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. The following are joined as parties to the proceedings S 12 AY 1183/25 ER: 1. xxx 2. xxx
II. The respondent is ordered by way of preliminary injunction to grant the applicant, provisionally and subject to the right of recovery, from May 5, 2025, until a final and binding decision is reached on the application of May 6, 2025, for review of the grant notice of March 11, 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, the granting of higher monetary benefits in 2025 under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), taking into account
– the more favorable standard benefit level 1 for her,
– the more favorable standard benefit rates of the previous year 2024 for her, and
– her 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 2003, is a non-religious person of Turkish nationality. She entered the Federal Republic of Germany on November 4, 2023, and formally applied for asylum on November 9, 2023. On the same day, she was granted a temporary residence permit, which has since been repeatedly extended due to the pending asylum procedure.
The applicant has been housed in the communal accommodation for asylum seekers in Rastatt, within the local jurisdiction for asylum seeker benefits of the respondent, since February 6, 2024. The respondent granted her basic benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) by decision dated February 15, 2024, for the period from February 6, 2024, to January 31, 2025. In this context, 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 subsequent (and presumably permanent) administrative practice, established by the Karlsruhe Social Court in four further decisions (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 1152/25 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 providing any additional financial benefits (to the asylum seekers themselves or their insurance funds) due to the contribution obligations of asylum seekers to health and long-term care insurance, which the respondent himself had partly caused by providing misleading information proactively. to provide (and thereby harm the assets of the benefit recipients and the health insurance funds). Because of precisely this (non-)granting of cash benefits for contribution obligations to statutory health and long-term care insurance, 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 receiving basic benefits. Following the termination of compulsory insurance and upon resuming basic benefits under the AsylbLG, mandatory follow-up insurance pursuant to Section 188 Paragraph 4 SGB V automatically applies.
However, 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 AsylbLG do not constitute an alternative entitlement to health insurance coverage within the meaning of Section 188 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 SGB V. Therefore, it is not possible for asylum seekers receiving benefits to terminate their mandatory follow-up insurance.
Within the framework of benefit provision under the AsylbLG, the..." The Ministry of Justice and Migration has determined that the insurance contributions incurred in this context will not be covered. The only possible exception would be Section 6 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (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 also not reimbursable expenses under Section 15. The Baden-Württemberg Refugee Reception Act (FlüAG) stipulates that reimbursement of expenses for temporary accommodation within the framework of subsequent final settlements is 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 (Parliamentary Document 16/7481) for benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for recipients of benefits under the AsylbLG who are no longer considered temporarily accommodated in the legal sense. Lower-level reception authorities that have previously covered the costs of mandatory follow-up insurance 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 within the framework of subsequent final settlements and within the framework of the reimbursement of net actual expenses based on the recommendation of the Joint Finance Commission of December 16, 2019 (Parliamentary Document 16/7481). Starting with the 2025 billing year, the aforementioned contributions will no longer be reimbursable.
Since these contributions cannot be covered beyond that date, those affected regularly incur payment 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 Book V of the German Social Code (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 issue. A solution can only be found through federal legislation. Instead
of expanding the scope of benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), a clarification should be made to Book V of the German Social Code (SGB V) (specifically Section 188, Paragraph 4) to ensure that benefits for illness, pregnancy, and childbirth are also covered. Other benefits (§§ 4 and 6 AsylbLG) are considered an alternative entitlement to health insurance coverage within the meaning of § 188 para. 4 sentence 2 SGB V.
The Ministry of Justice will keep you informed of further developments.
The applicant in case S 12 AY 1183/25 ER was employed in a restaurant from November 7, 2024, to November 10, 2024, and was subject to mandatory social security contributions. As a result, she was required to become a member of the statutory health insurance and long-term care insurance schemes. She selected the two interveners as her mandatory insurance providers and had her employer deduct the health and long-term care insurance contributions owed to her under social security law from her gross salary and pay them to these providers.
