Facts
The canton of St. Gallen and the canton of Zurich disputed the question of whether a person ([A.] ) had established a support residence by registering with the police in Zurich. [A.] had been supported by the canton of Zurich since 1991 due to drug problems, while the home canton of St. Gallen reimbursed the costs. After [A.] was registered in Zurich on April 20, 1994, and lived in a facility for "supported living", the canton of St. Gallen filed a request for correction, which the canton of Zurich rejected. The Federal Department of Justice and Police overturned the decision of the canton of St. Gallen and found that the cost reimbursement obligation of the canton of St. Gallen had not ended on April 19, 1996.
The canton of St. Gallen filed an administrative court appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and requested that the decision of the Federal Department of Justice and Police be overturned and that it be established that its cost reimbursement obligation had ended on April 20, 1996.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined whether [A.] had established a support residence by registering with the police in Zurich. It found that the question of the intercantonal support residence is assessed independently of the civil law residence according to the provisions of the SocRA. According to Art. 12 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 4 para. 1 SocRA, the support of a Swiss citizen is the responsibility of the canton in which the person in need resides with the intention of staying permanently.
The Federal Supreme Court pointed out that the concept of home in the SocRA is not defined and that the application of Art. 5 SocRA must always be examined with reference to the case in question. It found that "supported living" is a home within the meaning of Art. 5 SocRA, as it is aimed…