Facts
In this case, the issue was the calculation of the supplementary benefits for R. and M., where only the amount of the chargeable heating costs was disputed. The appellants objected to the fact that only a lump-sum allowance for heating costs of CHF 840 per year or CHF 70 per month was taken into account in the calculation of the supplementary benefits entitlement. They alleged a violation of the principle of equality before the law (Art. 8 Cst.) and the right to a life in human dignity (Art. 12 Cst.).Considerations
The Federal Court held that the supplementary benefits regulation does not provide coverage for all actual expenses incurred, but that the legislature has made restrictions in various areas, including with lump-sum allowances for heating costs under Art. 3a para. 7 lit. h SBA. The specific ordinance provision in Art. 16b SBO on the lump-sum heating allowance is within the scope of the statutory delegation and is therefore generally permissible.
The Federal Court examined the constitutionality of the lump-sum heating allowance and concluded that it does not violate the principle of equality before the law or the right to a life in human…