DECISION
in the proceedings
xxx,
– Applicant –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam
, Lange-Geismar-Str. 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Rastatt District Office,
represented by the District Office – Social Welfare Office –
Am Schlossplatz 5, 76437 Rastatt
– Respondent –
The 12th Chamber of the Social Court of Karlsruhe decided on July 21, 2025 in Karlsruhe through Judge xxx of the Social Court without oral proceedings:
I. In the proceedings S 12 AY 1152/25 ER,
1. the xxx
2. the xxx
joined as parties.
II. By way of preliminary injunction, the respondent is ordered to grant the applicant provisionally and subject to the right of recovery from May 5, 2025, until a final and binding decision, the application of April 14, 2025, for review of the continued benefit decision of February 4, 2025,
1. basic benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in accordance with the standard benefit level 1 applicable for 2024,
and
2. other benefits to secure subsistence and health pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in accordance with the contribution obligations for health and long-term care insurance set by the two interveners
.
III. The respondent shall reimburse the applicant's extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.
The applicant seeks, by way of preliminary legal protection in 2025, the granting of higher monetary benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), taking into account
– the more favorable standard benefit level 1 for him,
– the more favorable standard benefit rates of the previous year 2024 for him and
– his contribution obligations in the statutory health and long-term care insurance of the two interveners, which have not yet been taken into account to increase benefits.
The applicant, born in 1994, is an Arab citizen of Syrian nationality and of the Muslim faith. He entered the Federal Republic of Germany on July 14, 2023, during the Syrian Civil War and formally applied for asylum on July 20, 2023. On the same day, he was granted a temporary residence permit, which has since been repeatedly extended due to the pending asylum proceedings.
The applicant has been housed in the communal accommodation for asylum seekers in Bühl, within the local jurisdiction for asylum seeker benefits of the respondent, since September 7, 2023. The respondent granted him basic benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) by means of temporary decisions dated September 19, 2023 (for the period from September 7, 2023 to August 31, 2024) and August 6, 2024 (from September 1, 2024 to February 28, 2025). In the decision of August 6, 2024, the respondent provided the applicant with the following false information on his own initiative:
"Any voluntary health and long-term care insurance contributions that may be due will be transferred directly to the health insurance company."
This announcement by the respondent contradicted the respondent's (and presumably consistent) administrative practice, subsequently established by the Karlsruhe Social Court in four further decisions to date (Karlsruhe Social Court, decision of March 31, 2025, S 12 AY 706/25 ER, juris; Karlsruhe Social Court, decision of July 21, 2025, S 12 AY 1183/25 ER, juris; Karlsruhe Social Court, decision of July 21, 2025, S 12 AY 1381/25 ER, juris; Karlsruhe Social Court, decision of July 21, 2025, S 12 AY 1347/25 ER, juris), of not subsequently granting any additional cash benefits (to the asylum seekers themselves or their representatives) due to the contribution obligations of asylum seekers to health and long-term care insurance, which the respondent itself had partly caused through misleading proactive information. to provide benefits to the health insurance funds (and thereby harming the assets of the benefit recipients and the funds themselves). It was precisely because of this (non-)granting of cash benefits for contribution obligations to statutory health and long-term care insurance that the Ministry of Justice and Migration of Baden-Württemberg sent the following circular to the respondent (as well as all other lower-level reception authorities in the state officially responsible for granting asylum seeker benefits) on August 28, 2024:
"Dear Sir or Madam,
effective August 1, 2013, Section 188 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) introduced mandatory follow-up insurance with the statutory health insurance system. This also applies to individuals receiving benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and currently receiving basic benefits. Following the termination of employment subject to compulsory insurance, and upon resuming basic benefits under the AsylbLG, mandatory follow-up insurance pursuant to Section 188 Paragraph 4 of the SGB V will automatically commence."
According to the ruling of the Federal Social Court of March 10, 2022 (Case No.: B 1 KR 30/20 R), the benefits for illness, pregnancy, and childbirth under Section 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) do not constitute an alternative entitlement to health insurance coverage within the meaning of Section 188 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V). Therefore, termination of the mandatory follow-up insurance by the asylum seeker receiving benefits is not possible.
Within the framework of benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), the Ministry of Justice and Migration has determined that the insurance contributions incurred cannot be covered. The only possible exception would be Section 6 of the AsylbLG, which stipulates that other benefits can be granted only if they are essential in individual cases to secure subsistence or health. Section 6 of the AsylbLG thus constitutes an opening clause for basic benefits under the AsylbLG, allowing, for example, the provision of medical services that exceed the scope of benefits regulated in Section 4 of the AsylbLG. However, the coverage of insurance contributions is neither essential for securing subsistence nor health. Rather, all benefits necessary for securing subsistence and health are provided under Sections 4 and 6 of the AsylbLG. Therefore, the coverage of contributions to statutory health insurance (in this case, to the OAV), which maintains access to a more comprehensive entitlement to care in case of illness compared to the benefits under Sections 4 and 6 of the AsylbLG, cannot be considered essential for securing health.
Consequently, these are not reimbursable expenses under Section 15 of the Baden-Württemberg Refugee Reception Act (FlüAG). Reimbursement within the framework of the subsequent final settlement of expenses for temporary accommodation is therefore generally excluded. This also applies to the reimbursement of net actual expenses based on the recommendation of the Joint Finance Commission of December 16, 2019 (LT-Drs. 16/7481) for benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for recipients of benefits under the AsylbLG who are no longer considered to be temporarily accommodated in the legal sense. The lower-level reception authorities that have previously covered the mandatory follow-up insurance contributions based on the ruling of the Federal Social Court of March 10, 2022, will be reimbursed for these amounts up to and including the 2024 accounting year as part of the final settlement and as part of the reimbursement of net actual expenses based on the recommendation of the Joint Finance Commission of December 16, 2019 (LT-Drs. 16/7481). From the 2025 accounting year onwards, the aforementioned contributions will no longer be reimbursable.
Since contributions cannot be covered beyond the basic amount, those affected regularly fall into arrears. This represents a highly unsatisfactory legal situation for individual benefit recipients and also poses challenges for the benefit authorities. This issue was addressed at the last meeting of the Working Group on Migration and Refugee Issues of the Federal States (ArgeFlü) following a request from Baden-Württemberg. The responsible Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs has stated that it is aware of the issue and is in contact with the Federal Ministry of Health regarding adjustments to the regulations in the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V). The Ministry of Justice and Migration has also contacted the Ministry of Social Affairs, Health and Integration (SM) of Baden-Württemberg and requested that it address this matter. A solution can only be found through federal legislation.
Instead of expanding the scope of benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) should be clarified (specifically in Section 188, Paragraph 4) to state that benefits in case of illness, pregnancy and childbirth in conjunction with other benefits (Sections 4 and 6 AsylbLG) also qualify as an alternative entitlement to insurance in case of illness within the meaning of Section 188, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2 of the SGB V.
The Ministry of Justice will keep you informed of further developments
The applicant in case S 12 AY 1152/25 ER was granted permission on November 13, 2024, to take up temporary employment as a cleaning assistant, subject to social security contributions, for the period from November 27, 2024, to December 20, 2024, with a weekly working time of 30 hours. As a result, the applicant was required to become a member of the statutory health insurance and long-term care insurance schemes. He selected the two interveners as his mandatory members and had his employer deduct the health and long-term care insurance contributions owed to them under social security law from his gross wages and pay them directly to the interveners.
