Facts
Parties and procedural participants:
The Municipality of Regensdorf (appellant) appealed the judgment of the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich dated 24 March 2025 (case reference HIA.2024.00095). The opposing party was the City of Zurich, Health Centres for the Elderly (respondent).
Factual background:
Person [A.] , born in 2002, fell ill with severe epilepsy in 2020 and was hospitalised from February 2020. From September 2020, she was cared for at Centre [B.] (operated by the City of Zurich). The Municipality of Regensdorf initially assumed the residual financing of the care costs but refused to pay the outstanding residual care costs of CHF 580,974.25 (plus fees and default interest) from July 2023. The City of Zurich repeatedly demanded that the Municipality of Regensdorf issue a contestable decision on cost coverage. As the Municipality of Regensdorf refused to do so, it issued a decision declining to enter the matter on 23 October 2024. The City of Zurich filed an appeal against this decision with the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich, which issued the judgment of 24 March 2025. This judgment set aside the decision declining to enter the matter and referred the case back to the Municipality of Regensdorf to decide on the residual financing of the uncovered care costs. The Municipality of Regensdorf appealed this judgment to the Federal Supreme Court, alleging in particular that the Social Insurance Court lacked jurisdiction and that there had been violations of the right to be heard and the prohibition of arbitrariness. During the federal court proceedings, [A.] passed away on 20 October 2025.
Considerations
1. Procedural admissibility of the appeal:
The Federal Supreme Court first examined the admissibility requirements for the appeal. The contested decision of the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich was to be classified as an interlocutory decision, as it referred the case back to the Municipality of Regensdorf without making any substantive provisions for the issuance of the decision. The Municipality of Regensdorf could demonstrate an irreparable disadvantage within the meaning of Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a FSCA, as it was compelled to issue a decision that it could no longer challenge later. The Municipality of Regensdorf’s standing to appeal was affirmed both under Art. 89 para. 1 FSCA and due to its qualified interest in its sovereign rights being affected.
2. Jurisdiction of the Social Insurance Court:
The Municipality of Regensdorf argued that the Social Insurance Court had wrongly affirmed its jurisdiction. The Federal Supreme Court, however, confirmed the jurisdiction of the Social Insurance Court for disputes over the residual financing of care costs under Art. 25a para. 5 HIA. Such disputes are governed by federal law and fall under the GSSLA. The Canton of Zurich has not enacted any deviating provisions, so the GSSLA remains applicable. The jurisdiction of the Social Insurance Court arises from § 2 para. 1 lit. d GSVGer (Law on the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich). The Municipality of Regensdorf could not rely on the RehabIO, as Centre [B.] was not a recognised institution within the meaning of this law. The residual financing of care costs was therefore governed by the provisions of the Care Act of the Canton of Zurich (PfleG) and the HIA.
3. No violation of the right to be heard or the prohibition of arbitrariness:
The Municipality of Regensdorf alleged that the Social Insurance Court had violated its right to be heard by refraining from holding an exchange of views with the Administrative Court as requested. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed this allegation, as the appellant has no entitlement to a specific procedural design as long as its right to be heard…