The applicant also submitted a payslip for November 2024 to the respondent, which showed her membership with the two interveners, the amount of her earned income, and its termination date (p. 97 of the administrative records). She was unable to submit a contribution notice from the health and long-term care insurance fund to the respondent with her application for continued benefits dated December 29, 2024, because it was only issued months later.
Even after the applicant's employment subject to social security contributions ended, the respondent decided not to investigate, when calculating the amount of benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), whether this would result in subsequent insurance coverage under the statutory health and long-term care insurance schemes, or what the amount of any contribution obligations might be. In this regard, the respondent failed to clarify the facts and, in particular, did not obtain any information from the health and long-term care insurance providers (pursuant to Section 21 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X)) whose names were known to him from the payroll statement for November 2024, which was on file, regarding the question of whether any such contribution obligations would arise. 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 her benefit entitlements under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). Furthermore, the respondent had provided her with the untruthful proactive information in the decision of February 15, 2024 ("Any voluntary health and long-term care insurance contributions that may be due will be transferred directly to the health insurance fund."), information which the respondent no longer wishes to adhere to, 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.
Instead of informing the applicant about her rights and obligations and ascertaining the facts relevant to the decision, the respondent simply issued the decision of March 11, 2024 (the subject of proceedings S 12 AY 1183/25 ER) regarding the income crediting and thereby (partially) revoked his previous benefit award insofar as he had granted benefits for December 2024 on February 15, 2024, exceeding €268.90. At the same time, on March 11, 2025, the respondent granted the applicant benefits in the amount of €397 per month for the period from February 1, 2025, to July 31, 2025, without taking into account the applicant's contribution obligations to her health and long-term care insurance. The respondent set the total monthly cash benefit in accordance with the standard needs level 2 published in the Federal Law Gazette for the year 2025 by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.
Only on April 23, 2025, did the two interveners, in a joint assessment notice issued to the indigent applicant, determine her monthly insurance contributions for mandatory follow-up insurance based on the (lowest possible) minimum contribution assessment base (a notional monthly income of €1,248.33) at
€212.84 per month for health insurance
and €44.94 for long-term care insurance,
totaling €257.79.
At the same time, the interveners demanded a total of €897.37 in alleged contribution arrears from her for the preceding period.
By letter dated 06.5.2025, the applicant, now represented by legal counsel, formally requested a review of the decision dated 11.3.2025 concerning the benefit period from 01.12.2024 to 31.07.2025 pursuant to Section 44 of the Tenth Book of the Social Code (SGB X).
Furthermore, on May 6, 2025, the applicant filed an application for preliminary legal protection (S 12 AY 1183/25 ER) with the Social Court of Karlsruhe, requesting access to the files, legal aid with the appointment of her legal representative, and, in essence, that her 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 15, 2025, and submitted by him on the same day (Karlsruhe Social Court, July 3, 2025, S 14 SF 1261/25 AB).
Following service of this decision the next day, the 12th Chamber granted the applicant legal aid for proceedings S 12 AY 1183/25 ER on July 4, 2025, and appointed her legal representative. The legal representative was granted access to the case file and argued regarding proceedings S 12 AY 1183/25 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 her 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 her mandatory follow-up insurance, the applicant can claim reimbursement of her health and long-term care insurance contributions.
The attorney for the proceedings in case S 12 AY 1183/25 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 from the date of receipt of this application by the court, until a final and binding decision is reached on the applicant's application of 6 May 2025 for review of the respondent's decision of 11 March 2025, taking into account 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. There is neither an urgent need for the application nor a legal basis for the requested benefit.
The applicant lacks the urgency of the requested benefit because her necessary personal living expenses are continuously covered by the monthly benefits she receives under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) amounting to €397. She
has no legal basis for requesting higher benefits, as she 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. Her entitlement to asylum seeker benefits arises from her status as a holder of a temporary residence permit, pursuant to Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the AsylbLG. 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 November 4, 2023.
