DECISION
In the legal dispute
xxx,
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen
– Applicant –
against
Altmarkkreis Salzwedel, represented by the District Administrator,
Karl-Marx-Straße 32, 29410 Salzwedel
– Respondent –
The 25th Chamber of the Social Court of Magdeburg decided on February 18, 2026, through its presiding judge, Judge xxx of the Social Court:
The respondent is ordered by way of preliminary injunction to grant the applicant benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1 provisionally until December 31, 2026, and subject to the right of recovery, from February 6, 2026, until a final and binding decision is reached on the applicant's action of July 12, 2025, file number S 25 AY 54/25.
The respondent shall bear the applicant's extrajudicial costs.
The applicant is granted legal aid for the first instance without payment in installments, with the appointment of lawyer Adam, Göttingen.
REASONS
I.
The parties are in dispute over the granting of higher benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), in particular over the granting of benefits under standard benefit level 1.
According to his own statement, the applicant entered the Federal Republic of Germany on September 9, 2023, and submitted an application for asylum on December 8, 2023. He stated that he was a national of Cameroon.
The applicant was assigned to the respondent for accommodation on November 20, 2023. The applicant, who is single, currently lives in communal accommodation as defined in Section 53 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). He most recently received ongoing benefits from the respondent in the amount of €413 per month pursuant to Section 3a Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the AsylbLG, as determined by a decision dated November 21, 2023, as amended by a decision dated February 8, 2024. By a further decision dated December 6, 2024, the respondent set the benefits pursuant to Sections 3 et seq. of the AsylbLG at €397 per month, effective January 2025, thereby revoking the decision of February 8, 2024. The respondent referred to the amendment to the standard benefit rate under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) announced by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, effective from January 2025. By letter dated December 28, 2024, received by the respondent on January 2, 2025, the applicant lodged an objection to the decision of December 6, 2024, citing the 2012 ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) as grounds for the objection. Furthermore, the applicant argued that the cost of living had increased and that the payment was insufficient.
By decision on the objection dated June 25, 2025, the respondent rejected the objection. According to Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), the benefit rates under the AsylbLG are to be 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 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the SGB XII. The Ordinance on the Adjustment of Standard Needs Levels 2025 (RBSFV 2025) of October 23, 2024 (Federal Law Gazette 2024 I No. 312) entered into force on January 1, 2025. Based on this, the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS) published the announcement regarding the amount of the standard needs rates pursuant to Section 3a Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) for the period from January 1, 2025, in accordance with Section 3a Paragraph 4 Sentence 3 of the AsylbLG, in Federal Law Gazette 2024 I No. 325 of October 29, 2024.
According to Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the RBSFV 2025 (Regulation on Standard Benefit Rates for 2025), the rates of change as of January 1, 2025, are 4.60 percent for the basic update of the standard benefit rates pursuant to Section 28a Paragraph 3 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), and 0.7 percent for the supplementary update of the standard benefit rates pursuant to Section 28a Paragraph 4 of the SGB XII. The resulting euro amounts for the standard benefit rates are lower than the euro amounts determined for 2024.
Therefore, the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) benefit rates will decrease in 2025. This reduction in the standard benefit rates under the AsylbLG will necessitate the issuance of a new benefit notice for the period beginning January 1, 2025. Although this is a burdensome administrative act, which in principle should be preceded by a hearing pursuant to Section 24 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), this can be dispensed with since all beneficiaries under Sections 3 et seq. of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) are affected by the adjustment of the standard benefit rate.
The applicant filed a lawsuit with the court on July 12, 2025, under file number S 25 AY 54/25. The applicant also filed an application for preliminary legal protection (file number S 25 AY 53/25 ER). By order dated August 28, 2025, the court ordered the respondent to provide benefits at standard benefit level 1 provisionally until January 31, 2026.
On February 6, 2026, the applicant again requested preliminary legal protection from the court. The applicant seeks the granting of benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 1. The applicant argues that the provisions of Sections 3 and 3a, paragraph 1, no. 2b, and paragraph 2, no. 2b of the AsylbLG are manifestly unconstitutional, as they violate the fundamental right to a dignified minimum standard of living guaranteed by Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with the social state principle of Article 20, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG), and contravene the general principle of equality. In addition to numerous first-instance decisions of social courts in preliminary legal protection proceedings, he also referred to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of October 19, 2022, published on November 23, 2022, under file number 1 BvL 3/21. In its ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court declared Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Number 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 GG, insofar as a single adult is only granted a standard allowance at the level of standard allowance level 2. The Federal Constitutional Court's decision is also applicable to the provisions of Section 3a Paragraph 1 Number 2b and Section 3a Paragraph 2 Number 2b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
Contrary to his claim in proceedings S 25 AY 54/25, the applicant did not base his claim on a direct application of Section 28a Paragraph 5 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG).
