In the proceedings
concerning
the constitutional complaint
Mr. xxx's
– Authorized representative: Attorney Sven Adam
, Lange-Geismar-Straße 55, 37073 Göttingen –
against
a) the decision of the Social Court of Mainz
of 18 December 2025 – S 1 AY 19/25 –,
b) the decision of the Social Court of Mainz
of 17 December 2025 – S 1 AY 19/25 and S 1 AY 22/25 –,
c) the decision of the Social Court of Mainz
of 15 December 2025 – S 1 AY 19/25 and S 1 AY 22/25 –
The First Chamber of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court, composed of
President xxx
and Judges xxx, xxx,
unanimously decided on July 30, 2026:
1. The decision of the Social Court of Mainz of 15 December 2025 – S 1 AY 19/25 and S 1 AY 22/25 – as amended by the decision of 17 December 2025 – S 1 AY 19/25 and S 1 AY 22/25 – violates the complainant's right under Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.
2. The decision is set aside insofar as it concerns the appellant, and the case is remanded to the Mainz Social Court for a new decision. The decision of December 18, 2025 – S 1 AY 19/25 – rejecting the objection to the hearing and the counter-argument is thereby rendered moot.
3. The State of Rhineland-Palatinate shall reimburse the complainant for his necessary expenses incurred in the constitutional complaint proceedings.
The constitutional complaint concerns a social court's decision on costs after the settlement of the legal proceedings by accepted admission.
REASONS
I.
The appellant challenged the termination of benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 2 of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) before the Social Court. The proceedings were concluded by acceptance of the claim. However, the defendant objected to the assumption of costs. A case involving another plaintiff, represented by the same legal counsel, was pending before the same Social Court, also concerning a termination of benefits under Section 1 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 2 of the AsylbLG, and this case was likewise concluded by acceptance of the claim. No family relationship between the two plaintiffs is known.
By decision of December 15, 2025, the Social Court, in the case files of the appellant and the other plaintiff, ruled that the defendant must reimburse each plaintiff half of their extrajudicial costs in both consolidated proceedings. The heading of the case listed only the appellant's name on the plaintiffs' side. The Social Court reasoned that the decisive factor in its cost decision was that the actions in both proceedings could have been filed jointly because they essentially concerned the same claim, were substantiated identically in both proceedings, and were undeniably related in time. A joint action would have contributed to a reduction in costs, to which even a lawyer is obligated to contribute. By decision of December 17, 2025, the Social Court corrected the heading of the case due to an obvious error and added the other plaintiff as plaintiff no. 2.
By decision of December 18, 2025, the subsequent objection to the hearing and the appellant's counter-argument were dismissed. Due to the identical legal issues involved, consolidation of the proceedings was deemed necessary for the sake of procedural efficiency.
II.
1. In his constitutional complaint, the complainant alleges a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness (Art. 3 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 20 para. 3 GG), his right to be heard (Art. 103 para. 1 GG), the right to effective legal protection (Art. 19 para. 4 GG) and the right to a fair trial.
2. The Ministry of Justice of the State of Rhineland-Palatinate and the State of Rhineland-Palatinate, as the respondent in the original proceedings, were given the opportunity to comment. The file of the original proceedings was submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court.
III.
The Chamber accepts the constitutional complaint for decision and grants it, because this is necessary to enforce the complainant's fundamental right under Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (Section 93a Paragraph 2 Letter b of the Federal Constitutional Court Act). The other requirements for a decision by the Chamber in favor of the complainant under Section 93c Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act are also met in this respect. The Federal Constitutional Court has already clarified the constitutional questions relevant to the assessment of the constitutional complaint. The constitutional complaint, which is admissible with regard to the allegation of a violation of Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, is therefore manifestly well-founded (Section 93c Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act). The challenged decision of the Social Court of December 15, 2025, as amended by the decision of December 17, 2025, violates Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in its manifestation as the prohibition of arbitrariness. It can remain open whether the decision also violates the other fundamental rights cited by the complainant.
1. According to the established jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, a judicial decision violates the general principle of equality, specifically the prohibition of objective arbitrariness (Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law), if the content of a legal norm is applied in a manner that is no longer comprehensible (see Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of the First Chamber of the First Senate of September 10, 2021 – 1 BvR 1029/20 –, para. 22; Decision of the Third Chamber of the First Senate of February 8, 2023 – 1 BvR 311/22 –, para. 12). The decisive factor is whether the decision is ultimately untenable. The question is therefore not whether the decision was correctly reasoned by the lower court, but whether it can be reasoned at all (Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of the Third Chamber of the First Senate of April 24, 2025 – 1 BvR 1902/24 –, para. 9). A judicial decision is arbitrary only if it is not legally defensible from any conceivable perspective and the conclusion is therefore inescapable that it is based on extraneous considerations. This must be determined using objective criteria. Culpable conduct on the part of the judge is not required. The erroneous interpretation of a law or the erroneous application of the law alone does not render a court decision arbitrary. Arbitrariness only exists if an obviously relevant norm is disregarded or the content of a norm is grossly misinterpreted (cf. BVerfGE 87, 273 <278 f.>; 89, 1 <13 f.>; 96, 189 <203>; established case law).
