Decision on the suspension of the right to unemployment benefits in case of repeated violation of the reporting obligation

Facts

In this case, the appellant had not informed the regional employment office (ORP) and the unemployment insurance fund within the time limits of his 50% partial incapacity for work from 14 May 2002. He only notified this incapacity by completing the form on 10 July 2002 for the month of June 2002, indicating then a total incapacity from 16 June to 5 July 2002. The cantonal court considered that the appellant had not only lost his right to benefits for the period from 17 June to 5 July 2002 under Art. 42(2) UIO, but had also violated his general reporting obligation under Art. 96(2) UIA. This double violation of the reporting obligation justified, taking into account the principle of proportionality, the suspension of the right to benefits under Art. 30(1)(e) UIA.

Considerations

The Federal Insurance Court has specified that in the case of repeated violation, without valid excuse, of the reporting obligation within the meaning of Art. 42(1) UIO and a simultaneous violation of the reporting obligation under Art. 96(2) UIA, there is nothing to prevent the suspension of the right to benefits for violation of the reporting obligation under Art. 30(1)(e) UIA from being added to the loss of the right to daily benefits under Art. 42(2) UIO.

Indeed, Art. 42(1) UIO, which is based on Art. 28(1) and (3) UIA, aims to prevent abuse and ensure control, while the reporting obligation under Art. 96(1) and (2) UIA constitutes an obligation to cooperate. The violation of this latter obligation may justify the suspension of the right to benefits under Art. 30(1)(e) UIA, regardless of whether the incorrect or incomplete…