The applicant requests that
the respondent be 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 action under file number S 25 AY 54/25 against the respondent's decision of 6 December 2024 as amended by the objection decision of 25 June 2025, taking into account the legal opinion of the court.
The respondent requests that
the application be dismissed.
The respondent, reiterating and elaborating on his arguments from the appeal proceedings, maintains that he is not entitled to higher benefits. For individuals living in communal accommodation, the provision of benefits for necessary personal needs and other necessary expenses is based on standard benefit level 2 pursuant to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). No other legal provision exists. No analogous application of the Federal Constitutional Court's decision under file number 1 BvL 3/21 is known, nor has it been ordered by the supervisory authority. The statutory provision remains in effect.
For further details of the parties' submissions and the facts of the case, reference is made to the administrative files of the respondent and the court file, which were the subject of the decision-making process.
II.
The application for preliminary legal protection is admissible and well-founded.
Pursuant to Section 86b Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court may issue a preliminary injunction concerning the subject matter of the dispute if there is a risk that a change in the existing state of affairs would hinder or substantially prevent the applicant from exercising a right. 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 substantial disadvantages. According to Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 of the SGG in conjunction with Section 920 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), the prerequisite for issuing a preliminary injunction is the demonstration of both a claim for an injunction (i.e., a substantive claim for performance in the main proceedings) and grounds for an injunction (i.e., the urgency of the regulation to avert substantial disadvantages). A claim for an injunction and grounds for an injunction are deemed credible if their factual prerequisites exist with a high degree of probability (cf. Keller in: MeyerLadewig/Keller/Leitherer/Schmidt, SGG, 13th edition 2020, § 86b para. 41)
The more serious the threatened violation of fundamental rights and the higher the probability of its occurrence, the more intensive the factual and legal analysis of the matter must be, even in preliminary injunction proceedings. If a clarification of the factual and legal situation commensurate with the threatened violation of fundamental rights is not possible in expedited proceedings—for example, because it would require further factual investigations that cannot be carried out within the short time available—a decision may be made based on a balancing of interests (Federal Constitutional Court).<BVerfG> , Decision of 14 March 2019 – 1 BvR 169/19 – juris Rn. 15 with further references).
Taking into account the necessary balancing of interests, the applicant has credibly demonstrated a claim to an injunction.
The decision of December 6, 2024, was also formally lawful. In particular, no prior hearing was required pursuant to Section 24 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X). According to Section 24, Paragraph 2, No. 4 of the SGB X, a hearing can be waived when issuing a large number of similar administrative acts. This is the case when one and the same administrative body, based on a binding legal provision, must issue regulations to a large number of addressees at roughly the same time, which change the legal status of those affected according to an identical standard for all and would otherwise lead to an unacceptable procedural delay (von Wulffen/Schütze, SGB X, Section 24, marginal note 30f). This is the situation here: The 2025 Ordinance on the Update of Standard Benefit Rates regulates the standard benefit rate according to Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) from January 2025 and is therefore addressed to a large number of addressees of the regulation at the same time, so that the respondent could waive a prior hearing pursuant to Section 24 Paragraph 2 No. 4 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X).
The applicant lives in communal accommodation within the meaning of Section 53 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and indisputably receives benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG. However, in light of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of October 19, 2022, he is entitled to these benefits to the extent of standard benefit level 1. In its decision of October 19, 2022 – 1 BvL 3/21 – published on November 23, 2022, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that special benefit level 2 for a single adult housed in communal accommodation, as provided for in the parallel provision of Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 No. 1 of the AsylbLG, is incompatible with the Basic Law (Article 1 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law) (fundamental right to a guaranteed minimum standard of living that ensures human dignity). The legislator's assumption that it is possible and reasonable for those entitled to benefits to utilize the opportunities for shared resources offered in accommodations, and the consideration of the resulting savings when calculating their subsistence needs (see BT-Drs. 19/10052, pp. 24 et seq.), is, in principle, not objectionable under constitutional law according to the principle of subsidiarity. However, this obligation to share resources is only proportionate in the narrower sense if it is sufficiently ensured that the conditions for fulfilling these conditions and thus achieving corresponding savings actually exist in the communal accommodations. For this to be the case, there must be explicit indications of such conditions in the context of shared accommodation (§ 53 AsylG) or reception facilities (§ 44 AsylG) (see BVerfG of 19 October 2022 – 1 BvL 3/21 – juris para. 74 et seq.).
The Federal Constitutional Court has ordered a transitional arrangement according to which, for single adults who are housed in communal accommodation, a standard allowance in the amount of standard allowance level 1 instead of 2 is recognized under the conditions of Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 and Sentence 4 No. 1 AsylbLG.
