COURT ORDER
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange-Geismar-Straße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
State capital Erfurt,
represented by the Mayor,
Fischmarkt 1, 99084 Erfurt
– Defendant –
The 5th Chamber of the Social Court of Gotha, through its presiding judge, Judge xxx, without oral proceedings, rendered the following judgment on August 21, 2025:
The defendant is ordered to decide on the objection lodged on December 30, 2024, against the decision concerning benefits from January 1, 2024 to May 31, 2024.
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for the extrajudicial costs of the proceedings.
FACTS
By letter dated December 30, 2024, the plaintiff filed a timely objection to the initial decision regarding benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for the period January 1, 2024 – May 31, 2024.
The defendant has not yet made a decision on this objection, contrary to the deadline stipulated in Section 88 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
The plaintiff filed the action for failure to act on May 6, 2025.
He requests that
the defendant be ordered by judgment to decide on the plaintiff's objection of December 30, 2024.
The defendant requests that
the action be dismissed.
She argues that neither access to the files nor a justification for the objection was provided. The objection itself was also initially untraceable.
The defendant made no acknowledgment or further submissions.
The court heard from the parties involved.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The admissible claim is well-founded.
According to Section 88 of the Social Court Act (SGG), an action for failure to act may not be brought before the expiry of six months from the date of application. This is conditional upon no decision having been issued. The same applies if no decision has been made on an objection, with the proviso that a period of three months is considered reasonable (Section 88, Paragraph 2, SGG).
These waiting periods had long since expired by the time this decision was made.
Furthermore, an action for failure to act is only justified if there is no objective reason for the delayed processing.
No objective reasons have been presented that would be suitable as a factual justification for not processing the objection received in December 2024.
Neither the lack of justification for an objection, the still pending access to the file, nor the inability to locate the document justifies a longer processing time.
The objection need not be explicitly designated as such, nor does it need to contain a specific request. The Social Court Act (SGG) does not prescribe any substantive requirements. Furthermore, a statement of reasons is not required under Section 84 of the SGG, although this would likely be advisable. It is unclear why the plaintiff's failure to inspect the files, or the fact that such inspection is still pending, should prevent the authority from making a decision within the prescribed time limit.
However, it should be clear what the objection is directed against (Gall in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGG, 2nd ed., § 84 SGG (as of 15.06.2022).
If necessary, it must be determined through interpretation whether an objection has been lodged. The objection must be interpreted irrespective of its wording, taking into account the true intent of the objector and adhering to the general principles of interpretation. In doing so, the application must be interpreted according to the most-favored-nation principle in such a way that the objector's request is granted as fully as possible. In cases of ambiguity that cannot be resolved through interpretation, the authority is obliged to clarify, by asking questions, whether a formal objection should be lodged and against what it is directed. A reinterpretation of the application is also possible. In cases of doubt, however, it must be assumed that the objection challenges all operative provisions.
Therefore, waiting for procedural steps by the plaintiffs (access to files, justification) does not constitute a sufficient reason.
Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that the objection of December 30, 2024, was not received by the defendant, but merely "could not be located." Receipt is not disputed. Insofar as the objection letter from the legal representative states "only via electronic legal communication," there is a high degree of probability that electronic transmission took place. Therefore, the defendant bears the risk of inaction.
The decision on costs is based on § 183 SGG.
Because the appeal concerns the approval of only 5 months and possibly only a slight increase in asylum seeker benefits, and because the minimum amount required for an appeal has not been reached, the appeal is inadmissible. In the case of an action for failure to act, this depends on the value of the substantive legal issue in dispute.
The following is information on legal remedies.
