The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
ATA/380/1998•Restitution of overpaid pension benefits and set-off
ATA/380/1998Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberJun 16, 1998Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
The case concerns the restitution of excess occupational pension benefits. The court held that the parties' rights and duties are governed by the pension regulations, and subsidiarily by the rules on unjust enrichment. Because the appellant could realize that the payments were undue, he was not in good faith and could not rely on the disappearance of enrichment to avoid repayment under Art. 64 CO. The court also stated that set-off does not require an express regulatory clause.
Restitution of overpaid occupational pension benefits; subsidiary application of Arts. 62-67 CO where the pension regulations contain no rule. A recipient who knew or had to recognize that the benefits were undue is not protected by the defence of loss of enrichment under Art. 64 CO. Set-off need not be expressly provided for in the pension regulations; it may arise from general legal principles. The decisive criterion is the recipient's good or bad faith as to the undue character of the payment.
Descripteurs
ASSURANCE SOCIALE; PREVOYANCE PROFESSIONNELLE; RESTITUTION DE LA PRESTATION; REMBOURSEMENT DE FRAIS(ASSURANCE); COMPENSATION DE CREANCES; ASSU
Normes
LPP.73
Résumé
Les droits et obligations des assurés découlent du règlement de prévoyance ou, à défaut, des règles générales sur l'enrichissement illégitime (art. 62 à 67 CO), lorsque le règlement applicable ne prévoit rien à cet égard. En l'espèce, le recourant n'est pas de bonne foi car il était en mesure de se rendre compte qu'il pourrait être tenu à restitution au sens de l'art. 64 CO. La compensation n'a pas besoin d'être consacrée par une disposition explicite (ATA G. du 23.12.97). Le remboursement de prestations reçues en trop est soumis aux dispositions du règlement de prévoyance ou, à défaut, aux règles générales sur l'enrichissement illégitime au sens des art. 62 à 67 CO. L'assuré qui savait qu'il recevait des prestations indues, ne peut, selon l'art. 64 CO, être dispensé de rembourser celles-ci, quand bien même il n'en est plus enrichi.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether overpaid occupational pension benefits must be repaid under the pension rules or, subsidiarily, under unjust enrichment rules.
Repayment is governed first by the applicable pension regulations; if they are silent, the general rules on unjust enrichment apply.
The insured's rights and obligations stem from the pension scheme, and only failing that from Arts. 62-67 CO.
Whether the recipient could be released from restitution because the enrichment had disappeared.
No. A recipient who knew or should have realized the payments were undue cannot invoke the disappearance of enrichment to avoid repayment.
The appellant was not in good faith because he was able to realize that he might have to reimburse the amounts under Art. 64 CO.
Whether set-off requires an express provision in the pension regulations.
No express provision is required for set-off.
Set-off may be applied even without an explicit regulatory basis.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.