Facts
X had been employed by the Canton of Zug since November 1, 1967. On August 28, 1990, the Cantonal Government Council decided not to re-elect X for the 1987-1990 term of office. At the same time, it ordered the early handover of the office effective August 31, 1990, with entitlement to full salary continuation until the termination of the employment relationship on December 31, 1990.
X subsequently filed an administrative court appeal against the non-re-election and a claim pursuant to § 25 of the Pension Fund Act of the Canton of Zug (PKG) to establish that the employment relationship had been terminated without his fault and that he was therefore entitled to a pension pursuant to § 23 PKG.
The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zug upheld the claim and confirmed that the termination of the employment relationship had occurred without fault and not at the instigation of X.
The Cantonal Government Council of Zug then filed an administrative court appeal with the Federal Insurance Court.
Considerations
The Federal Insurance Court initially confirmed its previous case law, according to which disputes over pension benefits in the event of unintentional termination of the employment relationship fall within the jurisdiction of the BVG judge. A declaratory claim regarding the issue of fault is also admissible.
On the merits, the court held that mere inadequacy, for which the civil servant is not responsible, does not constitute self-fault or own instigation in the sense of pension law. The contrary view of the Cantonal Government Council, according to which even objective inadequacy excludes a pension claim,…