Facts
The case concerns the question of whether the insured status of the husband under the Federal Act on Old-Age and Survivors' Insurance (AHVG) can be extended to his wife. The complainant, the wife of a compulsorily insured man, claimed that the contribution years during which she had resided with her husband in the USA should also be taken into account in the calculation of the pension.
The Federal Court dismissed the complaint. It stated that according to the established case law of the Federal Insurance Court, the insured status is personal and must therefore be fulfilled personally by each person, unless the law provides otherwise. An extension of the husband's insured status to the wife is not justified even after the entry into force of the 10th AHV revision.
The Federal Court emphasized that the protection of the wife is ensured by the system of pension splitting with the crediting of contribution years under the transitional provisions of the 10th AHV revision. A change in practice is therefore not indicated, as an extension of the husband's insured status to the wife would be contrary to the fundamental concern of the 10th AHV revision for a marital status-independent pension for women.
Considerations
The Federal Court upheld its previous case law, according to which the insured status is personal and must therefore be fulfilled personally by each person. An extension of the husband's insured status to the wife is not justified even after the 10th AHV revision.
The Federal Court justified this by stating…