Summary:

I. The applicant filed an application at the Federal Employment Agency (Bundesagentur für Arbeit, hereinafter: the Agency) in order to receive a grant for his professional training. As the Agency did not consider the applicant eligible for the grant the application was rejected as was the protest lodged against the rejection. The applicant took legal action against the Agency’s decisions and applied for preliminary relief. The Social Court (Sozialgericht) ordered the Agency to pay the grant for the professional training until the matter was decided in the main proceedings. The Higher Social Court (Landessozialgericht) reversed the order of the Social Court and denied the application for preliminary relief. The decision was made by the presiding judge of the senate “applying the second sentence of § 155.2 of the Act accordingly” which allows for a decision by the presiding judge alone in expedited proceedings due to urgent circumstances. Reasons for applying the provision accordingly were not given. Rather, it was addressed why the applicant was not eligible to receive a grant for professional training. The applicant challenged the order of the Higher Social Court and claimed violations of the right to his lawful judge according to the second sentence of Article 101.1 of the Basic Law, his right to effective legal protection according to Article 19.4 of the Basic Law as well as the general guarantee of the right to equality according to Article 3.1 of the Basic Law.

II. The Federal Constitutional Court decided that the Higher Social Court’s decision violates the applicant’s right to his lawful judge. Therefore, a decision on the violation of other fundamental rights, as claimed by the applicant, was not necessary.

The decision was based on the following considerations:
The right to one’s lawful judge constitutes an objective constitutional principle that safeguards the rule of law with respect to court proceedings. The court, the adjudicating bodies, and the judges to whom the decision on an individual case will be assigned have to be specified in advance. The courts are bound by these provisions; they must not disregard them, but rather ensure adherence to them. Persons seeking justice may claim that the specification of competences is adhered to and, if they are disregarded, challenge that as a violation of the right to their lawful judge, which is a right that is equivalent to fundamental rights.
According to the standards set forth in the case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court the applicant was denied his lawful judge by the order of the Higher Social Court. The requirements for expedited proceedings, which allow for a decision by the presiding judge alone instead of the regular composition of the court consisting of the presiding judge and two other professional judges, are neither evident nor have they been established.
When the challenged order was decided the relevant information had already been available to the court. It should have been discussed with the other professional judges or their deputies during the two weeks prior to the order. It is inconceivable why it should have been impossible to include them in the decision-making process.
The presiding judge could have preliminarily stayed the enforcement of the order of the Social Court according to the Agency’s application. That is a decision which he is competent to make on his own. Thereby he could have allowed for the option of a decision by the court in its regular composition.