Facts
The case concerns Marcel Bürgin, who began an apprenticeship in metallurgy in 1980. Due to an illness, he had to interrupt his training in 1982 and decided to pursue commercial training. The AI Office of the canton of Basel-Country granted contributions for attending a preparatory course at the Neue Sprach- und Handelsschule (NSH) in Basel, and then for hotel training at the NSH.
Marcel Bürgin's place of residence appealed against the decision of the AI Office, requesting that vocational rehabilitation measures be granted under Article 17 of the Federal Act on Invalidity Insurance (InvIA). The AI Office rejected the appeal, considering that Marcel Bürgin had not had a gainful employment income of a certain economic importance before his disability.
The Cantonal Insurance Court of Basel-Country rejected the appeal, following the opinion of the AI Office. The place of residence then appealed to the Federal Insurance Court, requesting that vocational rehabilitation measures be granted to Marcel Bürgin.
Considerations
The Federal Insurance Court examined the question of whether Marcel Bürgin was entitled to vocational rehabilitation under Article 17 of the InvIA. The Court considered that initial training and vocational rehabilitation are two distinct notions, and that vocational rehabilitation assumes that the beneficiary had a gainful employment income of a certain economic importance before their disability.
The Court examined the case law and applicable legal provisions, in particular Article 16 of the InvIA, which provides that beneficiaries who do not yet have a gainful employment income are entitled to initial training. The Court also examined Article 17 of the InvIA, which provides that beneficiaries who already have a gainful employment income are entitled to vocational rehabilitation if it is necessary due to their disability.
The Court considered that the notion of gainful employment income of a certain economic importance is an essential criterion for distinguishing…