Facts
In the contested decision, the cantonal court upheld the pension-terminating decision of 17 September 1996 on the grounds that the requirements for a revision under Art. 41 IVG were not met, but the pension-granting decisions of 7 October and 16 November 1994 were undoubtedly incorrect and their correction was of substantial importance.
The appellant criticized this case law, according to which the judge can uphold an incorrectly issued revision decision with the substituted reasoning of the undoubted incorrectness of the original decision, provided that its correction is of substantial importance.
Considerations
The Federal Court confirmed its previous case law. The judge can uphold a decision on appeal with a reasoning deviating from the administration, as the judge is required to apply the law ex officio. This does not constitute an inadmissible blending of the tasks of the administration and the court, as the judge does not review the decision again, but merely examines the legality of the decision.
However, in such cases, there is a right to be heard if the authority wants to invoke a legal…