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 June 12, 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 application for review within the meaning of Section 44 of the German Social Code, Book Ten (SGB X).
The plaintiff requested on August 18, 2025, a review of the benefit period up to February 28, 2025.
The plaintiff requested that
the defendant be ordered by way of a judgment to decide on the plaintiff's application of August 18, 2025.
The defendant requested that
the action be dismissed.
The Alb-Donau district office rejected the application of August 18, 2025 with a decision dated April 27, 2026.
By letter dated April 28, 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 this 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 (Meyer-Ladewig/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 defendant did not decide on the application for review dated August 18, 2025, until April 27, 2026, and thus not within the six-month period. Since the action for failure to act under the Social Courts Act (SGG) – unlike under the Administrative Courts Act – is a "genuine" action for failure to act, the extent to which the plaintiff's application has a prospect of success is also irrelevant.
There is also no general obligation for plaintiffs or their legal representatives to contact the authority again after the expiry of the deadline under Section 88 of the Social Court Act (SGG), and the court does not assume a special situation in the present proceedings (cf. Federal Constitutional Court, decision of February 8, 2023 – 1 BvR 311/22 –, para. 3, juris).
This decision is final and cannot be appealed (§ 172 para. 3 no. 3 SGG).
