Facts
An insured person (S.) had obtained a full retroactive disability pension from 1 May 1978. After two revision procedures confirming this pension, the cantonal disability insurance commission ordered a new medical assessment, which concluded that the insured person was only partially disabled as a homemaker. Consequently, the compensation fund terminated the full pension at the end of April 1986.
S. appealed against this decision, but her appeals were dismissed by the cantonal appeals commission and the Federal Insurance Court. S. then brought the case before the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that there had been discrimination based on sex in the administration and assessment of the evidence by the Federal Insurance Court, in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Considerations
According to Swiss law, a judgment of the Federal Insurance Court has the authority of res judicata and can only be challenged by the extraordinary remedy of revision. With the introduction of Article 139a of the Judiciary Organisation Act, the legislator has provided for this possibility of revision when the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of the Convention.
In the present case, the conditions of Article 139a are met, as the European Court has found a violation and considered that reparation could only be made by way of revision. The Federal Insurance Court must therefore carry out a new substantive assessment of the insured person's entitlement to a disability pension, based on an administration and assessment of the evidence free from any…