Due to the applicant's temporary employment, the respondent discontinued the payment of the asylum seeker benefits formally granted to the applicant at the beginning of December 2024 (without issuing a corresponding cancellation or termination notice). The respondent requested proof of income from the applicant and (by letters dated November 18, 2024, and December 17, 2024) a
"Written proof of enrollment in a health insurance policy, stating the insurance number and the start date of the insurance.".
Due to the expiry of the fixed term of his work permit and the resulting end of his temporary employment at the end of December, the applicant formally applied to the respondent for asylum seeker benefits at the beginning of January 2025.
The respondent immediately recognized that, given the secondary nature of his provision of health care benefits under Section 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) following the termination of employment subject to social security contributions, it would be economically advantageous if, where necessary, priority follow-up insurance policies could be established within the statutory health and long-term care insurance system. Consequently, and because he was already aware of the health insurance funds chosen by the applicant from the subsequently submitted wage statements, the respondent requested from the applicant –
by letter dated January 16, 2025 –
"Proof of application for voluntary continued insurance with the last responsible health insurance fund" or...
– by letter dated January 31, 2025:
“proof of your continued insurance with AOK”.
In the course of determining the facts relevant to reducing its own expenditure on asylum seeker benefits, the respondent threatened the applicant with a denial of benefits in the two letters dated January 16, 2025 and January 31, 2025, respectively, as follows:
We request that you respond within three weeks of receiving this letter. We draw your attention to your obligation to cooperate pursuant to Section 9 Paragraph 3 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with Section 60 Paragraph 1 of the Social Code (SGB I). Failure to cooperate may result in the denial of benefits pursuant to Section 9 Paragraph 3 of the AsylbLG in conjunction with Section 66 of the SGB I
At the same time, the respondent immediately recognized that, due to the expiration of the work permit and the resulting end of the temporary employment, it would be economically disadvantageous for the respondent with regard to the granting of other assistance pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) following the end of employment subject to social security contributions if it became known that the applicant was subject to contribution claims from the interveners due to his subsequent insurance in the statutory health and long-term care insurance system. Because of these unfavorable facts (in the form of the contribution obligations), the respondent subsequently failed to clarify the matter. In particular, the respondent failed to obtain any information regarding the applicant's contribution obligations from the health and long-term care insurance providers (pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book X) whose names were known to him from the payroll statements for November 2024 and December 2024 on file, in violation of the principle of investigation under Section 20 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the German Social Code, Book X. The respondent also failed to provide the clarifications, consultations, and information required under Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the German Social Code, Book I (SGB I). These clarifications, consultations, and information were procedurally necessary in the complex social law situation with regard to the applicant, who lacked language and legal expertise. This was particularly important because of the hypothetical impact of the applicant's voluntary decision to take out follow-up insurance on his benefit entitlements under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). Furthermore, the respondent had provided the applicant with the untruthful initial statement in the decision of August 6, 2024 ("Any voluntary health and long-term care insurance contributions that may be due will be transferred directly to the health insurance fund."), a statement to which the respondent no longer wishes to be bound, at the latest, due to the guidelines in the circular issued by the Ministry of Justice and Migration of Baden-Württemberg on August 28, 2024.
As requested, the applicant submitted to the respondent complete pay slips and bank statements, as well as a copy of the electronic health card provided to him by the interveners. He was unable to submit a contribution notice from the health and long-term care insurance fund because it was only issued months later.
Subsequently, on February 4, 2025, the respondent issued the "Decision on the Granting of Ongoing Benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) – Continued Benefit Decision § 3 AsylbLG,". This decision covered the benefit period from March 1, 2025, to August 31, 2025. It provided for a fixed monthly cash benefit in the amount of €397, in accordance with the standard benefit level 2 published in the Federal Law Gazette for the year 2025. This amount consisted of a basic benefit of €177 pursuant to § 3a para. 1 AsylbLG and basic benefits of €220 pursuant to § 3a para. 2 AsylbLG. The applicant's contribution obligations to his health and long-term care insurance fund were not taken into account in the renewal notice of February 4, 2025. This notice also again contained the respondent's false initial statement:
"Any voluntary health and long-term care insurance contributions that may be due will be transferred directly to the health insurance company."
Only on March 27, 2025, did the two interveners, in a joint assessment notice issued to the indigent applicant, retroactively set his monthly insurance contributions for mandatory follow-up insurance as of December 21, 2024, unlawfully based on the (maximum possible) contribution assessment basis (a fictitious monthly income of €5,512.50) at
€915.08 per month for health insurance
and €231.53 for long-term care insurance,
totaling €1,146.61.
At the same time, the interveners demanded a total of €2,665.13 in alleged contribution arrears from the applicant for the period from December 21, 2024, to February 28, 2025.
By letter dated 14 April 2025, the applicant, now represented by a lawyer, formally requested a review of the decision to extend benefits dated 4 February 2025 concerning the benefit period from 1 March 2025 to 31 August 2025 pursuant to Section 44 of the Tenth Book of the Social Code (SGB X).
Furthermore, on May 5, 2025, the applicant filed an application for preliminary legal protection (S 12 AY 1152/25 ER) with the Social Court of Karlsruhe, requesting access to the files, legal aid with the appointment of his legal representative, and, in essence, that his statutory health and long-term care insurance fund be joined as a party to the proceedings.
Before the Karlsruhe Social Court could substantively address this urgent application through its 12th Chamber, which is responsible for such matters according to the court's internal business allocation plan, the court first had to decide, through its 14th Chamber, on the recusal motion filed by the respondent against the presiding judge of the 12th Chamber on May 13, 2025. The 14th Chamber rejected this recusal motion, taking into account the official statement requested by the presiding judge of the 12th Chamber on May 14, 2025, and submitted by him on May 15, 2025 (Karlsruhe Social Court, July 3, 2025, S 14 SF 1260/25 AB).
Following service of this decision the next day, the 12th Chamber granted the applicant legal aid for proceedings S 12 AY 1152/25 ER on July 4, 2025, and appointed his legal representative. The legal representative was granted access to the case file and argued regarding proceedings S 12 AY 1152/25 ER that the applicant was entitled to a preliminary injunction because both the claim for and grounds for an injunction existed. According to the Federal Constitutional Court's decision on the analogous benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), applicable to his case (Federal Constitutional Court, October 19, 2022, 1 BvL 3/21), the applicant would be entitled to standard benefit level 1. The standard benefit rates for 2024, rather than those for 2025, should be applied in this calculation. The grandfathering clause for adjustments to standard benefit rates, which result in lower benefit rates than in the previous year, also applies to asylum seeker benefits. Furthermore, due to his mandatory follow-up insurance, the applicant can claim reimbursement of his health and long-term care insurance contributions.
The attorney for the proceedings in case S 12 AY 1152/25 ER literally requests:
"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, taking into account the contributions to mandatory follow-up insurance, from the date of receipt of the application by the court, until a legally binding decision is reached on the applicant's application of April 14, 2025, for review of the respondent's decision of February 4, 2025, in accordance with the legal opinion of the court."
