Facts
The dispute concerns an insured person who registered as unemployed on 21 November 2003 and requested unemployment benefits as of 27 October 2003. During the initial interview on 18 December 2003, he informed the Regional Placement Centre (CRP) of his intention to undertake a five-month language stay abroad starting in February 2004. The CRP then considered that the insured person was not fit for reintegration during the period between the application and the start of the language stay, and refused him unemployment benefits. The insured person contested this decision, arguing that the CRP should have informed him during the interview on 18 December 2003 that his plan to travel abroad called into question his fitness for reintegration.Considerations
The Federal Court considers that the CRP had an obligation under Art. 27 para. 2 GSSLA to inform the insured person during the interview on 18 December 2003 that his plan to travel abroad could jeopardize his fitness for reintegration. The failure to fulfil this duty to provide advice is equivalent to providing erroneous information, which may lead to the application of the principles of the protection of good faith. However, before applying these…