COURT ORDER
In the legal dispute
xxx,
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange-Geismar-Straße 55, 37073 Göttingen
– Plaintiff –
against
Burgenlandkreis, represented by the District Administrator, – Legal Department –,
Schönburger Straße 41, 06618 Naumburg
– Defendant –
The 17th Chamber of the Social Court of Halle, without oral proceedings, rendered the following judgment on July 18, 2025, through Judge xxx of the Social Court:
1. The defendant is obliged to decide on the plaintiff's objection of 27 September 2024 against the decision of 26 September 2024 (file no.: IV/33.3.6/334001/CMR 66702).
2. The defendant shall reimburse the plaintiff for the necessary extrajudicial costs.
FACTS
The plaintiff seeks a decision on an objection.
The defendant granted the plaintiff, by decision dated September 26, 2025, monthly benefits pursuant to Section 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in the amount of €369.22, less a deduction of €40.78 for electricity, effective March 1, 2023. Accommodation is provided as a benefit in kind. The plaintiff filed an objection to this decision by letter from his attorney dated September 27, 2024. He argued that, according to Section 3a Paragraph 2 of the AsylbLG, the costs of accommodation, heating, household goods, apartment maintenance, and household energy are not provided as cash benefits; therefore, a deduction from the cash benefit is not permissible.
On February 5, 2025, the plaintiff filed an action for failure to act pursuant to Section 88 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG). The defendant had not yet decided on the objection.
The plaintiff requests that
the defendant be ordered to decide on the plaintiff's objection of 27 September 2024 against the decision of 26 September 2024 (file no.: IV/33.3.6/334001/CMR 66702).
The defendant stated in a written submission dated February 26, 2025, that the claim for inaction would be acknowledged and the objection would be processed promptly.
After the plaintiff, in a letter dated May 19, 2025, declared his consent to a decision by court order, the defendant, in a letter dated June 17, 2025, stated that the objection had not yet been finalized; he, too, consented to a decision by court order. In response to a court inquiry dated July 16, 2025, the defendant, in a letter dated July 17, 2025, stated that the objection had neither been finalized nor forwarded to the State Administrative Office. The relevant department was awaiting a decision by court order.
Regarding further details of the facts and the submissions of the parties, reference is made to the contents of the court file.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The action is admissible, in particular it was brought after the expiry of the period of 3 months stipulated in § 88 para. 2 SGG following the filing of the objection on 27.09.2024.
It is also justified.
The procedural claim (subject matter of the dispute) is directed solely at the decision on the objection of September 27, 2025, pursuant to Section 88 Paragraph 2 in conjunction with Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG). The specific content of the decision is not part of the claim in dispute.
The defendant, as the issuing authority, has standing to be sued in the present proceedings. It decides whether to grant the appeal (§ 85 para. 1 SGG) or to refer it to the appeals authority. In this case, that is the State Administrative Office as the next higher authority (§ 85 para. 2 sentence 1 no. 1 SGG in conjunction with §§ 4 para. 1 no. 2 and para. 4, 9 para. 2 OrgG LSA). Since the State Administrative Office has not yet received the appeal, the devolutive effect has not resulted in its jurisdiction by way of functional succession (cf. Bavarian State Social Court, decision of July 18, 2006 – L 11 B 727/05 SO –, juris, para. 15).
The defendant has neither presented nor asserted sufficient grounds within the meaning of Section 88 Paragraph 2 in conjunction with Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG). It is unclear why he is not deciding on the objection. A court order is required for a decision on the objection.
The decision on costs is based on § 193 SGG.
Despite the defendant's written submission of July 17, 2025, the court, in the interest of concluding the proceedings, refrained from indicating, pursuant to Section 192 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), that the continuation of the legal defense was an abuse of process. The defendant's statement that the relevant department was awaiting a decision by court order could, conversely, be interpreted as meaning that a decision might be rendered. The legal rationale for why a court order should be necessary for the relevant department is incomprehensible.
The following is information on legal remedies.
