DECISION
in the appeal proceedings
L 8 AY 16/25 B ER
S 31 AY 15/25 (Social Court Magdeburg)
xxx,
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam, Lange-Geismar-Straße 55,
37073 Göttingen
– Applicant and appellant –
against
Altmarkkreis Salzwedel,
represented by the District Administrator, Karl-Marx-Straße 32,
29410 Salzwedel
– Respondent in the application and appeal –
The 8th Senate of the State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt in Halle decided on July 30, 2025, through Judge xxx as rapporteur:
The respondent must reimburse the applicant for her necessary extrajudicial costs for both instances of the proceedings.
REASONS
I.
The parties are arguing about who bears the extrajudicial costs of the legal dispute after its undisputed settlement.
In the underlying preliminary legal protection proceedings, the applicant challenged a reduction in benefits pursuant to Section 1a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
The applicant, born in Cameroon on [date redacted] 1997, entered Germany on October 15, 2024, and submitted an asylum application on October 28, 2024. Since there were indications that another state was responsible under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 26, 2013, establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in a Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person (the so-called Dublin III Regulation), the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) initiated a transfer request to Croatia on November 12, 2024. The Croatian authorities declared their responsibility for processing the asylum application pursuant to Article 20(5) of the Dublin III Regulation in a letter dated November 26, 2024. The BAMF rejected the applicant's asylum application as inadmissible with a legally binding decision dated December 19, 2024.
After the applicant was assigned to the respondent on December 16, 2024, the respondent granted her basic benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) by decision dated December 18, 2024, effective December 16, 2024, until further notice. By decision dated January 31, 2025, the respondent revoked his decision of December 18, 2024, effective February 1, 2025, and granted the applicant only reduced benefits pursuant to Section 1a, Paragraph 4 of the AsylbLG from that date until July 31, 2025. The respondent argued that the prerequisites for receiving benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG had not been met at the time of the assignment to the respondent. The applicant filed an objection to this decision on February 24, 2025, which is still pending.
The preliminary injunction proceedings before the Magdeburg Social Court were unsuccessful (decision of May 9, 2025). The court ruled that the suspensive effect of the objection should not be ordered, as there were no compelling doubts about the legality of the decision of January 31, 2025. While the conditions of Section 1a Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) were not met, as the applicant had not been granted international protection or a right of residence in another EU member state (Croatia), as far as is known, she nevertheless fell within the scope of application of Section 1a Paragraph 4 AsylbLG as a person subject to enforceable deportation under Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 5 AsylbLG. This was because she had first submitted an application for international protection in Croatia, and the Croatian authorities had declared themselves responsible for processing this application under the Dublin III Regulation. According to the Social Court's decision, no costs were to be reimbursed.
The applicant filed a timely appeal with the State Social Court (LSG) of Saxony-Anhalt on June 11, 2025, arguing that Section 1a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is unconstitutional.
By decision dated June 5, 2025 (postmarked on June 10, 2025 according to the file note; received by the applicant's legal representative on June 17, 2025 according to the date stamp), the respondent granted the applicant full benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) from June 5, 2025, and revoked his decision of January 31, 2025, to that extent.
By decision of 12 June 2025, the BAMF revoked its decision of 19 December 2024 after the expiry of the transfer deadline pursuant to Art. 29 of the Dublin III Regulation.
By letter dated July 14, 2025, the applicant declared the proceedings to be fully settled and requested a judicial decision on costs.
The respondent also requested a judicial decision on costs by letter dated July 23, 2025.
II.
The judicial decision on costs is made by the rapporteur in accordance with Section 155 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 5 in conjunction with Paragraph 4 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
If social court proceedings are concluded other than by judgment, the court decides, upon application pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), whether and to what extent the parties must reimburse each other's costs. The same applies to preliminary injunction proceedings.
According to the legal principle of Section 91a of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), the decision must be made at the court's discretion, taking into account the current state of the facts and the legal arguments, after a summary examination, without the need for further investigations or the need to examine every legal question (see Schmidt in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, Commentary on the Social Court Act (SGG), 14th edition 2023, Section 193, para. 13). In principle, the outcome of the proceedings or the likely outcome must be given priority in the equitable decision. It is generally considered equitable that the losing party bears the costs, or – in the case of a declaration of settlement – that the legal dispute, even before the need for legal protection ceased to exist, would likely have had no prospect of success considering the facts and circumstances of the case up to that point (see Federal Social Court [BSG], judgment of February 27, 2025 – B 8 SO 9/23 R – juris para. 17; BSG, judgment of December 13, 2016 – B 4 AS 14/15 R – juris para. 7).
Based on these principles, it is equitable that the respondent should reimburse the applicant for the necessary extrajudicial costs incurred in both the application and appeal proceedings.
The preliminary injunction proceedings initiated by the applicant had, upon summary review, a prospect of success from the outset, as the contested decision of January 31, 2025, was likely unlawful from the beginning – i.e., from February 1, 2025 – and not only from June 5, 2025. Upon the admissible and permissible appeal, the Senate would probably have overturned the decision of the Social Court and ordered the requested suspensive effect of the applicant's objection to the contested decision.
The applicant was likely not covered by the scope of Section 1a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) as long as her international protection in Croatia had not been granted. Cases falling directly within the scope of the Dublin III Regulation are not covered by Section 1a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (see Lower Saxony-Bremen Higher Social Court, judgment of May 24, 2018 – L 8 AY7/17 – juris para. 29; Leopold in Grube/Wahrendorf/Flint, SGB XII/AsylbLG, 8th edition 2024, Section 1a AsylbLG para. 93; Siefert in Siefert, AsylbLG, 3rd edition 2025, Section 1a para. 55; Oppermann in Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII/AsylbLG, 4th edition, as of June 3, 2025, Section 1a paras. 123, 127).
In this respect, the Senate also felt compelled to amend the Social Court's decision regarding costs.
This decision is not subject to appeal (§ 177 SGG).
