Facts
The complainant A., born in 1999, had been regularly consuming cannabis since summer 2015 and was first registered for benefits with the InvIA Office Basel-Stadt (respondent) in February 2016. Various vocational measures were taken due to ADHD diagnosed since the age of eleven. In March 2018, the InvIA Office issued mitigation obligations, including inpatient psychiatric treatment and abstinence from drugs. Due to the non-feasibility of these obligations, a claim to further vocational measures was denied.
In March 2020, [A.] registered again. The InvIA Office granted a build-up training in a rehabilitation facility from January 2021. A psychiatric expert report from May 2022 attested a degree of disability of 28 %, whereupon the InvIA Office denied a pension claim. The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Basel-Stadt dismissed the appeal filed against this decision. The complainant applied to the Federal Supreme Court for the annulment of the cantonal judgment and the award of an InvIA pension of at least 42.5 % from 1 January 2022. The InvIA Office applied for the dismissal of the appeal; the Federal Social Insurance Office waived the right to be heard.
Considerations
2.1 Subject of dispute: The appeal concerns the question of whether the lower court violated federal law by confirming the InvIA Office’s decision of 7 November 2022 inasmuch as it denied a claim to a disability pension for the period from 1 January 2022. The complainant argues that from this point in time, the new law (Art. 26 para. 6 InvIO in the version of 3 November 2021) should apply, which would result in a degree of disability of 47 % and thus a pension claim of 42.5 %.
2.2 Uncontested findings: The lower court found, uncontested, that the complainant had not completed vocational training due to his health restrictions and that the factual circumstances relevant for the examination of the pension claim had not changed in a manner relevant for revision since September 2020. The InvIA Office and the cantonal court determined the valid income for the income comparison pursuant to Art. 16 GSSLA applying the version of Art. 26 InvIO in force until 31 December 2021 and calculated a degree of disability of 28 %, which is why they denied a pension claim.
3.1 Applicability of the new law: The complainant alleges that the cantonal court incorrectly calculated the valid income that was decisive from 1 January 2022 by applying the old version of Art. 26 InvIO. He takes the view that from this point in time, the general principles of intertemporal law apply and the new law (Art. 26 para. 6 InvIO) should be applied. The respondent argues that the transitional provisions in lit. b trans. prov. InvIO WEIV exclude a revision-based examination of the pension claim under the new provisions, since the complainant had not been granted a pension before 1 January 2022.
4.1 Intertemporal law: The general principles of intertemporal law provide that in the event of a change in the law, the legal provisions in force at the time the facts giving rise to legal consequences materialised shall apply. In the case of a permanent situation that partly arose before and partly after the entry into force of the new legislation, the claim to a disability pension must be examined for the first period under the old-law provisions and for the second period under the new provisions. Special transitional provisions…