The respondent requests that
to reject the application.
He argues that the application for preliminary legal protection should be dismissed. He maintains that there is neither an urgent need for the application nor a legal basis for the requested benefit.
He contends that the urgency of the requested benefit is lacking because the applicant's necessary personal living expenses are continuously covered by his monthly benefits of €397 under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). He further argues that
the applicant has no legal basis for requesting higher benefits, as he is only entitled to basic benefits under Sections 3 et seq. of the AsylbLG at the standard rate level 1, in accordance with the rates updated for 2025.
His entitlement to asylum seeker benefits arises from his status as a holder of a temporary residence permit, as stipulated in Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the AsylbLG. He
maintains that there is no reason to deviate from the standard calculation of asylum seeker benefits under Sections 3 et seq. of the AsylbLG. According to Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), (higher) analogous benefits (equivalent to the standard rates for
recipients of citizen's income or social assistance) are only to be granted to asylum seekers after 36 months of residence in Germany. However, the applicant only entered the country on July 14, 2023. Therefore, the applicant has thus far been excluded from receiving subsistence-level benefits equivalent to the standard rates for citizen's income and social assistance. The applicant's direct exclusion from citizen's income arises from Section 7 of Book Two of the German Social Code (SGB II) and from Section 23 of Book Twelve of the German Social Code (SGB XII) with regard to social assistance law.
The amount of the applicant's benefit entitlement, which is therefore governed by the AsylbLG, must be calculated in his individual case using standard rate level 2. This follows from the special provisions in Section 3a, paragraph 1, number 2b and paragraph 2, number 2b of the AsylbLG. The applicant is housed in the state-run communal accommodation in Bühl. The special regulation introduced for such cases takes into account the specific needs of benefit recipients in these communal accommodations by introducing a lower benefit level for adults housed there. According to this special regulation, the lower standard benefit level 2 applies to benefit recipients in communal accommodations even if they live there alone or without a partner, but with other adults. With this special regulation, the legislature has transferred the considerations regarding the needs of couples to the needs of individuals in communal accommodations. It assumes that accommodation in communal accommodations leads to savings for the individual that are comparable to those in couples' households (Bundestag printed matter 19/10052, p. 23). Savings are to be expected, for example, through the shared use of rooms and media.
Finally, the calculation of the applicant's asylum seeker benefits is based on the standard benefit rate adjustment applicable for 2025, and not on the rate applicable for the previous year, 2024. According to Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), the monetary amounts for all necessary personal needs, as well as the necessary needs according to Paragraphs 1 and 2, are adjusted annually on January 1st in accordance with the rate of change pursuant to Section 28a of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), in conjunction with the Standard Benefit Rate Adjustment Ordinance pursuant to Section 40 of the SGB XII. This adjustment obligation is directed to the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS), which publishes the amount of the needs applicable for the following calendar year in the Federal Law Gazette no later than November 1st of each calendar year. The benefit rates under Section 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) were last reduced for the period beginning January 1, 2025, and published in the Federal Law Gazette of October 29, 2024 (BGBl. 2024 I No. 325). The standard rates under the AsylbLG are based on an update by the Federal Statistical Office, which recalculates the rates for social benefits annually. According to the explanatory memorandum to the regulation issued by the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS), this calculation showed that the amounts in 2025 would be lower than those applicable in 2024 (see Federal Council Document 453/24 of September 18, 2024). The standard benefit rates for 2024 had been significantly increased based on previous expectations of price increases compared to earlier years; however, the actual price development was somewhat lower than predicted. Regarding the rates applicable to benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) (citizen's allowance) and Book XII (SGB XII) (social assistance), a protection of acquired rights provision applies pursuant to Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the SGB XII. Accordingly, the standard rates for citizen's allowance and social assistance remain unchanged, effectively a "zero increase," even though they would have to be reduced based on the updated rates. However, the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) does not contain a comparable provision for the protection of acquired rights. Therefore, the rates pursuant to Section 3a of the AsylbLG are reduced in 2025 compared to those of 2024.
The respondent has not yet made a decision regarding the consideration of the health and long-term care insurance contributions shown in the AOK contribution notice of March 27, 2025, pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG. He waives the right to submit a further statement on the facts and legal issues.
Regarding further details of the facts and submissions, reference is made to the paper administrative files of the respondent and the electronically maintained court files that were submitted in the social court proceedings S 12 AY 706/25 ER, S 12 AY 1152/25 ER, S 12 AY 1183/25 ER, S 12 AY 1381/25 ER and S 12 AY 1347/25 ER.
II.
1. The court invites the applicant's statutory health insurance or social long-term care insurance providers to the proceedings S 12 AY 1152/25 ER.
The legal basis for this joinder is Sections 75 Paragraph 1 and 106 Paragraph 3 Number 6 of the Social Courts Act (SGG). According to these provisions, the court may, either on its own initiative or upon application, join other parties whose legitimate interests are affected by the decision.
In case S 12 AY 1152/25 ER, the decision of the Social Court regarding the claims asserted by the applicant against the respondent affects the legitimate economic interests of the applicant's health or long-term care insurance fund.
In proceedings S 12 AY 1152/25 ER, the court must decide, among other things, by way of preliminary legal protection, whether the respondent grants the applicant benefits to secure his livelihood and health pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). The applicant seeks these benefits so that he can fulfill his contribution obligations to both interveners. These contribution obligations arise by operation of law due to the voluntary follow-up insurance in the statutory health and long-term care insurance schemes that the interveners are obligated to provide. The two interveners set the applicant's contribution obligations at €1,146.61 per month on March 27, 2025. At that time, they assessed the applicant for a supplementary contribution claim in the total amount of €2,665.13 for the period from December 21, 2024, to February 28, 2025. In the five subsequent months from March 2025 to July 2025 inclusive, it appears that five further monthly contribution payments remained unpaid, and the total claim by the two interveners against the applicant amounted to €8,398.18. The applicant was clearly unable, solely on the basis of his asylum seeker benefits of only €397 per month (or a total of €1,985 for the months of March 2025 to July 2025), to secure his livelihood and simultaneously meet his contribution obligations of €8,398.18 to the interveners. This is evident from the fact that the total contribution obligations assessed against him were more than four times the total monetary benefits granted to him by the respondent.
Viewed in this light, the respondent's proactive information, which predictably misleads the applicant (and other asylum seeker benefit recipients) by advising them to "transfer any voluntary health and long-term care insurance contributions directly to the respective health insurance fund," and its contradictory administrative practice of subsequently failing to take contributions to follow-up insurance into account, thereby increasing asylum seeker benefits, infringe upon the legitimate economic interests of the respective health and long-term care insurance funds affected by this. This is such that the respondent inflicts considerable financial damage on the assets of the insurance pools. This occurs when the respondent first arranges the follow-up insurance, which is voluntary for the asylum seeker and mandatory for the interveners, but then fails to provide the asylum seeker, who is subsequently deceived by this arrangement, with the urgently needed financial benefits promised in the full amount owed, or at best only in such a low total amount, that the asylum seeker is unable to meet their statutory contribution obligations. which is impossible to fulfill vis-à-vis the second or third injured statutory insurance companies or interveners.
2. The application for an order for preliminary legal protection is admissible and well-founded.
The application for the issuance of a regulatory order is initially admissible pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Social Courts Act (SGG).
