The Federal Court ruled that not everyone who receives social assistance needs to spend the retirement money they have saved.

class = “sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

78,000 francs. This was the amount that the Rümlingen BL social authority collected from a then 63-year-old person two years ago. The reason was that he had received social aid by mistake for three years. So he has to pay them back. The Federal Court has now ruled: No, this is not necessary. It is a judgment with consequences.

Accidentally not receiving social assistance

The man had been living on welfare for ten years. When he turned 63, he received an AHV pension. This is common for welfare recipients. What the man did not tell the community was that the pension fund had capital of 100,000 francs in the vested benefits account. The city found that he should have received this money at age 60 and therefore incorrectly received benefits for the next three years. He wanted the money back. The man resisted, but the government council and the cantonal court supported the community.

However, the Federal Court has now made a different decision. According to a decision published in early March, people receiving social assistance should not be forced to withdraw their pension fund money early.

Subsistence requirement 40,000 francs

However, the Federal Court imposes restrictions. The decision only applies to small pension fund assets, such as the man in Rümlingen, which have been completely depleted in the three years leading up to the AHV pension.

In doing so, the court followed the guidelines applicable to additional relief. According to them, a single man’s living needs are around 40,000 francs a year. After two and a half years the man would have exhausted all of his retirement fund assets and returned to welfare.

The Federal Court cites the Swiss Social Welfare Conference (Skos) as justification. It states that a person generally only needs to withdraw money from their pension fund when they receive an AHV or IV pension.

Cantons must establish clear rules

“The Federal Court’s decision should have a major impact on social welfare practices,” says Observer welfare expert Corinne Strebel. Because, as the experience of the watchdog advice center shows, many communities behave like Rümlingen. In the canton of Thurgau, for example, it is common practice to ask people to withdraw their pension fund money in advance. Some municipalities even ask their customers to use this money to repay legally received social benefits.

Many communities in Aargau also request cash withdrawals. However, former benefit recipients are no longer required to repay the benefit with pension fund assets. The canton prohibited municipalities from making such requests. “The cantons must now take action and clearly stipulate in their social assistance laws and regulations the conditions under which social assistance must be repaid from second pillar funds,” says Corinne Strebel.

Open questions remain

However, despite the Federal Court’s new decision, some important questions remain unresolved. The judges do not comment on the question of whether it is fundamentally permissible for people to have to repay legally received benefits with pension fund money. The court also does not rule out the possibility that welfare recipients may be required to withdraw their PK funds if they have larger assets.

“It would be logical for all cantons to follow the example of the canton of Aargau,” says social welfare expert Strebel. Today it is clearly regulated here: Social benefits do not have to be repaid from pension fund money.

Source :Blick