Facts

# Revocation of Pension Revocation and Remission to the SUVA **Parties:** - Appellant: [M.] , represented by attorney Eugen Koller - Respondent: Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (SUVA) **Facts:** - [M.] was employed as a carpentry foreman at the company [G.] and insured with the SUVA against accident consequences. - On September 22, 1997, he had a motorcycle accident and suffered severe injuries. - The SUVA granted an invalidity pension of 20 percent and an integrity compensation of 10 percent. - As part of a pension review, the SUVA revoked the pension retroactively from January 1, 2006, as the earning capacity was no longer impaired. - The insurance court of the canton of St. Gallen confirmed the SUVA's decision. - [M.] filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. The Federal Supreme Court examines the appeal in public law matters based on violations of the law pursuant to Articles 95 and 96 FSCA. It applies the law ex officio and is not bound by the previous court's considerations. Pursuant to Article 17(1) GSSLA, a pension review is required if the degree of invalidity changes significantly. The SUVA revoked the pension because [M.] , as a self-employed person, could achieve a higher income. The Federal Supreme Court notes that the income change in the years 2006 and 2007 is relevant under revision law, as it was based on a better utilization of the unchanged work capacity. However, the Federal Supreme Court criticizes that the SUVA considered the average invalid income of the years 2004 to 2008, instead of basing it on the actual annual income of the years 2006 and 2007. Furthermore, there are no findings of fact regarding the presumed development of valid income. Therefore, the case is remitted to the SUVA to make supplementary clarifications and to decide anew on the pension claim as of January 1, 2006. With regard to the recovery of benefits, the Federal Supreme Court notes that the SUVA has not issued a recovery order. The recovery of benefits is only to be decided if the previous benefit arrangement proves to be unlawful. Finally, the case is also remitted to the SUVA regarding the date of the pension revocation, as the question of the date of a revisionary pension revocation in the field of accident insurance has not yet been finally decided. **Referenced Judgments:** - ATF 132 II 257 - ATF 133 II 249 - ATF 134 V 131 - ATF 130 V 343 - ATF 135 V 297 - ATF 113 V 22 - ATF 134 V 9 - ATF 129 V 460 -…