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 higher asylum seeker benefits would be appropriately pursued by way of a combined action for annulment, performance, and enforcement pursuant to Section 54 Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
The application for a regulatory order is also justified in every respect.
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 can claim the issuance of the preliminary injunction he seeks.
He has, first and foremost, credibly demonstrated grounds for an injunction based on particular urgency. The applicant cannot simultaneously cover his living expenses and meet the contribution demands of €1,146.61 per month imposed on him by the intervener, as long as the respondent only grants him €397 per month. Due to the outstanding contribution demands, the applicant is clearly at risk of being subjected to enforcement attempts and late payment surcharges by the intervener and of having to file for personal bankruptcy.
The applicant has also substantiated a claim for an injunction with respect to all three claims he asserted in proceedings S 12 AY 1152/25 ER. Specifically, it is highly probable that he can claim from the respondent the granting of
– basic benefits within the meaning of Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in accordance with the standard benefit level 1 [see a) below]
– in the amount legally stipulated for 2024 [see b) below] and
– other benefits to secure his livelihood and health pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG in the amount of the contribution obligations for health and long-term care insurance set by the interveners [see c) below]
as well as – under administrative procedural law – a corresponding amendment of the incorrect continued benefit decision of February 4, 2025, based on the corresponding application for amendment of April 14, 2025, pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), since the law was incorrectly applied when it was issued and, therefore, social benefits have been wrongly withheld from the applicant since March 1, 2025, until recently.
In detail:
a) With regard to the basic benefits sought by the applicant in accordance with standard benefit level 1 within the meaning of Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), the court is convinced that his claim for amendment of the continued benefit decision of February 4, 2025, is based on Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), for the reasons stated in the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of October 19, 2022, in the proceedings with file number 1 BvL 3/21. In this decision, the Federal Constitutional Court deemed Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 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 enshrined in Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The Federal Constitutional Court recognized that a dignified minimum standard of living is not adequately guaranteed if a single adult is only granted standard benefit at the level of standard benefit level 2 because they live in communal accommodation. In the same ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court also ordered, until new regulations are enacted, that Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), in conjunction with the Standard Needs Assessment Act and Sections 28a and 49 of the SGB XII, shall apply mutatis mutandis to those entitled to benefits under Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), with the proviso that, in the case of accommodation in communal housing or a reception center, a standard need amounting to standard need level 1 shall be used as the basis for calculating benefits for each single adult. The Social Court of Karlsruhe is convinced that this also undoubtedly renders the parallel provisions of Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 lit. b and Section 3a Paragraph 2 No. 2 lit. b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), which are directly affected in proceedings S 12 AY 1152/25 ER, unconstitutional. The even lower benefits under Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 lit. b AsylbLG or Section 3a Paragraph 2 No. 2 lit. b AsylbLG are unconstitutionally low, especially if the higher analogous benefits under Section 2 AsylbLG, to which the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court directly refers, are already too low (Hessian State Social Court, 20.12.2022, L 4 AY 28/22 B ER; Frerichs in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 3rd edition, Section 3a AsylbLG, marginal note 44).
b) Furthermore, the applicant has also substantiated a claim to an order insofar as, pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), he can also demand a favorable amendment to the continued benefit decision of February 4, 2025, on the grounds that the applicant is entitled to higher asylum seeker benefits (also) for March 2025 to August 2025, based on the standard benefit rates newly determined for 2024.
When calculating the cash benefits for asylum seekers, according to the grandfathering rule that also applies to them, the euro amounts determined for the previous year 2024 are to continue to be applied from 01.1.2025 onwards, because the euro amounts carried forward for the year 2025 are lower than those for the previous year 2024.
The entitlement to continued consideration of the higher standard rates newly determined for 2024 in the following year, 2025, arises directly from the corresponding grandfathering provision in Section 3a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in conjunction with Section 40 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in conjunction with Section 1 Paragraph 2 of the 2025 Standard Rate Ordinance (RBSFV 2025) (Social Court Marburg, February 14, 2025, S 16 AY 11/24 ER; Social Court Halle-Saale, March 17, 2025, S 17 AY 3/25 ER). In detail:
Section 3a paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) reads:
"The monetary amounts according to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be updated on January 1 of each year in accordance with the rate of change pursuant to Section 28a of the Twelfth Book of the Social Code in conjunction with the Ordinance on the Adjustment of Standard Needs Levels pursuant to Section 40 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the Twelfth Book of the Social Code."
With this wording, the standard refers to the entire regulation of Section 28a of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII). It does not merely refer to individual paragraphs. The wording does not suggest an exclusion of the grandfathering clause in Section 28a, paragraph 5 of the SGB XII. Furthermore, the explicit reference to the Ordinance on the Adjustment of Standard Needs Levels (RBSFV) contradicts any such exclusion.
Section 28a of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), which is therefore fully applicable in asylum seeker benefits law, reads as follows:
"(1) For years until the next recalculation pursuant to Section 28, the standard benefit rates shall be adjusted on January 1st of each year in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5.
(2) On January 1, 2023, the euro amounts of the standard benefit rates adjusted on January 1, 2022, shall first be adjusted using the rate of change resulting from paragraph 3 (basic adjustment), and the result shall be adjusted using the rate of change resulting from paragraph 4 (supplementary adjustment). For subsequent adjustments from 2024 onwards, the unrounded euro amounts resulting from the previous year's basic adjustment pursuant to paragraph 3 shall be adjusted again in accordance with paragraph 3, and the resulting euro amounts shall be adjusted using the rate of change of the supplementary adjustment pursuant to paragraph 4.
(3) The rate of change for the basic adjustment shall be derived from the national average development of prices for goods and services relevant to standard benefit rates, as well as the national average development of net wages and salaries." per employed worker according to the national accounts (mixed index). To determine the annual rate of change of the mixed index, the rate of change resulting from the development of prices of all goods and services relevant to standard needs is taken into account with a weighting of 70 percent, and the rate of change resulting from the development of net wages and salaries per employed worker is taken into account with a weighting of 30 percent. The relevant rate of change is that resulting from the change in the twelve-month period beginning on July 1 of the year before last and ending on June 30 of the year before last, compared to the preceding twelve-month period.
(4) The relevant rate of change for the supplementary update of the unrounded euro amounts of the standard benefit levels resulting from paragraph 3 is the national average development of prices for goods and services relevant to standard needs in the three-month period from April 1 to June 30 of the year before last, compared to the similarly defined three-month period of the previous year.
result in euro amounts for the standard benefit levels that are lower than the euro amounts applicable in the previous year, the euro amounts determined for the previous year shall continue to apply until a subsequent adjustment results in higher euro amounts.
(6) The Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs shall commission the Federal Statistical Office to determine the annual rate of change
1. for the period pursuant to paragraph 3 for
a) the prices of all goods and services relevant to standard benefit calculations and
b) the average net wage and salary sum per average employee,
2. for the period pursuant to paragraph 4 for the prices of all goods and services relevant to standard benefit calculations.
The statutory instrument required for updating the standard benefit rates pursuant to Section 28a of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in 2025 (Standard Benefit Rate Update Ordinance or RBSFV 2025) is to be determined by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in agreement with the Federal Ministry of Finance, in accordance with Section 40, Sentence 1, Number 1 of the SGB XII. This has been done in Section 1 of the RBSFV 2025 with the following wording (underlining by the court):
“(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 as of January 1, 2025, in accordance with the rates of change pursuant to paragraph 1. 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.”
