Facts
The plaintiff [B.], born in 1967, applied for benefits from the disability insurance on October 1, 2003, due to back and foot complaints. The disability insurance office of Bern initially recognized a claim to vocational counseling and clarification of vocational reintegration opportunities. Later, it granted the applicant a full disability pension from April 1, 2004, to January 31, 2007, and an unlimited half-pension from February 1, 2007, with its ruling of June 19, 2007.
The appeal filed against this decision was dismissed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern with its ruling of March 24, 2009, insofar as it, after threatening a reformatio in peius, amended the pension ruling of June 19, 2007, to the detriment of the insured person, denied a claim to a full pension, and only acknowledged a claim to a half-disability pension from June 1, 2005.
[B.] is filing an appeal in public law matters and is requesting that, upon revocation of the contested decision, a full disability pension be granted to her from April 1, 2004.
Considerations
The Federal Court had to decide whether the analogous application of Art. 88bis para. 2 lit. a InvIO is admissible in the case of initial pension determination. The insured person complained that the reformatio in peius by the lower court was inadmissible, as it could only occur at the time of the issuance of the contested decision of March 24, 2009.
The court stated that the disability pension that has been legally granted is accessible to revisionary modification; however, Art. 88bis para. 2 lit. a InvIO procedurally only provides for the reduction or cancellation of the pension pro futuro. The ratio legis of the provision lies in the fact that the insured person should not have to repay cash benefits due to a retroactive reduction or termination of a disability pension that they have received in good faith based on a legally binding pension…