Facts
The dispute concerns the issue of taking into account the fact that the IV office failed to involve the collective foundation as an OPA institution in the IV procedure that led to the granting of a pension on 5 March 2003. According to the general principles applicable to transitional law and determining facts over time, the provisions in force from 1 January 2003 apply.
Under the previous law, the Federal Insurance Court had decided that the IV office is obliged to notify ex officio a decision to grant a pension to all the relevant pension institutions. The OPA institution has an autonomous right of appeal in the procedure according to the InvIA. If the presumed debtor pension institutions are not involved, the determination of disability by the disability insurance is not binding on occupational pension law.
Considerations
Under the GSSLA, it must be examined whether the pension institutions that expressly or implicitly refer to the same concept of disability as the disability insurance remain bound by the IV office's assessment of disability, provided that it is not manifestly untenable. Furthermore, it must be determined whether the OPA institutions have the possibility to exercise "the same legal remedies as the insured person" within the meaning of Art. 49 para. 4 GSSLA.
In contrast to the relationship between disability insurance and accident insurance, the link between occupational pension institutions and the disability assessment by disability insurance is expressly anchored in Art. 23 et seq. OPA. This means that the pension institutions have the right to file an objection against the decision or to appeal against the decision on the objection of the IV office concerning the entitlement to a pension or the degree of disability. Likewise, the OPA institution has the…