As a result of all this, according to a purely lexical interpretation, the euro amounts for the standard benefit levels determined for the year 2024 will continue to apply in asylum seeker benefits law from 01.1.2025.
This purely lexical interpretation is further supported by a historical interpretation. According to the stated intention of the legislature at the time, the updates to the standard benefit rates under Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) are to be replicated "exactly" within the scope of application of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). This can be seen in the Federal Government's draft bill of September 22, 2014, for what is now Section 3a, Paragraph 4 of the AsylbLG, as follows (Bundestag Printed Matter 18/2592, p. 25):
"The amounts stipulated in the law for 2014 regarding cash requirements and the monetary amounts pursuant to paragraph 2 are derived by updating the amounts determined in the 2008 EVS (Income and Expenditure Survey). The updates made to the standard benefit rates 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."
Furthermore, a systematic interpretation also supports the interpretation advocated by the applicant. Section 28a, paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is clearly a calculation rule that is expressly referenced in the draft legislation for the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). According to the unambiguous structure of the provision, Section 3a, paragraph 4 of the AsylbLG refers to the entirety of Section 28a SGB XII, as otherwise the reference in the explanatory memorandum to the "individual calculation rules" would have been superfluous.
The opposing view, put forward by the respondent, that the protection of acquired property does not apply to the adjustment of standard benefit rates for asylum seekers, is not convincing to the Social Court of Karlsruhe. While there are indeed dissenting opinions on this matter in legal literature (see BeckOK AuslR/Spitzlei, 43rd ed. 1.10.2024, § 3a para. 15 AsylbLG) and in case law (Social Court Heilbronn, 17.02.2025, S 15 AY 181/25; State Social Court Baden-Württemberg, 29.04.2025, L 7 AY 918/25 ER-B). These dissenting voices, however, wrongly assume that the wording in Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), "rate of change according to Section 28a of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII)," should be understood as referring exclusively to the provisions of Section 28a SGB XII regarding the rate of change, and therefore Section 28a Paragraph 5 SGB XII is disregarded. They thus not only overlook the reasons (lexical, systematic, and historical) outlined above for the undoubtedly preferable interpretation of the law, but also fail to recognize that the teleological interpretation it insinuates is inherently contradictory. For if the legislature had pursued the objective claimed by the opposing view—namely, to set asylum seeker benefits lower than the standard benefit rates for recipients of citizen's income and social assistance in the event of a lower adjustment of the standard benefit rates—then, according to the opposing view's interpretation of the provisions, the legislature would have achieved the exact opposite of its purported legislative purpose. The consistent adherence to the opposing view's interpretation of the law would lead to the situation that, in asylum seeker benefits law, only those regulations concerning the basic rate of change pursuant to Section 28a Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book XIII (SGB XIII), and those concerning the "supplementary rate of change" pursuant to Section 28a Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), would be applicable, and consequently, the standard rates for basic needs pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act 2025 would be significantly higher than the standard rates for citizen's income and social assistance.
According to the opposing view's interpretation of Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), the benefit rates for asylum seekers in standard benefit level 1 would even be €25 higher if only the regulations concerning the rate of change from Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) were applied and the rest of Section 28 SGB XII were disregarded, because the rates of change were also positive for 2025 (and the lower increase was due to other circumstances): In 2025, the basic rate of change according to Section 28a Paragraph 3 SGB XII was exactly +4.6%. Taking this into account would result in a basic benefit rate of (€460.00 + 4.6% = €481.16 or rounded) €482.00. And the "supplementary rate of change" according to Section 28a Paragraph 4 SGB XII was exactly +0.7% in 2025. Including this additional factor would result in a final standard benefit rate for 2025 of (€481.16 + 0.7% = €484.53, or rounded to €485.00). The fact that the calculated standard benefit rate for 2025 is lower (at €539.00 instead of the previous €563.00) is solely due to Section 28a Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), according to which the starting point is not the last standard benefit rate amount (from 2024), but rather the last updated standard benefit rate amount (from 2023). Since the standard benefit rate was recalculated in 2024, contrary to the system's principles, and not simply updated, this consequence arises, which is also logical based on Section 28a Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the SGB XII and is corrected by Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the SGB XII. Therefore, with regard to the applicability of the 2024 rates in 2025, it is crucial that Section 28a Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) does not contain any provision concerning the rate of change. It only establishes a rule regarding the starting point for the calculation. The rate of change itself is not addressed by this rule.
Finally, the applicant's claim to continued consideration of the newly and higher standard benefit rates calculated for 2024 under needs level 1 in the following year, 2025, is not precluded by the respondent's reference to the conflicting announcement in the Federal Law Gazette (BGBl. I, 29.10.2024, No. 325) regarding the benefit rates pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act for the period from January 1, 2025. For the reasons explained in detail above, the applicant's enforceable claim to lawfully calculated asylum seeker benefits already follows directly from the aforementioned laws. The differing announcement in the Federal Law Gazette of the standard benefit rates not applicable under the Act is not as binding on the lower-level asylum seeker benefits authority or on recipients of asylum seeker benefits as legally binding provisions. The seemingly contradictory publication of calculations by the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS) serves only to ensure transparency and nationwide uniformity in the application of the law. The publication of the updated standard benefit rates in the Federal Law Gazette has merely a declaratory effect for the parties involved in the proceedings. It ensures that all benefit providers within the lower-level asylum seeker benefit administrations of the federal states are informed by the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs about the updated rate, so that the benefit providers do not have to perform the necessary calculations individually and in parallel. However, the mere publication by the BMAS in the Federal Law Gazette in no way supersedes the legally binding effect of the overriding, legally binding regulation of the federal legislature pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in conjunction with Section 40 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in conjunction with Section 1 Paragraph 2 of the Standard Benefit Rate Ordinance 2025 (RBSFV 2025).
(Also) The amounts currently published on the website of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs for the period from 01.1.2025 (i.e. on 21.07.2025) as “New benefit rates according to the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act” are incorrect and too low insofar as the higher benefit rates determined for the year 2024 in the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act will continue to apply from 01.1.2025, just as is the case with citizen's income and social assistance.
c) Finally, the applicant has also substantiated a claim for an injunction insofar as he can demand an amendment of the decision of 04.2.2025 pursuant to § 44 SGB X also with regard to the contributions for his follow-up insurances with the interveners, since he is entitled to additional monetary benefits from the respondent in the amount of his monthly payment obligations to the statutory health or long-term care insurance.
In this respect, the applicant can, with near certainty, rely on two independent legal bases: he can most likely claim higher benefits due to his contribution obligations towards the two interveners pursuant to Section 34 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) in conjunction with Section 242 of the German Civil Code (BGB) by analogy in conjunction with Section 263 Paragraphs 1 and 3 Sentences 1 and 2 Nos. 3 and 4, Paragraph 5 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), based on the tortious liability of the lower asylum seeker benefits authority for its – in cases of the termination of employment subject to social security contributions and the subsequent follow-up insurance – apparently consistently fraudulent practices towards asylum seekers [see later under II. b) 2.2)]. Since the applicant is already directly entitled to the same disputed monetary benefits for insurance contributions under Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) [see immediately below under II. b) 1.1)], the (additional) existence of tortious grounds for claim is not yet decisive when examining the requirements for issuing a preliminary injunction; however, the respondent's tortious conduct must be duly considered by the court on the legal consequences side when exercising its discretion regarding the length of the preliminary injunction pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), because the court has a duty to guarantee the applicant effective legal protection against the fraudulent actions of the authority under Article 19 Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law (GG) and Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) [see at the end of these grounds for the decision under II. d) 5.5)].
