DECISION
in the legal dispute
xxx,
– Applicant –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam
, Lange-Geismar-Str. 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
City of Stuttgart – Office for Social Affairs and Participation,
represented by the Mayor,
Eberhardstr. 33, 70173 Stuttgart
– Respondent –
The 11th Chamber of the Stuttgart Social Court
, on March 18, 2026 in Stuttgart,
through Judge xxx of the Social Court
Decided without oral proceedings:
The respondent is ordered by way of an interim 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 and subject to the right of recovery, from 9 February 2026 until a final decision is reached on the applicant's objection of 6 January 2026.
The respondent shall bear the applicant's extrajudicial costs.
The applicant is granted legal aid without payment of installments for the preliminary legal protection proceedings and is assigned lawyer Sven Adam from Göttingen to represent his rights under the conditions of a lawyer based in the district of the Stuttgart Social Court.
REASONS
I.
The parties are in dispute regarding the granting of basic benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at the standard benefit level 1.
The applicant was born on xxx and is housed in communal accommodation within the meaning of Section 53 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act.
The respondent implicitly granted the applicant basic benefits in accordance with Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) at standard benefit level 2 from January 2026 onwards by means of payment.
By letter dated 06.01.2026, the applicant lodged an objection against the benefit period starting from 01.01.2026, which the respondent has not yet decided on.
By letter dated 06.02.2026, received by the court on 09.02.2026, the applicant filed the present application for preliminary legal protection with the Stuttgart Social Court.
The applicant believes that he is entitled to benefits in the constitutionally permissible amount at standard benefit level 1.
The applicant requests that
the respondent be ordered, by way of an interim 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 legally binding decision is reached on the applicant's objection of January 6, 2026, against the de facto provision of benefits by the respondent, taking into account the legal opinion of the court.
The respondent requests that
the application be dismissed.
The respondent argues that there is no legal basis for the standard benefit level 1. The Federal Constitutional Court's decision refers only to analogous benefits under Section 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG). Furthermore, the applicant has not credibly demonstrated any grounds for an injunction. It is not apparent that the applicant's financial resources are exhausted, and he has not explained what disadvantages he would face if he were referred to the outcome of the main proceedings.
For further details of the parties' submissions and the facts of the case, reference is made to the administrative file of the respondent and the case file.
II.
The application for preliminary legal protection is admissible and well-founded.
In this case, preliminary legal protection is governed by Section 86 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Social Courts Act (SGG). According to this provision, the court hearing the main proceedings may issue a preliminary injunction to regulate a provisional state of affairs with regard to a disputed legal relationship if such regulation appears necessary to avert substantial disadvantages. This is the case if, upon preliminary examination, the applicant has a claim to the requested benefit (claim for an injunction) and the enforcement of the claim cannot wait for a decision in the main proceedings due to particular urgency (ground for an injunction). The claim for an injunction and the ground for an injunction must be substantiated (Section 86b Paragraph 2 Sentence 4 SGG in conjunction with Section 920 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure – ZPO). In view of its provisional nature, the interim order may not, in principle, anticipate the final decision in the main proceedings (cf. LSG North Rhine-Westphalia of 26 January 2015 – L 7 AS 617/14 B; LSG Saxony of 19 December 2016 – L 7 AS 1001/16 B ER; HKSGG/Binder § 86b Rn. 45).
The claim for an injunction and the grounds for the injunction are not isolated entities; rather, they are interrelated such that the requirements for the claim for an injunction decrease with increasing urgency or severity of the threatened harm (the grounds for the injunction), and vice versa. If the main action is manifestly inadmissible or unfounded, the application for a preliminary injunction must generally be rejected regardless of the grounds for the injunction, because no right worthy of protection exists. Conversely, if the main action is manifestly well-founded, the requirements for the grounds for the injunction are reduced. However, even then, a ground for the injunction cannot be dispensed with entirely (Lower Saxony-Bremen Higher Social Court, decision of November 15, 2013 – L 15 AS 365/13 B ER, para. 18, juris; Hesse Higher Social Court, decision of February 5, 2007 – L 9 AS 254/06 ER, para. 4, juris). Rather, the issuance of a preliminary injunction must be necessary to avert substantial disadvantages; that is, there must be an urgent emergency requiring an immediate decision. Such an emergency exists when one's livelihood is threatened or significant economic disadvantages are likely (Keller in: MeyerLadewig/Keller/Leitherer/Schmidt, SGG, 13th ed. 2020, § 86b para. 29a; Burkiczak in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGG, 2nd ed., § 86b SGG (as of 03.02.2023), para. 412).
The Chamber is convinced that the applicant has substantiated a claim for an injunction.
