Appeal to the Landessozialgericht

Not always automatically – but more often than the widely quoted figure suggests. § 144 Abs. 1 SGG requires leave where the value of the subject matter of the appeal for a cash benefit, a service or a benefit in kind does not exceed €750. But the decisive sentence comes next: “This does not apply where the appeal concerns recurring or ongoing benefits for more than one year.” Because social law very often concerns exactly that – Grundsicherungsgeld, a pension, long-term care benefits, a permanently established degree of disability – the appeal in these cases is admissible without leave, irrespective of the amount. So check first whether your dispute concerns ongoing benefits for more than one year, before you even start calculating.

One month. § 151 Abs. 1 SGG: “The appeal must be lodged with the Landessozialgericht within one month after service of the judgment, in writing or placed on record with the clerk of the court registry.” What matters is the service – not the day of the oral hearing and not the date shown on the judgment. Weeks often pass between the hearing and service; keep the envelope or the acknowledgement of receipt for this reason. The same one-month deadline applies to the Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde under § 145 SGG, there running from service of the complete judgment.

If you confuse the Sozialgericht and the Landessozialgericht: nothing serious happens – there is expressly a safety net for this. § 151 Abs. 2 SGG provides that the appeal deadline “is also complied with if the appeal is lodged within the deadline with the Sozialgericht, in writing or placed on record with the clerk of the court registry”; the Sozialgericht then forwards the matter without delay. In practice this means: if the deadline is running short and you are unsure, lodge it anyway – with the Sozialgericht if necessary. The mistake that truly causes harm is not the wrong court, but a deadline that has expired; that cannot be cured.

No. There is a separate remedy against refusal of leave: the Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde under § 145 SGG. It must be lodged “with the Landessozialgericht within one month after service of the complete judgment” – the same deadline as for the appeal, so no extra time. In substance, you must set out why one of the grounds for leave under § 144 Abs. 2 SGG is present: fundamental importance, a departure from a decision of the Landessozialgericht, the Bundessozialgericht or the Federal Constitutional Court, or a procedural defect. And a simplification that hardly anyone knows about: if the complaint succeeds, “the complaint proceedings are continued as appeal proceedings; the complainant is not required to lodge an appeal”.

For insured persons, benefit recipients and persons with disabilities, nothing: § 183 SGG applies to “proceedings before the social courts”, and so also to the second instance. No court fee is charged and no advance payment is required. And the decisive relief also remains in place: under § 193 Abs. 4 SGG, the authority’s expenses are not recoverable – you do not bear them even if you lose the appeal. No cost risk towards the other side therefore arises in the appellate stage either. All that remains is your own lawyer, if you engage one; for that, Prozesskostenhilfe may again be considered, and, if successful, reimbursement under § 193 Abs. 1.

No. § 73 Abs. 1 SGG expressly permits conducting the legal dispute “before the Sozialgericht and the Landessozialgericht” yourself – mandatory representation by a lawyer only begins one instance later. The practical tip applies here too: a Sozialverband or a trade union may represent members under § 73 Abs. 2 SGG, and in the second instance specialist support is worth even more than in the first, because the issues there are more often legal questions than facts. The position is different at the Bundessozialgericht: under § 73 Abs. 4 SGG, mandatory representation applies there, except in legal aid proceedings. Anyone considering a Revision should plan for this early.

Yes, and that is a significant difference from other jurisdictions. The Landessozialgericht also investigates of its own motion: it is not confined to the material from the first instance, obtains medical reports and files itself, and can commission its own expert opinions. New medical documents, findings produced since the judgment, or reports overlooked in the first instance can therefore still be taken into account. Make active use of this: submit new medical findings and update your list of treating doctors if further practitioners have since been involved. The right under § 109 SGG to have a specific doctor heard as an expert also exists at the appeal stage – with the same cost consequence that you should clarify beforehand.

Then the Revision to the Bundessozialgericht remains, but it is a different remedy with narrower requirements: it is no longer about the facts, but only about questions of law – whether the Landessozialgericht applied the law correctly. It, too, must be granted leave, and a complaint is again available against a refusal. The practically most important difference concerns representation: before the Bundessozialgericht, under § 73 Abs. 4 SGG, mandatory representation applies, except in legal aid proceedings – so you can no longer represent yourself there, and a Sozialverband is not sufficient in every situation either. For this reason, while the appeal is still pending, have a specialist assess whether a question of law could be at stake.