Facts

Parties and procedural history:

The 1976-born appellant registered with the Disability Insurance (DI) of the Canton of Zurich in January 2020 to claim benefits. With a decision dated 25 June 2024, the DI office of the Canton of Zurich rejected the claim for benefits. The appellant filed an appeal against this decision on 23 July 2024, which she submitted via the delivery platform PrivaSphere using the transmission method "Confidential". On 23 July 2024, the Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich received a notification to collect a confidential email, but could not open the submission as the chosen transmission method did not allow interoperable delivery to the court system (IncaMail). On 30 August 2024, the appellant resubmitted the appeal using the transmission method "eGov registered mail", which met the requirements for a valid electronic submission. The Social Security Court issued a decision on 2 October 2024 not to enter into the appeal as it had not been submitted in a timely manner. The appellant filed an appeal against this decision with the Federal Supreme Court on 28 August 2024.

Deadlines and legal framework:

The appeal period of 30 days (Art. 60 para. 1 GSSLA) began with the delivery of the decision on 26 June 2024 and ended on 27 August 2024. The appellant argued that the deadline had been met as the submission had been made on 23 July 2024 via a recognised delivery platform. The Social Security Court denied this, as the transmission method "Confidential" did not generate a delivery receipt within the meaning of Art. 143 para. 2 CPC and Art. 8b para. 1 VeÜ-ZSSV. Only the appeal submitted on 30 August 2024 met the formal requirements.

Considerations

1. Jurisdiction and admissibility requirements:

The Federal Supreme Court examined its jurisdiction and the admissibility requirements ex officio. The contested decision of the Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich, which refused to admit the appeal due to a missed deadline, constitutes a final decision within the meaning of Art. 90 FSCA. As the other requirements for a decision on the merits were met, the Federal Supreme Court admitted the appeal.

2. Scope of review and duty to raise objections:

The Federal Supreme Court reviewed the appeal within the scope of the alleged violations of law. It applied the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA), but limited its review to the alleged violations raised. Where cantonal law was applicable, only a violation of federal law or international law could be raised (Art. 95 lit. a and b FSCA). The interpretation and application of cantonal law was reviewed only in light of constitutional rights, in particular the prohibition of arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.). The appellant alleged an obviously incorrect establishment of the facts as well as a violation of the principle of legitimate expectations, the right to a fair trial and the prohibition of excessive formalism (Art. 29 Cst.).

3. Timeliness of the electronic appeal submission:

The appellant argued that the appeal had been submitted in a timely manner as it had been transmitted on 23 July 2024 via the PrivaSphere platform. The Federal Supreme Court held that, for the purpose of meeting a deadline in the case of electronic transmission, a delivery receipt within the meaning of Art. 143 para. 2 CPC and Art. 8b para. 1 VeÜ-ZSSV is required. This receipt confirms that all steps for the transmission have been completed and is provided with a regulated electronic seal. However, the transmission method "Confidential" did not generate either a delivery or a collection receipt as it did not ensure interoperability between the platforms. Only the appeal submitted on 30 August 2024 using the transmission method "eGov registered mail" met the formal requirements and was confirmed with a delivery receipt. As this submission was made after the expiry of the appeal period, the deadline was not met.

4. No violation of the principle of legitimate expectations or the prohibition of excessive formalism:

The appellant argued that…