Facts
The dispute concerns the question of whether the Construction Pension Fund is obliged to credit the respondent's retirement assets with the previously acquired amount left with the Joint Pension Fund for the Building and Plastering-Painting Trades, and consequently to pay him a higher disability pension, even though the insured risk (in this case, disability) has materialized in the meantime. The respondent left the joint fund on October 29, 1996 without indicating the new competent pension institution to that institution, and then joined the pension fund on October 30, 1996. He was subsequently involved in an accident.Considerations
According to the Federal Supreme Court, the principle of the mandatory transfer of the vested termination benefit to the new pension institution remains fully valid even if, in the meantime, an insured event has occurred and the insured person has not complied with his obligation to inform. Art. 3 para. 1 LFLP establishes the obligation for the former pension institution to pay the vested termination benefit to the new pension institution when a case of free movement occurs. This obligation entails the duty of the new institution to enable the insured person to increase and maintain his pension provision by crediting him with the vested termination benefits he has brought (Art. 9 para. 1 LFLP).
The Federal Supreme Court rejects the argument of the pension fund that, in the absence of an effective contribution to the new institution at the time of the creation of the new pension relationship, the latter is no longer obliged to accept such a transfer if an insured event occurs in the meantime. As long as no other legal form of pension provision has been established, the principle of the mandatory transfer of the vested…