The applicant has thus far been excluded from receiving subsistence benefits equivalent to the standard rates for citizen's income and social assistance. This direct exclusion from citizen's income stems 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 applicant's benefit entitlement, which is therefore governed by the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), must be calculated in her individual case using standard benefit 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 Rastatt. The special provision introduced for such cases takes into account the specific needs of benefit recipients in such collective accommodations by introducing a lower benefit level for adults housed there. According to the special regulation, the lower standard benefit level 2 applies to benefit recipients in collective 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 collective accommodations. It assumes that accommodation in collective accommodations leads to savings for the individual comparable to those in couples' households (Bundestag printed matter 19/10052, p. 23). Savings are expected, for example, through the shared use of rooms and media.
Finally, the standard benefit rate applicable for 2025, and not the rate applicable for the previous year 2024, must be used to calculate the applicant's asylum seeker benefits. 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 Ordinance on the Adjustment of Standard Needs Levels pursuant to Section 40 of the SGB XII. This adjustment obligation is directed to the Federal Ministry of Labour 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 pursuant to Section 3a of the 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 of 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 the rates 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, but the actual price development was somewhat lower than forecast. For the rates applicable to benefits under Book II of the German Social Code (SGB II) (citizen's income) and Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII) (social assistance), a protection of acquired rights provision applies under Section 28a Paragraph 5 of Book XII of the German Social Code (SGB XII). Accordingly, the standard rates for citizen's income 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. Accordingly, the rates under Section 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) will be reduced in 2025 compared to 2024.
The respondent has not yet made a decision regarding the consideration of the health and long-term care insurance contributions shown in the contribution notice from Techniker Krankenkasse dated April 23, 2025, pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the AsylbLG. He waives his 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 1183/25 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 1183/25 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 1183/25 ER, the court must decide, among other things, by way of preliminary legal protection, whether the respondent grants the applicant benefits to secure her livelihood and health pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). The applicant seeks these benefits so that she can fulfill her 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 required to provide. On April 23, 2025, the two interveners set the applicant's contribution obligations at a total of €257.79 per month. At the same time, they assessed a supplementary contribution claim against the applicant in the total amount of €897.37. In the three subsequent months from May 2025 to July 2025 inclusive, three further monthly contribution payments likely remained unpaid, and the total claim by the two interveners against the applicant amounted to €1,670.74. The applicant was clearly unable, solely on the basis of her asylum seeker benefits of only €397 per month (or a total of €1,191 for the months of May 2025 to July 2025), to secure her livelihood and simultaneously meet her contribution (back payment) obligations of €1,670.74 to the interveners. This is evident from the fact that the total contribution obligations assessed against her were approximately 40 percent higher than the total monetary benefits granted to her by the respondent.
Viewed in this light, the respondent's proactive information, which predictably misled the applicant (and other asylum seeker benefit recipients) by advising her to "transfer any voluntary health and long-term care insurance contributions directly to the respective health insurance fund," and his 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 inflicts significant financial damage on the assets of the insurance pools when he 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 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 her 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 the issuance of 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 she seeks.
She has, first and foremost, credibly demonstrated grounds for an injunction based on particular urgency. The applicant cannot simultaneously cover her living expenses and meet the contribution demands of €1,146.61 per month imposed on her by the intervener, as long as the respondent only grants her €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 she asserted in the proceedings S 12 AY 1183/25 ER. Specifically, it is highly probable that the applicant can claim from the respondent the provision of
– basic benefits within the meaning of Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in accordance with standard benefit level 1 [see a) below]
– in the amount legally stipulated for 2024 [see b) below] and
– other benefits to secure subsistence 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],
and – under administrative procedural law – a corresponding amendment of the incorrect decision of March 11, 2025, based on the corresponding review application of May 6, 2025, pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), since the law was incorrectly applied when the decision was issued and, consequently, social benefits were wrongly not provided to the applicant from December 1, 2024, to July 31, 2025. are.
