Facts
M. is insured with the Valais Mutual for compulsory health care insurance. On 23 October 2000, the Mutual notified him of an increase in his monthly premium effective 1 January 2001. M. contested this increase, but the insurance fund upheld its position. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Geneva, seized of an appeal against this decision, declared it inadmissible, considering that it lacked jurisdiction. The Federal Insurance Court then annulled this judgment and referred the case back to the cantonal jurisdiction for examination on the merits.Considerations
The disputed issue is whether Art. 129 para. 1 let. b FJA, which excludes administrative law appeals against decisions concerning tariffs, violates the right of access to a court guaranteed by Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights considers that this right is not absolute and may be subject to regulations by the State, in particular for budgetary reasons or to protect certain categories of persons. However, these limitations must not impair the very substance of the right of access to a court.
Although the extensive judicial review of the validity of tariff clauses may lead to an increase in the number of appeals and an increased workload for the courts, these considerations are not sufficient to completely exempt the validity of these clauses from any judicial review when an insured person is affected by a decision taken on the basis of this…