Facts
[S.], born in 1955 and suffering from multiple sclerosis, applied for supplementary benefits to the disability pension at the local branch office [Y.] of the Cantonal Social Insurance Fund of Aargau in September 2004. The Cantonal Social Insurance Fund determined that the application had to be filed in the Canton of Zurich, as [S.] had taken up civil domicile in the city of X. upon entering the nursing home. The city of X. filed an objection against this decision, which was dismissed by the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau. Thereupon, the city of X. filed an administrative court appeal, requesting that [S.] continue to be domiciled in [Y.] and that the Cantonal Social Insurance Fund of Aargau therefore be responsible for the calculation and payment of the supplementary benefits.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court considered that the relevant domicile for the purposes of the SBA is to be determined according to Art. 23-26 CC, in conjunction with Art. 13 para. 1 GSSLA. Decisive are the stay with the intention of permanent residence and the center of vital interests. In the present…