ATA/643/1997•Cantonal subsidy rule requiring dependent children violates federal law
ATA/643/1997Tribunal de Justiça / Câmara Administrativa23 de out. de 1997Modified
Extraído pela Omnilex
The Administrative Court found that Art. 19(1)(a) RALAMAL, to the extent it made subsidy eligibility depend on insured persons having dependent children, conflicted with federal law. In the court's view, this cantonal condition narrowed the statutory category of insured persons of modest means beyond what Art. 65(1) LAMal allows. The court also held that the distinction infringed equal treatment under the Federal Constitution.
Art. 65 al. 1 LAMal; cantonal subsidy regulation may not narrow the federal category of insured persons of modest means by adding a condition such as the presence of dependent children; such a restriction violates the supremacy of federal law and, where it creates an unjustified distinction between insured persons, also Art. 4 Cst. fed. (consid. unspecified).
Descripteurs
ASSURANCE SOCIALE; AM; SUBVENTION; LEGALITE; EGALITE DE TRAITEMENT; FORCE DEROGATOIRE DU DROIT FEDERAL; ASAN
Normes
RALAMAL.19 al.1 litt.a
Résumé
Le TA a constaté que "l'art. 19 al. 1 litt. a RALMAL, en tant qu'il exige des assurés qu'ils aient un (des) enfant (s) à charge", viole le droit fédéral puisqu'en restreignant de la sorte la catégorie des assurés de "condition économique modeste", elle contredit le sens et le but poursuivi par l'art. 65 al. 1 LAMAL. Cette distinction crée également une inégalité de traitement contraire à l'art. 4 Cst. féd.
Extraído pela Omnilex
Whether Art. 19(1)(a) RALAMAL, insofar as it requires insured persons to have dependent children, is compatible with federal law.
The provision is incompatible with Art. 65(1) LAMal because it unlawfully restricts the group of insured persons of modest means for subsidy purposes.
The cantonal rule goes beyond the federal statute's purpose and sense by adding a condition not required by Art. 65(1) LAMal.
Whether the same cantonal distinction violates the principle of equal treatment.
Yes. The distinction creates unequal treatment contrary to the Federal Constitution.
By treating insured persons differently based on the presence of dependent children without sufficient justification, the rule breaches equality.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.