appeal may suspend enforcement by means of a preliminary injunction. While court decisions fall within the scope of this provision according to Section 199 Paragraph 1 No. 1 SGG, if they do not have suspensive effect, a prerequisite for the admissibility of an application under Section 199 Paragraph 2 SGG is that the title also has enforceable content (see B. Schmidt, in: Meyer-Ladewig et al., SGG, 14th ed. 2023, Section 199, marginal note 7). The contested decision orders the suspensive effect of the objection pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 SGG. Such a ruling has only constitutive effect and is not an enforceable title within the meaning of the aforementioned provision (see also the following: Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Social Court, decision of January 31, 2013 – L 20 AS 47/13 B ER –, para. 6 with further references). The order granting suspensive effect to an objection binds the parties until the main proceedings become final. Only the court hearing the main proceedings has the power to amend a decision pursuant to Section 86b para. 1 sentence 4 of the Social Court Act (SGG). Therefore, a corresponding application of Section 199 para. 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG) in the sense of granting suspensive effect to the respondent's appeal against the decision of the Social Court is also precluded.
Even assuming the admissibility of the application, the subsequent balancing of interests would be unfavorable to the respondent, since the dispute concerns benefits intended to guarantee a dignified minimum standard of living, and regardless of the interpretation of Section 14 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), both the grounds for reducing benefits under Section 1a Paragraph 4 of the AsylbLG and the level of benefits granted are subject to significant constitutional concerns (cf. regarding the level of benefits, Senate decision of February 26, 2020 – L 4 AY 14/19 B ER – juris Rn 38 ff.; regarding the requirements for a constitutionally compliant interpretation of Section 1a of the AsylbLG (old version), see in detail Federal Constitutional Court decision of May 12, 2021 – 1 BvR 2682/17 – juris Rn. 19-24).
This decision is final and cannot be appealed pursuant to Section 177 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
