Facts
The municipal authority of H. had concluded an affiliation contract with the State Pension Fund of Solothurn (PKS) on April 25, 1969, to have its full-time municipal staff insured for occupational pensions with the PKS. With a view to a possible affiliation to the Pension Fund for Hospital, Home and Nursing Staff (SHP), the municipal authority inquired with the PKS about the amount of withdrawal benefits in the event of termination of the contract. The PKS initially informed that the "refund upon contract termination" amounted to a total of CHF 1,131,562.60 according to Art. 11 of the affiliation contract. Upon further inquiry by the municipal authority, the PKS then reported the vested benefits under the "Agreement 90" as CHF 1,538,527.70.
The municipal authority then terminated the affiliation contract as of December 31, 1992 and requested the transfer of the vested benefits according to the "Agreement 90" to the new pension fund SHP. However, the PKS informed that the Vested Benefits Agreement 90 was not applicable to cases like the present one, and that it would only pay the benefits according to the affiliation contract in the amount of CHF 1,131,562.60.
The lawsuit filed by the municipal authority against this was dismissed by the Insurance Court of the Canton of Solothurn. The municipal authority then filed an administrative court appeal with the Federal Insurance Court.
Considerations
The Federal Insurance Court first examined whether the municipal authority was entitled to benefits under the Vested Benefits Agreement 90 due to incorrect information provided by the PKS. It concluded that the municipal authority was not entitled to assume the applicability of the Vested Benefits Agreement based on the correspondence with the PKS, as it should have clarified the circumstances.
Furthermore, the court investigated whether the municipal authority was entitled to withdrawal benefits under the Vested Benefits…