Facts
J.G. and his wife U.G. were both no longer employed and were therefore subject to compulsory contributions under the 10th AHV revision. The Federal Compensation Office calculated the contributions for J.G. and U.G. based on half of their marital assets and pension income pursuant to Art. 28 para. 4 OASIO. J.G. and U.G. filed a complaint against this calculation and argued that the contributions should only be based on their respective personal assets and pension income.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court held that Art. 28 para. 4 OASIO is within the scope of the statutory delegation norm of Art. 10 para. 1 OASIA. The provision represents a reasonable adaptation of the previous case law, according to which the social circumstances of one spouse are also determined by the financial means of the other spouse. Although the regulation, in combination with the contribution ceiling pursuant to Art. 10 para. 1 OASIA, can lead to married couples in very good financial circumstances being disadvantaged compared to unmarried couples in a comparable situation, the Federal Supreme Court did not see this as a violation of the principle of equal treatment under Art. 4 Cst. as social insurance law is…