DECISION
S 54 AY 35/25
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange-Geismarsch-Straße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Region Hannover, – Department of Social Affairs –,
represented by the Regional President,
Hildesheimer Straße 20, 30169 Hannover
– Defendant –
The 54th Chamber of the Social Court of Hanover decided on June 11, 2026, through Judge xxx of the Social Court:
The defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for her necessary extrajudicial costs.
REASONS
I.) After the main issue has been resolved, the only remaining point of contention between the parties is the question of who bears the costs.
Pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), the court decides on the reimbursement of costs by order upon application if the proceedings are terminated other than by judgment. The plaintiff has declared the preliminary injunction proceedings concluded and has requested a decision on costs.
The decision regarding the reimbursement of costs is made at the court's discretion (see Federal Social Court [BSG], SozR Nos. 3 and 42 on Section 193 of the Social Courts Act [SGG]; Hessian State Social Court [LSG], decisions of February 10, 1992 – L 5 B 117/91 – and of September 28, 2001 – L 14 B 94/97 KR – with further references), whereby the court is not bound by the parties' motions and the legal principles of Sections 91 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) are applied. The court must therefore assess the outcome of the legal dispute as it stands at the time of its conclusion, taking into account the facts and legal arguments presented in the file, exercising its discretion. The decision is thus based on all circumstances of the individual case, considering the facts and legal arguments as presented in the file.
Taking into account the relevant facts and legal arguments, it is equitable that the defendant reimburse the plaintiff for her necessary extrajudicial costs. The plaintiff filed suit on July 6, 2025, challenging the rejection of her objection of January 23, 2025, as inadmissible due to alleged time constraints, and argued that the instructions on legal remedies attached to the contested decision of December 13, 2024, were incomplete. During the ongoing legal proceedings, the defendant acknowledged the incompleteness of the instructions on legal remedies and issued a new decision on the objection, thereby essentially addressing the plaintiff's complaint and confirming the grounds for filing the suit. Given these circumstances, it can be assumed that the suit would likely have been successful had it not been withdrawn, so it is equitable to order the defendant to bear the plaintiff's necessary extrajudicial costs. In this context, it was particularly important to consider that the defendant, through the incorrect or incomplete legal remedy instructions and the resulting rejection of the objection as inadmissible, had given cause for the filing of the lawsuit.
II.) This decision is final and unappealable pursuant to Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 3 of the Social Court Act (SGG).
