DECISION
S 54 AY 13/26 ER
In the legal dispute
xxx,
– Applicant –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange-Geismar-Straße 55, 37073 Göttingen
against
Region Hannover, – Department of Social Affairs –,
represented by the Regional President,
Hildesheimer Straße 20, 30169 Hannover
– Respondent –
The 54th Chamber of the Social Court of Hanover decided on July 9, 2026, through Judge xxx of the Social Court:
1.) The respondent is ordered to grant the applicant provisionally privileged benefits pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with the Social Code Book XII (SGB XII) by analogy for the period from May 6, 2026 until the legally binding decision on the objection of December 28, 2025 against the decision of December 18, 2025, but no later than November 6, 2026.
2.) The respondent shall reimburse the applicant for her necessary extrajudicial costs.
3.) The applicant is granted legal aid for the first instance proceedings from the date of application, and attorney Sven Adam, Göttingen, is appointed to represent her. Payment in installments is not ordered (§ 73a para. 1 sentence 1 of the Social Courts Act – SGG – in conjunction with § 114 para. 1 sentence 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure – ZPO).
REASONS
The application,
to order the respondent, by way of an interim injunction, to grant the applicant provisional benefits pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with the Social Code Book XII (SGB XII) by analogy, from 6 May 2026 onwards,
is successful.
1.) Pursuant to Section 86b, paragraph 2 of the Social Courts Act (SGG), the court of first instance may, upon application, issue a preliminary injunction concerning the subject matter of the dispute, provided that a case under paragraph 1 does not apply, if there is a risk that a change in the existing situation could frustrate or significantly impede the realization of a right of the applicant. 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. The court of first instance is the court of first instance. In addition to a particular urgency of the regulation (ground for the injunction), a prerequisite for issuing the requested regulatory injunction pursuant to Section 86b, paragraph 2, sentence 2 of the SGG is that the applicant has a legal claim to the requested regulation (claim for the injunction). The grounds for the order and the claim for the order must be substantiated (§ 86b paragraph 2 sentence 4 of the Social Court Act (SGG) in conjunction with § 920 paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)). Insofar as the prospects of success are considered in connection with the claim for the order, the factual and legal situation must be examined not merely summarily, but conclusively (cf. decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of May 12, 2005 – 1 BvR 569/05 –). Otherwise, the substantiation requirement is limited to a reduced level of examination and requires only a preponderance of probability to establish the factual prerequisites for the claim for the order and the grounds for the order (cf. decisions of the Higher Social Court of Hesse (LSG) of June 29, 2005 – L 7 AS 1/05 ER –, and of February 12, 1997 – L 7 AS 225/06 ER).
Measured against these standards, the applicant has credibly demonstrated a claim and grounds for an injunction. She is entitled to benefits pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) in conjunction with the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), by analogy. This corresponds to the legal assessment already made by the Chamber in its decision of March 21, 2025, under file number S 54 AY 4/25 ER, and which it hereby refers to. The court further notes that, according to the facts presented, the applicant submitted her passport at the beginning of the year and thus cooperated in clarifying her identity and enabling measures to terminate her stay; therefore, any accusation of a lack of cooperation, for example in obtaining a passport, is unfounded. The deportation scheduled for May 28, 2026, could not be carried out, among other reasons, because of the applicant's inpatient hospital stay, which was known to the respondent and constitutes an obstacle to deportation for which she is not responsible. Significant health limitations may constitute a legal impediment to deportation under immigration law, rendering deportation legally or factually impossible, and no abuse of rights can be inferred from this. Against this background, no socially unacceptable behavior on the part of the applicant aimed at extending her stay is apparent; in particular, the mere failure to pursue voluntary departure is insufficient to assume an abuse of rights.
2.) The decision on costs follows from §193 SGG by analogy.
3.) The applicant is to be granted legal aid and a lawyer is to be appointed, since the application for interim relief – as follows from the above explanations – has sufficient prospects of success and the applicant's personal and economic circumstances, due to the receipt of asylum seeker benefits, do not permit her to bear her own costs
4.) No appeal lies against this decision because, in the main proceedings, an appeal requires leave to appeal and the value of the subject matter of the appeal does not exceed €750 (Section 172 Paragraph 3 No. 1 in conjunction with Section 144 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Social Court Act). The decision is final (Section 177 of the Social Court Act).
