Stay of the supplementary benefits proceedings until conclusion of the husband's IV pension proceedings; non-entry on the appeal for denial of justice and the appeal against an interlocutory decision for lack of irreparable harm

Facts

Parties and instances: The appellant ([A.] , born 1954, represented by counsel) appeals against the Social Insurance Institution of the Canton of St. Gallen, Compensation Office (respondent). The lower instance is the Insurance Court of the Canton of St. Gallen, decision of 30 October 2019 (EL 2019/42).

Facts: In November 2018 the appellant applied to the Compensation Office for supplementary benefits (EL) in addition to her AHV old-age pension. On 21 December 2018 the Compensation Office informed her that the final IV pension decision concerning her husband was required for the conclusive assessment of the EL application and that the EL proceedings would be stayed until then. This stay was most recently confirmed by decision of 7 May 2019.

Proceedings before the lower court: The Insurance Court did not enter on the appeal for denial of justice and dismissed the appeal against the decision of 7 May 2019.

Requests before the Federal Supreme Court: The appellant requests the award of the statutory benefits, the continuation of the EL proceedings, and waiver of the imputation of a hypothetical earned income of the husband.

Complaints: Violation of the expediency requirement through the stay (argument: the IV proceedings may take years) and existence of an irreparable harm within the meaning of Art. 93 para. 1 let. a FSCA.

Considerations

Admissibility (consid. 2): The Federal Supreme Court examines admissibility of its own motion. The lower court's decision is not a final decision within the meaning of Art. 90 FSCA, since the EL proceedings are not concluded but merely remain stayed. It is an interlocutory decision which, under Art. 93 FSCA, can only be challenged under restricted conditions. With stays, a distinction must be drawn: where a violation of the expediency requirement is alleged, no irreparable harm is required; where other grounds are raised (such as the lack of justification for the stay), admission requires an irreversible harm.

Appeal for denial of justice (consid. 3): Under Art. 56 para. 2 GSSLA, an appeal may be lodged if the insurer, contrary to the request, issues no decision. Here, however, the stay decision of 7 May 2019 is a procedural decision against which an appeal may be lodged directly, since objections against procedural and case-management decisions are excluded under Art. 52 para. 1 GSSLA. No protectable interest in a parallel appeal for denial of justice is apparent. The lower court's non-entry was therefore correct.

Expediency requirement (consid. 4): An excessive duration of proceedings exists where an authority requires longer than appears adequate given the nature of the matter and the circumstances. The husband's IV proceedings are progressing (preliminary notice of 5 March 2019, objections in April 2019, decision on the appointment of a legal representative free of charge of 14 June 2019). Concrete indications of an excessive duration are lacking; a general assertion is insufficient. Since the outcome of the IV proceedings directly affects the EL proceedings, waiting is objectively justified. An unjustified delay has not been demonstrated.

Harm within the meaning of Art. 93 para. 1 let. a FSCA…