The applicant is housed in communal accommodation within the meaning of Section 53 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act and is indisputably entitled to basic benefits under Sections 3 and 3a of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act. In the Chamber's opinion, and taking into account the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of October 19, 2022 (Case No. 1 BvL 3/21), he is entitled to these benefits to the extent of standard benefit level 1. With this decision, the Federal Constitutional Court reconciled Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act with Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The Federal Constitutional Court has declared the provision incompatible with the social welfare principle enshrined in Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, insofar as a standard allowance for a single adult is only recognized at the level of standard allowance level 2, and has ordered, until a new regulation is enacted, that Section 28 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) in conjunction with the Standard Allowance Determination Act and Sections 28a and 49 of the SGB XII shall apply mutatis mutandis to beneficiaries of benefits under Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG), with the proviso that, in the case of accommodation in communal accommodation within the meaning of Section 53 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act (AsylG) or a reception facility under Section 44 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Act (AsylG), a standard allowance at the level of the respective current standard allowance level 1 shall be used as the basis for calculating benefits for each single adult. In the Chamber's view, the aforementioned decision of the Federal Constitutional Court also undoubtedly establishes the unconstitutionality of the parallel provision in Section 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 lit. b of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) or Section 3a Paragraph 2 No. 2 lit. b of the AsylbLG (see also: Hessian State Social Court, decision of December 20, 2022 – L 4 AY 28/22 B ER; Frerichs in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGB XII, 3rd edition, Section 3a AsylbLG (as of December 28, 2022), marginal note 44_18). Insofar as the Federal Constitutional Court limited its order to those entitled to benefits under Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) and those entitled to benefits under Sections 3, 3a Paragraph 1 No. 2 Letter b) and Paragraph 2 No. 2 Letter b) of the AsylbLG are not covered by the order, the constitutional issues of the regulations in Section 3a of the AsylbLG are comparable, because in this respect, too, there are no reliable indications that savings are regularly achieved or can be achieved in collective accommodations through shared resources that would justify a 10% reduction in benefits (cf. Federal Social Court, referral decision of September 26, 2024 – B 8 AY 1/22 R, juris; Hessian Higher Social Court, decision of December 20, 2022 – L 4 AY 28/22 B ER; Baden-Württemberg Higher Social Court, decision of April 4, 2023 – L 7 AY 335/23 ER-B; Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 29.06.2023 – L 8 AY 18/23 B ER).
Grounds for an injunction also exist. The mere fact that basic social security benefits are affected is not sufficient to generally assume an irreparable disadvantage that cannot be rectified in the main proceedings (see Federal Constitutional Court, decision of September 19, 2017 – 1 BvR 1719/17, juris, para. 8; Baden-Württemberg State Social Court, decision of August 28, 2019 – L 7 AY 2735/19 ER-B, para. 8, juris). In view of the prevailing prospects of success in the main proceedings, as demonstrated by the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of October 19, 2022 (Case No. 1 BvL 3/21), the Chamber is of the opinion that a restrictive jurisprudence focused on demonstrating urgency (cf. Burkiczak in: Schlegel/Voelzke, jurisPK-SGG, 2nd ed., § 86b SGG (as of February 3, 2023), para. 425 with further references) is not appropriate in the present case. Against this background, the Chamber considers the monthly difference of €46 at issue here, which amounts to approximately 11% of the currently approved standard benefit, to be sufficient to establish an urgent need (see also Mecklenburg-Vorpommern State Social Court, decision of January 21, 2021 – L 9 AY 27/20 B ER, para. 25, juris).
The decision on costs is based on a corresponding application of Section 193 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
The decision is final and cannot be appealed, § 172 para. 3 no. 1 SGG.
The subject of the dispute in the context of the preliminary injunction is the regular benefit period of one year (see Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of August 17, 2017 – L 8 AY 17/17 B ER, juris). Based on a monthly difference of €46, this amounts to a total of €552, so the appeal threshold of €750 is not reached.
III.
The application for legal aid is admissible and well-founded.
According to Section 73a Paragraph 1 of the Social Courts Act (SGG) in conjunction with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) on legal aid (Sections 114 to 127 ZPO), a party who, according to their personal and economic circumstances, is unable to bear the costs of the proceedings, is to be granted legal aid upon application if the intended legal action offers sufficient prospects of success and does not appear frivolous (Section 114 ZPO).
These conditions are met here. Sufficient prospects of success for the legal action within the meaning of Section 73a of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with Sections 114 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) are to be affirmed in accordance with the above explanations.
The appointment of the authorized attorney is based on Section 121 Paragraph 2 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). According to Section 121 Paragraph 3 ZPO, an attorney not established within the district of the court hearing the case may only be appointed if this does not result in additional costs. Therefore, if the appointment of an attorney from outside the district is requested, this attorney must be appointed under the same conditions as an attorney established within the district of the court hearing the case. In such cases, the application for appointment generally contains implicit consent to this limitation (see, for example, BeckOK ZPO/Reichling, 59th ed., December 1, 2025, ZPO § 121 Rn. 35, beck-online; MüKoZPO/Wache, 7th ed. 2025, ZPO § 121 Rn. 16, beck-online).
The following is information on legal remedies.
