Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [A.] , represented by attorney Prof. Dr. Hardy Landolt
  • Respondent: Glarus DI Office

Facts:

  • [A.] worked as a machinist since 1987 and suffered a car accident with whiplash in 2002. In 2003, he registered with the Glarus DI Office and received various pensions.
  • In 2013, the DI Office revoked the pension based on a new expert opinion, which the Federal Supreme Court confirmed.
  • In 2015, [A.] re-registered and received a quarter pension.
  • In 2018, he filed a request for revision, which was rejected in 2020.
  • In 2021, he applied for a reconsideration of the earlier pension decision and a revision of the pension adjustment, which the DI Office rejected.
  • The Administrative Court of the Canton of Glarus confirmed the rejection by the DI Office.

Legal issue:

  • Whether the lower court violated federal law by confirming the DI Office's non-admission of the appellant's request.

Considerations

The appeal in public law matters can allege a violation of rights under Art. 95 f. FSCA. The Federal Supreme Court applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA). However, it only examines the legal deficiencies raised in the proceedings (Art. 42 para. 1 f. FSCA). The findings of fact of the lower court are taken as a basis but can be corrected or supplemented if they are obviously incorrect or based on a violation of law (Art. 97 para. 1, Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA).

The issue in dispute is whether the lower court violated federal law by confirming the DI Office's non-admission of the appellant's request. The lower court correctly stated that procedural revision is an extraordinary legal remedy and does not simply serve to continue the proceedings. The person filing the request must demonstrate that they could not present the evidence in the earlier proceedings despite due diligence. New medical expert opinions that do not establish a significant misdiagnosis in the proceedings do not meet the criterion of materiality.

The lower court considered that the appellant's claim that the BEGAZ expert opinion was qualifiedly incorrect did not constitute a ground for revision. The appellant mainly…