Facts
The applicant, Esther Z., born in 1930, has suffered from epilepsy since 1952 with severe psychological and character-related consequences. In January 1961, she reported to the Disability Insurance (InvIA) to request medical measures and a contribution to the extraordinary costs of a stay in a clinic and convalescence. This request was rejected in June 1961. In November 1971, Esther Z. again requested medical measures and a pension, which was refused for the medical measures. However, the Disability Insurance Commission decided to grant her a full disability pension, but with effect only from 1 November 1970, i.e. 12 months before the new notification, pursuant to Art. 48 para. 2 InvIA.Considerations
The main issue is whether the applicant preserved her rights regarding a possible pension claim when she notified in 1961 and whether the administration should have ruled on the pension at that time.
According to case law, a notification to the Disability Insurance Commission generally preserves all benefit rights existing at that time, even if the applicant does not mention them in detail. However, this rule does not apply to benefits unrelated to the express or implicit request of the applicant and for which there is no indication in the file. The Commission's duty to investigate (Art. 60 para. 1 InvIA) does not extend to all possible claims, but only to those reasonably related to the alleged facts and the documents in the file.
In the present case, the 1961 request was clearly focused on medical measures and convalescence costs, without mention of a pension claim. Therefore, the Commission had no reason to examine the right to a pension based on this notification.
Regarding the start of the…