The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
ATA/605/1997•Social insurance subsidy rule violates federal law and equality
ATA/605/1997Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberOct 7, 1997Modified
Extracted by Omnilex
The court reviewed Art. 19(1)(a) RALAMAL, which limited social insurance subsidies to insured persons with dependent children. It held that this condition contradicts the purpose and scope of Art. 65(1) LAMal and also creates an unjustified inequality of treatment under the Federal Constitution. The challenged requirement was therefore not allowed to stand.
Art. 65 al. 1 LAMal; art. 4 Cst. fed.; compatibility of a cantonal subsidy rule with federal law and equal treatment. A cantonal or implementing rule may not narrow the circle of beneficiaries of a federal subsidy scheme by adding a condition not supported by the federal statute. Where the supplementary criterion frustrates the statutory purpose and introduces a distinction between insured persons lacking sufficient objective justification, it violates the derogatory force of federal law and the constitutional principle of equal treatment (consid. not stated).
Descripteurs
ASSURANCE SOCIALE; SUBVENTION; LEGALITE; EGALITE DE TRAITEMENT; FORCE DEROGATOIRE DU DROIT FEDERAL; ASAN
Normes
RALAMAL.19
Résumé
L'art. 19 al. 1 litt. a RALAMAL en tant qu'il exige des assurés qu'ils aient un (des) enfant (s) à charge viole le droit fédéral car il contredit le sens et le but poursuivi par l'art. 65 al. 1 LAMal. Cette distinction crée aussi une inégalité de traitement contraire à l'art. 4 Cst. féd.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether Art. 19(1)(a) RALAMAL may condition a subsidy on having dependent children.
No. The child-dependency requirement conflicts with the purpose and meaning of Art. 65(1) LAMal.
The rule narrows the federal subsidy scheme in a way not supported by the federal statute and creates a discriminatory distinction between insured persons, contrary to equal treatment.
Whether the child-dependency requirement violates equality of treatment.
Yes. The distinction lacks a sufficient objective justification and results in unequal treatment.
By privileging insured persons with dependent children, the regulation treats similarly situated insured persons differently without a permissible basis.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.