1.1) A recipient of basic benefits is already legally entitled, pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), to the assumption of contributions to voluntary health and long-term care insurance within the framework of the so-called mandatory follow-up insurance, in accordance with the relevant legislative justification (Social Court Karlsruhe, March 31, 2025, S 12 AY 706/25 ER; Social Court Heilbronn, June 23, 2025, S 15 AY 1361/25 ER). In the applicant's present case, the two interveners administer his mandatory follow-up insurance. The resulting contribution obligations increase the applicant's needs relevant under asylum seeker benefits law accordingly. Therefore, the respondent must grant the applicant additional cash benefits pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG in the amount of his current contribution obligations. The unlawful decision to grant further benefits dated February 4, 2025, is therefore to be amended in favor of the applicant pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), and the monetary benefits wrongfully withheld from him are to be paid to him retroactively.
2.2) The respondent, who is acting in this respect (although probably in accordance with the unlawful provisions of the circular issued by the Ministry of Justice and Migration on 28 August 2024, but with near certainty knowingly acting unlawfully in relation to third parties), must also grant the applicant the additional monetary benefits pursuant to Section 34 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X) in conjunction with Section 242 of the German Civil Code (BGB) by analogy in conjunction with Section 263 Paragraphs 1 and 3 Sentences 1 and 2 Nos. 1 to 4, Paragraph 5 of the German Criminal Code (StGB).
The court has also ruled in four other proceedings involving the same respondent in the preliminary injunction proceedings – i.e., the asylum seeker benefits authority of the Rastatt district – that the respondent's insinuated promises (made through incomplete proactive information) are binding on him according to the principles of good faith if he intends to enrich himself ex officio at the expense of a primary victim of asylum seeker harm and the secondary or tertiary victim of health and long-term care insurance, and to cause economic hardship for the deceived person fleeing in Germany. The asylum seeker benefits authority may be liable to the person it has harmed for causing them to apply for voluntary but contribution-based follow-up insurance in the statutory health and long-term care insurance system after the end of their employment, the implementation of which is mandatory and foreseeably uneconomical for the selected health and long-term care insurance funds, as long as the deceptive asylum seeker benefits authority fails to provide the asylum seeker with any cash benefits for the subsequently owed insurance contributions contrary to its prior notification, and the two funds are unable to enforce their contribution claims against the destitute refugee. An asylum seeker benefits agency may not deliberately exploit the lack of language and legal knowledge of the persons in its care to make a futile attempt to evade its own social welfare obligations if this drives the affected asylum seekers in Germany into personal bankruptcy and deliberately harms the affected insured communities of the participating health insurance funds (for a detailed legal derivation of tortious liability of authorities: Karlsruhe Social Court, decision of March 31, 2025, S 12 AY 706/25 ER, juris; for further applications of administrative liability of the fraudulent respondent beyond the present case: Karlsruhe Social Court, decision of July 21, 2025, S 12 AY 1183/25 ER, juris; Karlsruhe Social Court, decision of July 21, 2025, S 12 AY 1381/25 ER, juris; Karlsruhe Social Court, Decision of 21.07.2025, S 12 AY 1347/25 ER, juris).
In the present case, the respondent also created a situation of reliance on the part of the applicant that was akin to a guarantee, believing that he would fulfill any contribution obligations the applicant might have towards the interveners. In proceedings S 12 AY 1152/25 ER, the respondent misled the applicant in this case, presumably fraudulently, through his untruthful proactive statements in the decision of August 6, 2024, and in his requests for cooperation dated January 16, 2025, and January 31, 2025. Subsequently, however, in the decision of February 4, 2025, which is the subject of this dispute, the respondent failed, contrary to his prior announcement, to be held to the situation of reliance he himself had created, in accordance with the principle of good faith. In particular, despite his duty to investigate the matter officially, he did not contact the interveners in order to (inform them about the excessively high insurance contribution assessment based on the contribution assessment ceiling in the case of the indigent applicant or) to point out to them his willingness, insinuated to the applicant on 6 August 2024, to satisfy the interveners' contribution claims against the applicant to the mutual benefit of both parties and at the expense of the respondent. Instead, since May 6, 2025, the respondent has failed, for a further two and a half months (until recently), to assume the contribution claims of the two interveners against the applicant, the amounts of which were known to him, as announced, even though he has had the interveners' contribution notice of March 27, 2025, since then, and moreover, the applicant is accumulating debts in almost five figures due to the respondent's official inaction, which threaten the applicant with substantial consequential costs (such as reminder fees, enforcement costs and late payment surcharges).
In the present case, the respondent is also, to the court's full conviction, acting with the unlawful intent of partially evading his legally binding social security obligations to the applicant under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). The respondent deliberately aimed to maintain a quasi-assurance on the part of the applicant that he would take into account any contribution obligations the applicant may have to the interveners when calculating the amount of asylum seeker benefits. To this end, the respondent intentionally perpetuated the error on the part of the applicant, which he himself had created in the decision of August 6, 2024, even though, at the latest upon learning of the circular from the Ministry of Justice and Migration dated August 28, 2024, the respondent was not at all willing to recognize the applicant's contribution obligations from his follow-up insurance policies with the interveners as increasing his benefits. Furthermore, on January 16, 2025 and January 31, 2025, the respondent unlawfully threatened the applicant with the denial of subsistence-level asylum seeker benefits, even though the authority, lacking any corresponding duty to cooperate, would not have been entitled to deny the person fleeing benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) simply because he decided against voluntary follow-up insurance with the intervener. The alleged obligation of the applicant to cooperate, which was asserted in the course of his unlawful and fraudulent threats, was fabricated by the respondent on January 16, 2025 and January 31, 2025, in order to impermissibly influence the applicant's freedom of choice and to evade his obligation to guarantee secondary health care under Section 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) by bringing about preferential voluntary follow-up insurance with the interveners or by shifting his social expenses onto the two interveners.
