Administrative Court of Munich, Decision of 09.03.2020, Ref. No.: 10 C 19.121
Court proceedings can often be costly. However, those who cannot bear these costs due to a low income are not left alone but can apply for legal aid. This application can result in the state covering all or part of the incurred legal costs, if necessary.
Administrative law governs such applications. According to § 166 para. 1 sentence 1 VwGO in conjunction with § 114 para. 1 sentence 1 ZPO, a party who, due to their personal and financial circumstances, can only bear the costs of the legal proceedings in part or in installments, is to be granted legal aid if the intended legal action has a reasonable chance of success and is not deemed frivolous. This means the case must be one that a reasonable, non-needy party would pursue in the same way.
Legal aid requires financial need and prospects of success.
However, the requirements for a reasonable chance of success should not be overstated. It is not necessary to have a predominant likelihood of success for the case to be considered. It suffices if a certain openness to success exists upon a summary review. The assessment of the prospects of success should not shift the focus of the legal action or defense into the summary procedure for legal aid and replace the main proceedings. The legal aid procedure is intended to make access to the legal protection required by the rule of law available, not to provide it itself (consistent case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, e.g., decisions of 04.08.2016 – 1 BvR 380/16 – juris para. 12; 28.07.2016 – 1 BvR 1695/15 – juris paras. 16 f.; 13.07.2016 – 1 BvR 826/13 – juris paras. 11 f.; 20.06.2016 – 2 BvR 748/13 – juris para. 12).
The decisive time for assessing whether the intended legal action has a reasonable chance of success is generally the time when the legal aid application is ripe for decision, i.e., when it is complete and the opposing party has had the opportunity to comment. However, if during the course of the proceedings the factual and legal situation changes in favor of the applicant, the decisive time can exceptionally be the time of the court’s decision if developments occurring during the proceedings under substantive law need to be considered (BayVGH, decision of 05.10.2018 – 10 C 17.322 – juris para. 6 with further references).
In the present case, the plaintiff made an unsuccessful application for legal aid for a case previously pending before the Bavarian Administrative Court in Munich, which had been terminated following agreed termination declarations. The plaintiff then filed an appeal to continue pursuing his initial unsuccessful application and to compel the defendant to issue him a settlement permit, overturning the decision of the Erding District Office dated January 18, 2018. The appeal was declared admissible but unfounded by the VGH Munich, as the conditions for granting legal aid were not met.
Facts of the Case:
The legal proceedings were terminated by the Administrative Court under the (probably incorrect) date of July 19, 2019, by decision, even before the decision on the legal aid application. From this point, further legal action in the sense of § 114 para. 1 sentence 1 ZPO was no longer „intended.“ However, this termination of the legal proceedings did not prevent the granting of legal aid, as a litigant could exceptionally continue to pursue their claim for legal aid in such a case and receive it retroactively to the time of the application if the application was timely and complete before the conclusion of the proceedings (consistent case law; see, for example, BayVGH, decision of 10.02.2016 – 10 C 15.849 – juris).
Plaintiff Sued for Denial of Settlement Permit
On May 17, 2019, the plaintiff submitted proof of a permanent employment contract to the Administrative Court. Subsequently, the defendant issued the plaintiff a settlement permit.
The Administrative Court found that the case had no reasonable chance of success at the relevant time, regardless of whether it was assessed based on the receipt of the statement of defense by the Administrative Court on April 19, 2019, or the proof of a permanent employment contract provided to the Administrative Court on May 17, 2019.
The plaintiff had applied for legal aid for the case and filed an appeal against the denial.
The plaintiff insisted that the case had had reasonable prospects of success from the outset because his livelihood had been secured even before the conclusion of a permanent employment contract in the sense of § 9 para. 2 sentence 1 no. 2 AufenthG. According to his own statements, the plaintiff had been continuously employed since early 2014.
Legal Aid Decision of the Administrative Court of Munich:
Court Saw No Reasonable Prospects of Success
The VGH ruled that the admissible appeal (§ 146 para. 1 VwGO) was unfounded. The conditions for granting legal aid under § 166 para. 1 sentence 1 VwGO in conjunction with § 114 para. 1 sentence 1 ZPO, particularly the reasonable prospect of success in the intended legal action, were not met.
The plaintiff’s argument that the case had reasonable prospects of success because his livelihood had been secured by a permanent employment contract did not succeed. Even if one considered the limited-term nature of the plaintiff’s employment contract until April 30, 2018, as non-detrimental for the required prognosis (in this sense Dienelt in Bergmann/Dienelt, Immigration Law, 13th edition 2020, § 2 AufenthG para. 52), the VGH Munich held that, before the conclusion of a permanent employment relationship, it was not justified to assume that the plaintiff would be permanently able to support himself and his family without public funds.
The plaintiff’s earned income was too low for a settlement permit.
Although the plaintiff had been continuously employed since early 2014, the earnings from this employment were initially so low that he received supplementary benefits under SGB II for a period of almost one and a half years from June 2015 to the end of November 2016. Thus, the plaintiff’s livelihood was not secured during the fixed-term employment relationship from May 1, 2016, to April 30, 2018, for an extended period. Given this, a positive prognosis was not possible before presenting a permanent employment contract. The requirement for livelihood security could not be waived in the case of an application for a settlement permit by resorting to the regulation of § 5 para. 3 sentence 2 AufenthG (BVerwG, judgment of 16.11.2010 – 1 C 21/09 – NVwZ 2011, 829 para. 23).
Furthermore, the VGH Munich argued that the reasonable prospects of success for the case did not arise even with the proof of a permanent employment contract to the Administrative Court on May 17, 2019. The Administrative Court had rightly stated in the non-remedial decision of December 20, 2019, that with the conclusion of the permanent employment contract, the need for legal protection for the case had ceased.
The need for legal protection is a requirement for admissibility that must be present at the time of the court’s decision (see, for example, BVerwG, decision of 17.07.2019 – 7 B 27/18 – juris para. 19). It requires that the person seeking protection has taken simpler means of legal enforcement before approaching the court (see, for example, BayVGH, decision of 29.05.2018 – 1 ZB 16.532 – juris para. 10 regarding the necessity of an application to the authority before filing a compulsory action).
After the conclusion of the permanent employment contract, it was foreseeable that the defendant – as indeed happened – would issue a settlement permit. The fact that the defendant had not previously given an assurance under Art. 38 para. 1 BayVwVfG was not decisive, contrary to the plaintiff’s counsel’s view, as the previous content of the administrative and court proceedings made it evident that the immigration authority had only conditioned the issuance of the desired settlement permit on the proof of a permanent employment contract. Thus, the proof provided by the plaintiff was a resolving event that eliminated the need for judicial protection.
The VGH Munich thus ruled that due to this sequence – the resolving event set by the plaintiff and the immediate remedy by the defendant – which the Administrative Court rightly considered against the plaintiff in its cost decision under § 161 para. 2 sentence 1 VwGO, did not lead to the conclusion that the conditions for granting legal aid had been met at any time before. In the case of a (first-time) lawsuit after the conclusion of the permanent employment contract and without waiting for the already foreseeable positive decision of the immigration authority, a corresponding application for legal aid would have been rejected due to the inadmissibility of the lawsuit (possibly also due to the frivolousness of the lawsuit, see BayVGH, decision of 22.10.2019 – 10 C 18.2325 – juris para. 5). The fact that the plaintiff had previously filed an unfounded lawsuit did not justify a different assessment.
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.