Facts
The Federal Court had to rule on several appeals against the Family Allowances Act of the Canton of Lucerne of 8 September 2008. The appellants, including the Family Compensation Fund EXFOUR, GastroLucerne, the Family Compensation Fund GastroLucerne and [M.] as a partner of the collective company [N.] , the Compensation Fund AGRAPI and the Compensation Fund Coiffure & Esthétique, contested the introduction of a burden equalization scheme under the cantonal Family Allowances Act and the use of employer contributions for burden equalization.
The appellants argued that there was no federal statutory basis for the introduction of a burden equalization scheme and that the contributions to the family compensation funds could only be used to finance the allowances and administrative costs as well as to build up the fluctuation reserve, but not for burden equalization.
The Canton of Lucerne requested the dismissal of the appeals, insofar as they were admissible. The Federal Court consolidated the proceedings and decided that the appeals were to be approved in part.
Considerations
The Federal Court stated that the cantons were authorized to introduce a burden equalization scheme between the funds and that the introduction of a cantonal burden equalization scheme did not violate Art. 15 FAA. However, the use of employer contributions under the FAA to finance allowances for self-employed individuals within the framework of an intracantonal burden equalization scheme was inadmissible.
The court also concluded that the…