Facts
Clinic A. AG filed a lawsuit against the Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (Suva) with the aim of obliging Suva to repeal its directive 8004-VL-1-Rehabilitation and not to discriminate against Clinic A. AG. The Arbitration Court in Social Insurance Disputes of the Canton of Zurich did not consider the lawsuit due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Clinic A. AG filed an appeal and requested that the matter be referred back to the lower court to consider the lawsuit and treat it substantively.
The appellant operates clinics at various locations in Canton C, offering inpatient rehabilitation services. Suva, as a secondary activity within the meaning of Art. 67a para. 1 lit. a AIA, operates financially self-sufficient rehabilitation clinics in Bellikon and Sion. The appellant, as a service provider, and Suva's rehabilitation clinics are in direct competition with each other.
Considerations
The Federal Court applies the law ex officio and examines the appeal in principle only if the legal defects are not immediately apparent. The subject-matter jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court under Art. 57 AIA is to be affirmed for disputes between accident insurers and service providers, insofar as they concern legal relationships arising from the AIA or entered into on the basis of the AIA.
The appellant intends, with its lawsuit, a general improvement of its own market position as an operator of rehabilitation clinics compared to the direct competitors of the rehabilitation clinics operated by Suva. This main motive of the lawsuit is clearly evident from the clear wording of the legal requests. The appellant at least implicitly acknowledges that it is complaining of a violation of the principle of equal treatment of direct competitors with its lawsuit.
The lower court is to be agreed with that a private economic activity of the state or Suva does not contradict the economic freedom…