DECISION
in the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam
, Lange-Geismar-Straße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
The State of Baden-Württemberg,
represented by the Alb-Donau-Kreis District Office,
which is represented by the District Administrator,
Schillerstr. 30, 89077 Ulm
– Defendant –
The 18th Chamber of the Social Court of Ulm
on April 10, 2026 in Ulm
through Judge xxx of the Social Court
without oral proceedings:
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff's extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.
The dispute concerns the reimbursement of extrajudicial costs.
In the underlying main proceedings, the plaintiff sought a decision on an objection.
The plaintiff lodged an objection by letter dated September 23, 2025, for the period beginning on September 1, 2025.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Ulm Social Court on January 6, 2026. The objection has still not been decided.
The plaintiff requested verbatim that
the defendant be ordered by way of a judgment to decide on the plaintiff's objection of September 23, 2025.
The defendant requested that
to dismiss the lawsuit.
The defendant states the following:
“The extrajudicial costs relating to the action for failure to act concerning the issuance of a decision on the objection for the calendar month of September 2025 (administrative act of August 27, 2025) will be covered in principle, insofar as they are reimbursable in relation to the court proceedings. Otherwise—that is, with regard to the issuance of a decision concerning the benefit period from October to the end of December 2025—dismissal of the action and imposition of the corresponding court costs on the plaintiff are requested. At the time the objection was filed on September 23, 2025, only a decision for the calendar month of September 2025 had been issued. Nevertheless, the objection, according to its wording, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to challenging the administrative act for September, a decision was also sought or requested for the further period up to the end of the calendar year 2025, specifically for the year 2024. This is supported, for example, by the aforementioned excerpt from the grounds for the objection, but especially by the fact that the calendar year was drawing to a close and for It was apparent to the plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, or should have been, that a new standard rate would be prescribed for the calendar year 2026 (cf. Section 40 Sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book XII), but that this rate was still uncertain at that time. The plaintiff subsequently acted accordingly. In particular, the grounds for the action for failure to act, dated January 6, 2026, demonstrate that a decision regarding the further benefit period up to the end of the calendar year 2025 was indeed desired and the subject of the objection.
The defendant issued the decision on the objection.
By letter dated March 4, 2026, the plaintiff's attorney declared the legal dispute settled and requested a decision on costs.
The plaintiff requests
that the defendant reimburse the plaintiff's extrajudicial costs.
The defendant opposed the application.
Regarding the facts and legal issues as well as the submissions of the parties, reference is made to the court file.
II.
The admissible application is well-founded.
If the proceedings end in a manner other than by judgment or order, the court shall decide, upon application, by order whether and to what extent the parties shall reimburse each other's costs (by analogy with Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 in conjunction with Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG)). The decision shall be made at the court's discretion, taking into account the previous state of the proceedings and the merits of the case (MeyerLadewig/Keller/Leitherer/Schmidt, SGG, 12th ed., Section 193, marginal note 13). The general principles governing the allocation of costs, as laid down in other procedural codes, shall serve as a guideline. The decisive factor is therefore primarily the (presumed) outcome of the proceedings (Federal Social Court, order of May 24, 1991 – 7 RAr2/91 – juris). Furthermore, it must be taken into account who gave cause for the legal proceedings (BSG, decision of July 18, 1989 – 10 R KE 22/88 – juris).
The decision on costs must therefore be based on the facts and legal arguments as they stood at the time the proceedings were concluded. At that time, the action would have had a prospect of success. According to Section 88 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), if an application for an administrative act has not been decided on its merits within a reasonable period without sufficient cause, the action is not admissible before the expiry of six months from the date of the application for the administrative act. If there is sufficient cause for the requested administrative act not yet being issued, the court suspends the proceedings until the expiry of a period it sets, which may be extended (Sentence 2). According to Paragraph 2, the same applies if no decision has been made on an objection, with the proviso that a period of three months is considered reasonable.
The objection period had already expired at the time the lawsuit was filed. In the context of a "genuine" action for failure to act under Section 88 of the Social Court Act (SGG), it is irrelevant whether the objection has any prospect of success, and in particular whether it is admissible or inadmissible. Even an inadmissible objection must be decided upon within the time limit stipulated in Section 88 Paragraph 2 of the SGG. Therefore, the subject matter of the objection is irrelevant.
This decision is unappealable according to § 172 para. 3 number 3 SGG.
