Facts
The respondent ([A.] ) suffered a rotator cuff tear in a bicycle fall on 13 February 2021 and was insured with the Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund (Suva) against occupational and non-occupational accidents. Suva initially granted benefits but discontinued them as of 15 May 2021 (decision of 16 July 2021). The respondent submitted a letter on 14 September 2021 – the last day of the 30-day objection period under Art. 52 para. 1 GSSLA – requesting an extension of the objection period by ten days. In justification, he cited prolonged absence due to illness and the accumulation of time-sensitive matters. Suva granted a deadline for submitting the reasoned objection until 26 September 2021 (a Sunday) in a letter dated 15 September 2021. The reasoned objection was submitted to the post office on 27 September 2021. Suva did not consider the objection in its objection decision of 14 December 2021, as the formal requirements were not met. The Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich set aside this decision and referred the matter back to Suva for a substantive decision on the respondent’s claims (judgment of 22 March 2022). Suva appealed against this judgment in public law matters to the Federal Supreme Court and requested that the cantonal judgment be set aside and its objection decision confirmed.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examined the admissibility requirements of the appeal. It found that the contested decision of the Social Security Court of the Canton of Zurich was not a final judgment within the meaning of Art. 90 FSCA, as it did not conclude the proceedings but referred the matter back to Suva for substantive review. However, the Federal Supreme Court recognised an irreparable disadvantage within the meaning of Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a FSCA for Suva, as the referral disregarded the legal force of the decision of 16 July 2021 and would force Suva to issue an objection decision that it considered unlawful and could not itself appeal against. The Federal Supreme Court therefore admitted the appeal.
On the merits, the Federal Supreme Court examined whether the lower court violated federal law by setting aside Suva’s decision not to consider the objection. It emphasised that the Federal Supreme Court applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA) and can only review the lower court’s findings of fact within the framework of Art. 105 para. 1 and 2 FSCA. The lower court had found that the respondent had at least expressed an intention to appeal in the letter of 14 September 2021 and that Suva had granted him an extension for submitting the reasoned objection. However, the Federal Supreme Court held that the objection period, as a statutory period, is not extendable (Art. 40 para. 1 GSSLA). A lawyer or legally qualified person may not rely on an unlawful extension of a deadline, particularly if they had already received the files before the deadline expired and had sufficient time to prepare a reasoned objection.
The Federal Supreme Court stated that reliance on an unlawful extension of a deadline is not protected by Art. 9 Cst. (good faith) if a simple review of the statutory provisions would have sufficed to identify the error. The respondent’s legal representative held a law degree and should have…