The fact that the respondent, as part of his plan, was always fully aware of the interactions under social security law between his own (subordinate) obligations to provide benefits in case of illness and the (potentially prior) obligations of the intervener in case of illness, and precisely for this reason manipulated the applicant's intentions regarding social security law in a targeted manner to create a factual and legal situation optimized not for the applicant but for the respondent, indicates, in the opinion of the Social Court of Karlsruhe, that the respondent wasted no time after gaining this knowledge and even sent two letters (dated January 16, 2025 and January 31, 2025) to the applicant within 15 days to request proof of taking up follow-up insurance and extorted this from him by threatening him with potentially clearly unlawful rejection notices. The court concludes that the respondent's approach was not based on an unintentional, erroneous subsumption of the facts and the law, but rather constituted a coldly calculated breach of the law, based on the respondent's consistently prompt and straightforward reactions. The respondent pursued his economic interests to the detriment of the applicant consistently and emphatically at all times, right up to the present date (July 21, 2025), as if the administrative action did not affect a real human being with genuine needs, but merely a bothersome cost factor. Although the legal situation regarding the obligation to provide social benefits for asylum seekers to cover costs from follow-up insurance under Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) was already explained in detail to the respondent in the decision of March 31, 2025 (Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of March 31, 2025, S 12 AY 706/25 ER), and the facts relevant for granting other benefits under Section 6 Paragraph 1 AsylbLG, as evidenced by the contribution notice of March 27, 2025, have long been known to the respondent, he continues to knowingly and willfully violate the law (for further instances of the respondent's administrative disobedience beyond the present case: see Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of July 21, 2025, S 12 AY 1347/25 ER, juris; see Social Court Karlsruhe, Decision of 21 July 2025, S 12 AY 1183/25 ER, juris; cf. Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of 21 July 2025, S 12 AY 1381/25 ER, juris).
d) Since, after all this, the claim and grounds for the order have been substantiated, the court shall, by way of an interim order, require the respondent to provisionally grant the applicant the requested benefits in the amount of the standard benefit level 1 newly determined for 2024, taking into account the contributions to the mandatory follow-up insurance, thus increasing the benefits.
However, the court, exercising its discretion under Section 86b Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), restricts its order in four respects:
1.1) First, the court order is issued as requested, subject to the reservation of the right to reclaim the provisionally granted monetary benefits. This will be decided after the respondent's decision on the applicant's review application of April 14, 2025, against the respondent's decision of February 4, 2025, has become final.
2.2) Secondly, the court limits the provisional obligation to perform as requested, starting from the date of the urgent application to the court on 05.05.2025.
3.3) Thirdly, the court limits the provisional obligation to provide benefits until the applicant possibly leaves the federal territory, because the entitlement to benefits would cease upon departure.
4.4) Fourthly, the court limits the provisional obligation to pay the contributions to the follow-up insurance to the interveners until the applicant possibly commences a new employment subject to social security contributions, because, if necessary, the applicant himself would no longer have to pay contributions for voluntary follow-up insurance as soon as a future employer paid them.
5.5) Fifthly, the court orders the provisional performance obligation to last for an exceptionally long period, beyond the scope indicated in the operative part of the decision, until and including December 31, 2025.
According to judicial discretion, an interim order in the case of the receipt of asylum seeker benefits should generally be limited in time if – as here – on the one hand, further waiting for subsistence-securing benefits is unreasonable and on the other hand – as in all cases of people without permanent residency in the federal territory – factual changes could occur at any time through departure that would result in the respondent's obligation to provide benefits ceasing.
The fact that the period for this preliminary injunction spans almost eight months and is thus exceptionally long appears appropriate to the court in view of the applicant's group affiliation with people with a migration background from a predominantly Muslim country of origin and the discrimination he can therefore likely expect from the authorities in the Rastatt district. People like him are likely to continue facing executive disobedience from the respondent as long as such violations of the law by the lower-level reception authority are not only tolerated by its highest supervisory authority, but even provoked by factually incorrect statements regarding the legal situation under asylum seeker benefits law, under threat of withholding financial resources, as was the case with the deplorable circular from the Ministry of Justice and Migration dated August 28, 2024 (so).
The court's exercise of discretion is based on the finding that the respondent does not recognize the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act as a binding guideline for its official administrative actions and instead appears to apply it only selectively and inconsistently in order to make its blatantly and deliberately unlawful benefit decisions appear superficially lawful, as long as the Ministry of Justice and Migration of Baden-Württemberg, in turn, wrongfully refuses to reimburse the respondent, on unlawful grounds, for the expenses of the respondent for other benefits pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) relating to contributions to follow-up insurance, which is mandatory for the state under Section 15 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (FlüAG).
The administrative practice of the respondent, which has come to light here, demonstrates to the full conviction of the court that the failure to cover the expenses of an asylum seeker for follow-up insurance is not merely an “isolated case” of an administrative error in the application of the law, but rather a case of targeted and systematic disobedience to the law. The Social Court of Karlsruhe is aware of only one case in which the respondent actually recognized the contribution obligations arising from the follow-up insurance, thereby increasing benefits, in accordance with the relevant legislative justification for Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and in accordance with its own prior announcements in favor of a person (with a migration background from a predominantly Muslim country) (Social Court of Karlsruhe, July 21, 2025, S 12 AY 1347/25 ER). However, even in this (positive) exception to the respondent's otherwise invariably unlawful administrative practice, the respondent's one-time recognition of the statutory social benefit obligation under Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG on May 19, 2025, was carried out in a virtually abusive manner, namely
– only until December 31, 2024 (as the end date for such reimbursements under Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG, according to the Ministry's announcement of August 28, 2024). 15 FlüAG),
– only relating to one of eight documented monthly contributions to the follow-up health and long-term care insurance,
– only proportionally in the very small amount of €11.91 of the much higher total monthly contribution and
– only with the restriction that because of this one-off transfer of €11.91, no more asylum seeker benefits for health care (which naturally exceed the monetary value of €11.91) would be paid to any of the six family members (born in 1991, 1994, 2015, 1921, 2023 and 2025 and thus partly already dependent on health care benefits as newborns or mothers of newborns) in the future (which naturally exceed the monetary value of €11.91 many times over).
In light of this, the Social Court of Karlsruhe has no doubt that the respondent attaches less importance to the principle of legality in administrative matters concerning asylum seeker benefits than to his economic interest in reducing expenditures for asylum seekers (which, according to Section 15 of the Asylum Act, are not reimbursable without legal proceedings against his recalcitrant supervisory authority). It is evident that the respondent is invoking laws, driven by cost-cutting pressure from Baden-Württemberg's Ministry of Justice and Migration, merely as a kind of self-service shop for pretexts and arguments, in order to give a superficial veneer of legality to the deliberate and unlawful withholding of subsistence-guaranteeing asylum seeker benefits from foreigners who are unfamiliar with the law and have little command of the German language. The Social Court of Karlsruhe has therefore become aware of only cases so far (a total of ten people with a migration background from Muslim-majority countries) in which the respondent, in his characteristically fraudulent manner, initially created the impression through misleading written proactive information that, in the event of applications for follow-up insurance by asylum seekers who were no longer subject to compulsory insurance, the respondent would fully take the insurance contributions incurred for this purpose into account as an increase in benefits. Following the conclusion of the respective supplementary insurance policies voluntarily chosen by the defrauded asylum seekers, which were mandatory for the statutory health insurance funds, the same respondent then, contrary to prior notice, failed to provide the other benefits under Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in the legally owed amount from January 1, 2025, without exception, thereby knowingly plunging the defrauded asylum seekers (and their family members in the same household) into contribution debt traps and also significantly damaging the assets of the affected health and long-term care insurance funds (see, in addition to the present case, also: Social Court Karlsruhe, Decision of March 31, 2025, S 12 AY 706/25 ER, juris; Social Court Karlsruhe, Decision of July 21, 2025, S 12 AY 1183/25 ER). juris; Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of 21.07.2025, S 12 AY 1381/25 ER, juris; Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of 21.07.2025, S 12 AY 1347/25 ER, juris).
