Facts
The appellant M. filed a complaint against the decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Glarus dated March 25, 2009. In this decision, the Administrative Court had annulled the administrative decision of the IV-Office Glarus, which had reduced M.'s pension from a full pension to a three-quarter pension, and remanded the matter to the IV-Office for supplementary medical clarification and subsequent re-assessment of the pension entitlement. The Administrative Court imposed a reduced court fee of a flat rate of CHF 400.- on M. and awarded him a reduced party compensation of CHF 1,000.-.
After the supplementary clarifications, the IV-Office again granted M. a full pension retroactively from February 1, 2008. M. then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting that the court costs be imposed in full on the IV-Office and that he be awarded an unabated party compensation of CHF 3,000.-.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the complaint. It stated that according to established case law, the remand of the matter to the administration for supplementary clarification is considered a complete success within the meaning of Art. 66 para. 1 and Art. 68 paras. 1 and 2 BGG, regardless of whether a corresponding request was made. This also applies under the provisions of Art. 69 para. 1bis IVG, which had introduced the obligation to pay costs…