DECISION
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange-Geismar-Straße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Thuringian State Administration Office,
Jorge-Semprun-Platz 4, 99423 Weimar
– Defendant –
The 24th Chamber of the Social Court of Altenburg, through its chairman, Director of the Social Court xxx, decided on October 2, 2025:
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff's extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
Pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court decides by order, upon application, whether and to what extent the parties must reimburse each other's costs if the proceedings – as in this case – are concluded by order other than by judgment or, in the case of preliminary legal protection, by order. The court must decide this matter at its equitable discretion, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case. Within the framework of this equitable decision, which must be made considering the previous state of the facts and the legal arguments, both the prospects of success of the legal protection claim and the reasons for filing the action or application must be taken into account (Thuringian Higher Social Court, Order of February 15, 2008 – L 9 B 133/07 AS with further references).
In accordance with these principles, the defendant must reimburse the plaintiff's extrajudicial costs because the action had a prospect of success. Contrary to the defendant's view, the action for failure to act filed on August 26, 2025, was also admissible under Section 88 of the Social Court Act (SGG), in particular because the waiting period under Section 88 Paragraph 2 SGG had expired. Under Section 88 Paragraph 2, the waiting period begins on the day after the objection is filed with the competent authority (see BeckOGK/Diehm, August 1, 2025, SGG Section 88, marginal note 33, beck-online). The competent authority is the body that issued the administrative act (Section 88 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGG). In this case, that was the Greiz District Office. The waiting period did not restart after the case was forwarded to the defendant. There is no legal basis for this. When the action for failure to act was filed on August 26, 2025, no decision had yet been made on the objection of April 28, 2025, but the deadline of Section 88 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG) had already expired.
The decision is unappealable pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