2. The Social Court's decision on costs violates the prohibition of arbitrariness under Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.
a) Following an accepted admission of liability, which, pursuant to Section 101 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act (SGG), settles the main proceedings to that extent, the court decides on the costs by order upon application pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentences 1 and 3 of the SGG, insofar as they are not covered by the admission of liability. Section 193 Paragraph 1 Sentences 1 and 3 of the SGG do not contain any provisions regarding the content of the cost decision. The Social Court therefore decides at its equitable discretion based on general principles (cf. BVerfGK 16, 245 <249 f.>). When the main proceedings are settled, the outcome of the proceedings is generally decisive, based on the factual and legal situation at the time of settlement. This is based on an application of the legal principles of Section 91 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1, Section 91a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1, Section 92 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 154 Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, Section 155 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of the Third Chamber of the First Senate of April 24, 2025 – 1 BvR 1902/24 –, Rn. 11). Even if a claim is admissible and well-founded, it is not precluded that the court, in the proper exercise of its discretion, may refuse reimbursement of costs on grounds of equity pursuant to Section 193 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) (cf. regarding actions for failure to act: Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of the Third Chamber of the First Senate of February 8, 2023 – 1 BvR 311/22 –, para. 14; Decision of the Third Chamber of the First Senate of September 19, 2023 – 1 BvR 1555/23 –, para. 7; Decision of the Third Chamber of the First Senate of February 6, 2024 – 1 BvR 301/22 –, para. 14). An arbitrary decision can only be assumed in exceptional circumstances. The Federal Constitutional Court is not required to carry out its own assessment, but rather to limit itself to examining whether the decision made lacks any objective basis (cf. BVerfGK 16, 245 <252>; BVerfG, Decision of the Second Chamber of the First Senate of 16 May 2024 – 1 BvR 1021/24 –, para. 9).
b) The decision that the defendant must reimburse the plaintiffs for half of their extrajudicial costs in each of the two consolidated proceedings is objectively incomprehensible.
aa) Since the conditions for joining both proceedings under Section 113 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) are not met, the appellant cannot be reasonably faulted for not having filed a joint action with another plaintiff.
Pursuant to Section 113 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG), the court may, by decision, combine several pending legal disputes of the same or different parties for joint hearing and decision if the claims that form the subject matter of these legal disputes are related or could have been asserted in a single action from the outset.
(1) The connection required under the first alternative of the elements of the offense is not present. According to social law jurisprudence and legal literature, it is not sufficient for this purpose that the claims are directed against the same defendant if the underlying factual circumstances are different (Federal Social Court, decision of May 19, 2021 – B 10 ÜG 12/20 B –, juris, para. 18). It is not sufficient that different persons merely invoke the same legal basis against a defendant (cf. Leopold, in: Roos/Wahrendorf/Müller, BeckOGK SGG, § 113 para. 14).<Mai 2026> ; Keller, in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th ed. 2023, § 113 para. 2a). Although the appellant and the other plaintiff both challenge an exclusion from benefits pursuant to § 1 para. 4 sentence 1 no. 2 AsylbLG, this exclusion was applied individually to each person.
(2) The requirements of the second alternative of Section 113 Paragraph 1 of the Social Court Act (SGG) are also not met. Whether claims could have been asserted in a single action from the outset is determined, in the case of objective joinder of claims, by Section 56 of the SGG, and in the case of subjective joinder of parties, by Section 74 of the SGG in conjunction with Sections 59 and 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) (Keller, in: Meyer-Ladewig/Keller/Schmidt, SGG, 14th ed. 2023, Section 113, marginal note 2a). The joinder of the proceedings of the appellant and the other plaintiff also constituted subjective joinder of parties. However, contrary to the requirements of Section 59 of the ZPO, the appellant and the other plaintiff are neither in a legal community with regard to the subject matter of the dispute, nor are they entitled or obligated on the same factual and legal grounds. The asserted claims for benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act are based on administrative decisions issued individually to the appellant and the other person in the asylum proceedings. The cost decision to be made in both proceedings is based on this. The claims of the appellant and the other plaintiff are not similar claims or obligations based on essentially the same factual and legal grounds within the meaning of Section 60 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). The necessary intrinsic connection is lacking given the individually differing facts underlying the respective asylum proceedings. The fact that the circumstances might be parallel is insufficient.
bb) Furthermore, the consolidation of the proceedings, which may only occur after the conclusion of the proceedings, could no longer alter the cost situation for the already conducted and concluded proceedings. As demonstrated, the decisive factor for the cost decision is the factual and legal situation at the time of settlement, which has already occurred through the acceptance of the admission (see Section 101 Paragraph 2 of the Social Court Act). At that time, there were two separate proceedings. A joint cost decision that derives grounds for a cost allocation from (alleged) commonalities between separate proceedings cannot be comprehensibly derived from the factual and legal situation at the time of settlement.
c) The challenged decision of the Social Court of December 15, 2025, as amended by the correction decision of December 17, 2025, is based on the established violation of Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. It must therefore be set aside pursuant to Section 95 Paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act insofar as it concerns the complainant, and the case must be remanded to the Social Court. Following the setting aside of the part concerning the complainant, the cost allocation remains in effect for the other plaintiff, whose constitutional complaint (1 BvR 145/26) was not accepted for decision. The decision of the Social Court of December 18, 2025 – S 1 AY 19/15 – becomes moot upon its setting aside.
IV.
The decision regarding the reimbursement of expenses is based on Section 34a Paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.
This decision is final.