In the event of such an administrative practice (aimed at defrauding people fleeing in their host country who are helpless without work, income, language and legal knowledge), it is unreasonable to expect those affected, in their considerable distress, to have to defend themselves again before the Social Court of Karlsruhe after only a few weeks against the predictably recurring violations of the law by the same respondent, or even constantly, which is why a preliminary injunction issued by the court should be valid for a relatively long period. This also appears to be a reasonable exercise of discretion because the Ministry of Justice and Migration, responsible for supervising the lower-level reception authority in Baden-Württemberg that is disobedient to executive orders, will almost certainly not exercise its supervisory duties properly and will also fail to make appropriate use of its right to issue instructions to the public prosecutor's office (which, according to the case law of the European Court of Justice, is contrary to EU law (see ECJ, 27 May 2019, C-508/18)). This prognosis, required within the context of limiting the duration of the interim injunction, is based on the understanding that the Ministry, for political reasons, would rather tolerate than punish the legal violations committed by the bodies under its supervision (in the area of "migration"), because, from the Ministry's perspective, de facto civil service and criminal immunity for public officials acting in a manner hostile to asylum law is highly likely to be an effective means of allowing unlawful policies to be implemented despite the (fundamental) legal limitations. The Karlsruhe Social Court believes that such tolerance of executive disobedience by the Ministry of Justice and Migration is to be expected from the highest supervisory authority in the area of "migration," because the same Ministry of Justice and Migration, within its broader area of responsibility ("justice"), has for years consistently allowed executive disobedience to law and order by the Karlsruhe Social Court's management, which is subordinate to it. Thus, the Ministry of Justice and Migration, which is responsible for oversight in this matter, has... B. no one is held accountable for:
– that the presiding judges of the Karlsruhe Social Court prohibited the publication of a court decision designated for publication on May 27, 2020;
– that the presiding judges of the Higher Social Court and the Karlsruhe Social Court deliberately held an illegal Corona party on September 29, 2020, in the style of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's "Partygate";
– that the presiding judges of the Karlsruhe Social Court, by way of what is allegedly an act of impersonating a judge, punishable under Section 132 of the German Criminal Code, completely or for weeks obstructed the service of judicial referral orders to the Federal Constitutional Court in proceedings S 12 AS 909/21 and S 12 AS 2208/22 (January 30, 2022 and June 6, 2023, respectively);
– that the presiding judges of the Karlsruhe Social Court drafted press releases on newsworthy judicial decisions in the The proceedings S 12 AS 565/21 ER and S 12 AY 2765/23 ER of March 16, 2021 and December 12, 2023, respectively, were censored
– that the management of the Social Court of Karlsruhe on August 3, 2022, allegedly in a manner criminal under Section 269 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), had data relevant to evidence in another proceeding deleted from the case file S 17 AS 909/21, or allegedly incited a person under its official command to commit a criminal offense contrary to Section 357 of the German Criminal Code (StGB)
– et cetera et cetera.
The fact that the Ministry of Justice and Migration of the State of Baden-Württemberg has tolerated the prosecution of administrative offenses, disciplinary misconduct, and criminal acts committed by members of the court administrations it appoints for years without exception, even though the suspicions in question were formally and comprehensively reported to it by the Social Court of Karlsruhe on March 5, 2024, under file number S 12 AS 2208/22, in a 40-page judicial report citing all necessary supporting documents, leads the Social Court of Karlsruhe to predict that the same Ministry of Justice and Migration will knowingly and willingly allow the respondent, also under its supervision, to employ unlawful and fraudulent methods with impunity in order to implement those unlawful directives—backed by the threat of financial losses—that the Ministry of Justice and Migration of Baden-Württemberg itself intends to impose due to its planned withholding of legally mandated asylum seeker benefits. has already announced this to all lower-level reception authorities in his circular dated 28.08.2024 (so).
(For example) Through measures adapted to executive disobedience (and accordingly, preliminary injunctions like this one, issued for an exceptionally extended period), even civil servants or judges who are personally dependent on the Ministry of Justice and Migration of Baden-Württemberg in organizational, service, and disciplinary matters can effectively hold the continuously law-violating judicial and migration administration to account. State employees subordinate to the Ministry of Justice and Migration of Baden-Württemberg in public authorities and courts are, in cases of doubt, not bound by manifestly (unconstitutional/European or) unlawful directives from their (immediate and further) superiors, but rather by applicable laws and the value judgments enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Basic Law, and the state constitution. According to these principles, Baden-Württemberg is a state governed by the rule of law. In states governed by the rule of law, the duty of loyalty of public employees and citizens is not primarily owed to their own superiors, but above all, and in cases of doubt, to the law that applies equally to everyone. State civil servants, judges, and prosecutors are therefore not obligated to comply with instructions and directives, or informal, low-threshold promptings, from the Ministry of Justice and Migration of the State of Baden-Württemberg or from the superiors it oversees statewide. They must, on the contrary, resolutely oppose any arbitrary conduct by their superiors. For public servants are entrusted with the protection of the free and democratic basic order, including the rights of minorities living here, even more so than all other eligible citizens are entrusted with this protection in any autocratic state of a people who do not wish to surrender helplessly to authoritarian populists in order to avoid the never-ending struggles of a frustrating democratic process of forming a will in pluralistic societies, a process inherent in the system and requiring consideration of inalienable minority rights.
Conversely, in Baden-Württemberg, an exercise of executive state power that is only superficially rule-based, but secretly geared towards particular interests and power, would succeed if public servants, out of pragmatic self-interest, and other citizens, out of ignorance and inertia, largely tolerated their superiors or executive representatives disregarding the law because, as civil servants, they preferred not to expose themselves to the risk of reprisals, or, as citizens, they preferred to use their democratic constitutional and social state as mere free riders, instead of making their civic contribution to its defense against the enemies of the constitution at home, who have been gaining in number and influence for some years now, as courageously and resolutely as the admirable citizens of the former GDR were able to do before German reunification when they overcame the last dictatorship in this country.
Since, unlike the hunger for democracy at that time, in 2025 the citizens and civil servants of Baden-Württemberg in key parts of the state's asylum seeker benefits and judicial administration largely shrug off the fact that, according to the general experience of interested circles, a so-called authoritarian legalism is taking hold in this country, in which the free-democratic, social-state, and cosmopolitan basic order is gradually eroding into a right-wing populist and arbitrarily run police state under the guise of its alleged continued existence, at the expense of the poorest and those of other faiths, the Social Court of Karlsruhe must impose an exceptionally long-term interim order in proceedings S 12 AY 1152/25 ER. Because of this return of an already inhumane authoritarianism, due to the increasingly institutionalized xenophobia, due to the allegedly systematic disenfranchisement of people from predominantly Muslim countries of origin by the asylum seeker benefits administration in the Rastatt district, and due to the anticipated acquiescence of criminal acts by the Ministry of Justice and Migration of Baden-Württemberg, state-discriminated individuals and those whose human dignity has been violated, such as the applicant, require all the more effective and thus almost eight-month-long preliminary legal protection from the state treatment they face here. Taking all of this into account, it is appropriate in the present individual case to exceptionally order the respondent's provisional obligation to provide benefits until December 31, 2025.
3. The decision on costs is based on a corresponding application of Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) and the applicant's complete success.
The following is information on legal remedies.