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 her 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 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 1183/25 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 for an injunction insofar as she can demand a favorable amendment to the decision of 11 March 2025 pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), on the grounds that the applicant is (also) entitled to higher asylum seeker benefits for January 2025 to July 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 adjustments 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 draft bill of the Federal Government dated 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; 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) explained 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. The applicant's enforceable claim to lawfully calculated asylum seeker benefits follows directly from the aforementioned laws for the reasons explained in detail above. The differing announcement in the Federal Law Gazette of the standard benefit rates, which are 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 01.01.2025 (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 01.01.2025, just as is the case with citizen's income and social assistance.
c) Finally, the applicant has credibly demonstrated a claim to an injunction insofar as she can demand an amendment of the decision of 11 March 2025 pursuant to Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), also with regard to her contributions to her follow-up insurance policies with the interveners, since she is also entitled to additional monetary benefits from the respondent in the amount of her monthly payment obligations to the statutory health and long-term care insurance.
In this respect, the applicant can, with near certainty, rely on two independent legal bases: she can most likely claim higher benefits due to her 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 conduct 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 (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 present case of the applicant, the two interveners maintain their mandatory follow-up insurance policies. 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 her current contribution obligations. The decision of 11 March 2025, which is therefore unlawful, must 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 her must be paid to her.
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 is acting deliberately 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 1152/25 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 allegedly fraudulently created a situation of reliance on the applicant that he would fulfill any contribution obligations the applicant might have towards the interveners. In proceedings S 12 AY 1183/25 ER, the respondent misled the applicant with his decision of February 15, 2024 ("Any voluntary health and long-term care insurance contributions that may be due will be transferred directly to the health insurance fund."). Subsequently, however, in the contested decision of March 11, 2025, the respondent failed for more than four months to be held to the situation of reliance he himself had created, in accordance with the principle of good faith. Knowing the applicant's health and long-term care insurance providers were involved, as evidenced by the payroll records for November 2024, the respondent, presumably with the intent to cause harm, failed for months to adhere to the principle of good faith and the legitimate expectations he himself had created. In particular, despite his official duty to investigate, he did not contact the interveners to inform them of his insinuated willingness, expressed to the applicant on February 15, 2024, to settle the interveners' contribution claims against the applicant at the respondent's expense, to the mutual benefit of both parties. Instead, since May 6, 2025, for a period of two and a half months (and until recently), the respondent knowingly and willfully failed to assume the contribution claims of the two interveners against the applicant, the amounts of which he was now aware of, even though he has had the interveners' contribution notice dated April 23, 2025, since then, and moreover, the applicant is accumulating debts due to the respondent's official inaction, which threaten her with substantial consequential costs (such as reminder fees, enforcement costs and late payment surcharges). In this regard, the respondent deliberately perpetuated the error of the applicant, which he himself had caused in the decision of 15 February 2024, even though the respondent was not at all willing, at the latest upon becoming aware of the circular of the Ministry of Justice and Migration of 28 August 2024, to acknowledge the applicant's contribution obligations from her follow-up insurance policies with the interveners in a manner that would increase benefits.
In the present case, the respondent is also acting, to the court's full conviction, with the unlawful intention 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 towards the interveners when calculating the amount of asylum seeker benefits in the applicant's favor.
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 has pursued his economic interests to the detriment of the applicant and other refugees within his jurisdiction consistently and emphatically up to the present date (July 21, 2025), as if his administrative actions did not affect a real human being with genuine needs, but merely a bothersome cost factor. Although the respondent was already thoroughly informed of the legal situation regarding the obligation to provide social benefits for asylum seekers for costs arising from follow-up insurance under Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) 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 April 23, 2025, have long been known to the respondent, he continues to knowingly and willfully violate the law (see, in addition to the present case, also: Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of July 21, 2025, S 12 AY 1152/25 ER, juris; see also Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of July 21, 2025, S 12). AY 1381/25 ER, juris; cf. Social Court Karlsruhe, decision of 21.07.2025, S 12 AY 1347/25 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 May 6, 2025, against the respondent's decision of March 11, 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 06.05.2025.
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 herself 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 interim 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 she is therefore likely to face from the authorities in the Rastatt district. People like her are likely to continue to face 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, without giving 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, onwards, 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 1152/25 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 different faiths, the Social Court of Karlsruhe must impose an exceptionally long-term interim order in proceedings S 12 AY 1183/25 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 at least almost eight months of preliminary legal protection from the inhumane 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.