The Federal Constitutional Court's finding that Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 Number 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is incompatible with Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG) in conjunction with the social welfare principle enshrined in Article 20 Paragraph 1 GG has created an unintended regulatory gap. Recipients of basic benefits under Section 3a Paragraphs 1 and 2 AsylbLG, on the one hand, and recipients of so-called analogous benefits (Section 2 AsylbLG), who do not live in an apartment because they are housed in a reception center as defined in Section 44 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act (AsylG), in communal accommodation as defined in Section 53 Paragraph 1 AsylG, or in comparable accommodation on a more than temporary basis, would be treated differently with regard to the benefit levels. In this respect, identical situations would be treated unequally: Recipients of benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) would receive benefits at needs level 2, while recipients of so-called analogous benefits would receive benefits at standard needs level 1. This unequal treatment by the federal legislature is not objectively justified and would constitute a violation of the general principle of equality enshrined in Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG). That this was clearly not the intended regulatory concept is self-evident from a comparison between the version of Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 No. 1 of the AsylbLG in force until the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (decision of October 19, 2022 – 1 BvL 3/21 –, juris) and the current version of Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 Letter b, Paragraph 2 No. 2 Letter b of the AsylbLG. It can therefore be assumed that the legal situation created by the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court does not correspond to the will of the federal legislature.
The clarification of the question in main proceedings as to whether a constitutionally compliant interpretation of Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 Letter b, Paragraph 2 No. 2 Letter b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) is possible cannot be awaited. Therefore, within the framework of the required balancing of interests, the needs-based rates according to Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 1 and Paragraph 2 No. 1 of the AsylbLG must be considered provisionally. The situations are comparable, as there is no evidence that actual savings are regularly achieved or could be achieved through shared resources in the collective accommodations.
The Federal Government, through the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS), has already announced that the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling should also be applied to the granting of basic benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). The reasoning underlying the unconstitutionality of the provision—namely, that there is no credible evidence that savings are regularly achieved or can be achieved in collective accommodations through shared resources that would justify a 10% reduction in benefits—is of a fundamental nature. The BMAS therefore assumes that the ruling also applies to the parallel provisions in Section 3a, paragraph 1, number 2, and paragraph 2, number 2, of the AsylbLG for benefits under the basic benefits scheme. Several German states (e.g., Berlin and Hesse) have already stipulated that in the future, all single adults receiving benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) who are housed in communal accommodation, reception centers, or, if applicable, emergency shelters, are entitled to the standard benefit rate or the standard benefit level for single adults according to standard benefit level 1, provided they are not young adults living in their parents' household (regardless of the type of accommodation) (see, for example, the circular from the Berlin Senate Department for Integration, Labor and Social Affairs, No. 01/2023, on the implementation of Sections 2 and 3, 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), and in Hesse, the decree of July 18, 2023, on the applicability of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of October 19, 2022 (1 BVL 3/21), to single, adult recipients of basic benefits under Sections 3, 3a AsylbLG housed in communal accommodation, available at [link to relevant document]). https://fr-hessen.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Erlass-zur-Anwendung-der-BVerfGE-vom-19.10.22-auf-%C2%A7-3a-Abs.-1-Nr.-2-b-und-Abs.-2-Nr.-2-b-AsylbLG.pdf)
Furthermore, the 8th Senate of the Federal Social Court (BSG) suspended proceedings B 8 AY 1/22 R and referred the question to the Federal Constitutional Court as to whether Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and Section 3a Paragraph 2 No. 2b of the AsylbLG, insofar as a single adult living in communal accommodation is only granted benefits at level 2, are compatible with Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with the social welfare principle enshrined in Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The proceedings remain pending before the Federal Constitutional Court under file number 1 BvL 1/25.
In this respect, grounds for an injunction also exist. Given the prevailing prospects of success in the main proceedings, as outlined above, and with reference to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 19 October 2022, a restrictive jurisprudence in preliminary legal protection, focused on demonstrating urgency, is not warranted (Frerichs, loc. cit., para. 44.19).
The court considers it necessary to limit the duration of benefits granted under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), which are generally considered permanent administrative acts, in preliminary injunction proceedings and has therefore issued a provisional ruling until December 31, 2026. This also appears necessary in the present case because the applicant has been residing in Germany without interruption since September 2023 – as far as can be ascertained – and has been receiving benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the AsylbLG since November 2023, and will therefore likely have an entitlement to benefits under Section 2 of the AsylbLG by the end of the year.
The stipulated benefits were to be limited until December 31, 2026.
The decision on costs is based on a corresponding application of Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
The applicant is entitled to the requested legal aid. Pursuant to Section 73a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), a party who, based on their personal and financial circumstances, cannot afford the costs of litigation, receives legal aid upon application if the intended legal action or defense offers a reasonable prospect of success and does not appear frivolous. The application for preliminary legal protection was well-founded.
The following is information on legal remedies.
