By resolution of October 5, 2005 (- 5 AZB 27/05 -) the Fifth Senate decided that there was no civil law dispute within the meaning of from § 2 para. 1 No. 3 ArbGG exists if the employee demands that the employer register him with the responsible health insurance company for a certain period of time. The social courts are not responsible for such a legal dispute. Whether a dispute is of a civil law or public law nature depends on the nature of the legal relationship from which the claim is derived. What is relevant is whether the facts presented in support of the action are influenced by legal principles of civil law or public law for the legal consequences derived from them. Whether the employer has an obligation to report the employee to the collection agency is determined according to the social security reporting regulations of SGB IV. This does not conflict with the fact that the social security regulations can establish a secondary obligation of the employer based on Section 242 of the German Civil Code (BGB). The content of this is determined by the regulations of SGB VI. There is no specific labor law regulation that determines when and with what content such a report must be made. The report that the employer submits in accordance with Section 28 a Para. 1 to 3 SGB IV must be submitted to the health insurance company is also not a working paper in the sense of from § 2 para. 1 No. 3 letter e ArbGG. According to § 12 a paragraph. 1 Sentence 1 ArbGG, in the labor court judgment proceedings at first instance, the successful party is not entitled to reimbursement of the costs of engaging a legal representative. By resolution of November 1, 2004 (- 3 AZB 10/04 -) the Third Senate decided that this provision does not apply to costs incurred by the defendant as a result of the plaintiff appealing to a court of ordinary jurisdiction and the latter hearing the legal dispute the labor court referred (Section 12a Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 ArbGG). The reimbursement of costs is in accordance with Section 46 Para. 2 Sentence 1 ArbGG regulated by Sections 495 and 91 ZPO. This means that the successful defendant can demand reimbursement of the costs incurred before the ordinary court, for which purpose in accordance with. § 91 Abs. 2 ZPO always includes the legal fees and expenses of the lawyer. The full costs incurred in the ordinary courts are eligible for reimbursement. The ability to reimburse is not limited to the so-called “additional costs”, i.e. the costs that were incurred exclusively before the ordinary court. According to the new version of § 12 a paragraph, the concept of additional costs has 1 sentence 3 ArbGG 1979 no longer has its own meaning. This does not conflict with the principle of uniformity of referral procedures. § 12 a Abs. 1 Sentence 3 ArbGG does not aim to regulate “additional costs”, but rather to restore the ability to reimburse costs in the event of a referral. The principle of uniform procedure has an impact in that court costs that have already been paid are offset against the proceedings before the court that has now become responsible and the fees can only be incurred once for the parties authorized on both sides.