DECISION
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Applicant –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
State of Rhineland-Palatinate, represented by the Supervisory and Service Directorate,
Willy-Brandt-Platz 3, 54290 Trier
– Respondent –
Legal representative:
Lawyers Dr. Lehnen et al.,
Max-Planck-Straße 24, 54296 Trier
The 16th Chamber of the Social Court of Speyer
on August 19, 2025,
through Judge xxx of the Social Court
:
The respondent shall bear the applicant's necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
The decision on costs is made pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG). This is because the present proceedings were not concluded by judgment or order, so the court, upon application by the parties, must decide by order whether and to what extent the parties must reimburse each other's costs. Since Section 197a of the Social Court Act (SGG) is not applicable, no court fees are incurred.
If the proceedings – as here – are terminated by a decision other than a judgment or, in preliminary injunction proceedings, by order (accepted admission, settlement, withdrawal, or declaration of completion), the court must, pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG), decide by order, upon application (which is present here), whether and to what extent the parties must reimburse each other's costs. The SGG does not expressly specify the conditions under which costs are to be reimbursed. Sections 91 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) are not directly applicable; however, the principles established therein are generally to be considered when deciding on costs, taking into account the specific characteristics of social court proceedings. The decision as to whether and to what extent the parties must reimburse each other's costs when the proceedings are concluded without a judgment or, in preliminary injunction proceedings, without an order, is made at the court's discretion (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of October 1, 2009, 1 BvR 1969/09, beck-online). The primary focus is on the procedural success, assessed according to the facts and legal arguments at the time of settlement. As a rule, it is considered fair and equitable that the losing party bears the costs (see, among many others, BSG, decision of 13 December 2016, B 4 AS 14/15 R; Schmidt in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th ed. 2023, SGG § 193 para. 12a, beck-online with further references).
Based on these principles, it is appropriate, in exercising the court's due discretion, that the respondent in the present case bear the applicant's necessary extrajudicial costs in full.
In the present proceedings, which have been pending before the court since May 21, 2025, the applicant has applied for the issuance of a preliminary injunction ordering the granting of basic benefits pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in full. It should be noted that the grounds for the application were submitted only after the applicant had reviewed the case file, in a brief dated June 10, 2025. In a brief dated May 27, 2025, the respondent requested that the application be dismissed and presented its arguments on the merits (see page 16 of the court file). In a brief dated June 16, 2025, received by the court on June 17, 2025, the respondent acknowledged the applicant's claim in principle. The applicant accepted the acknowledgment by letter dated June 19, 2025, to settle the legal dispute and requested a decision on costs pursuant to Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG) against the respondent.
The respondent, in accordance with his admission, is fully liable in the present case, so that – as explained above – it is generally considered just and equitable that he bear the applicant's necessary extrajudicial costs. Contrary to the respondent's view, neither the legal principle of Section 93 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) nor the fact that the applicant filed an application for a preliminary injunction with the Speyer Social Court almost simultaneously with his objection to the insufficient benefit payment leads to an exception to the principle outlined above. It must be noted that the court cannot see why a recipient of basic income support, whose dignified minimum standard of living is not guaranteed by insufficient benefits, should, when applying for a preliminary injunction to obtain higher benefits than those granted, first have to give the providing authority the opportunity to decide on a simultaneously filed objection and, until then, have to accept the disregard for his dignified minimum standard of living. The court finds no basis for this in either the law or the relevant literature and case law. It follows from the same reasoning that, in the present situation, the legal principle of Section 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not lead to a deviation from the principle that the losing party bears the costs, since the applicant cannot be expected to accept the disregard of his dignified minimum standard of living due to insufficient benefits for the duration of the respondent's reasonable processing of his application, until he can file an application for a preliminary injunction with the court without the risk of having to bear his extrajudicial costs.
This decision, which is issued free of charge, does not require a separate cost decision itself due to the principle of the unity of the cost decision, which also applies in this respect, and is not subject to appeal pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
