Procedural Rights before the Courts
3. Reasoned decision-making and notification
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently stated that “judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based.”107
97 TULKENS, p. 5.
98 Art. 52(2) of the Code of Administrative Justice.
99 Art. 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procedure civile).
100 Para. 183 of the Social Courts Act (Sozialgerichtsgesetz).
101 Art. 44 of the Grand-Ducal Regulation of December 24th 1993 (Règlement grand-ducal du 24 décembre 1993 déterminant en application de l’article 294 du code des assurances sociales la procédure à suivre devant le conseil arbitral et le conseil supérieur des assurances sociales, ainsi que les délais et frais de justice)
102 Art. 48 of Law No. 47/2006 on the national system of social assistance and Art. 159 of Law No.
19/2000 on the public pensions system and on other social insurance rights.
103 According to Art. 61 LPGA, proceedings shall be free of charge for the parties. However, for appeals before the Federal Tribunal, court fees range between CHF 200 and CHF 1,000.
104 In the Netherlands, under Article 8:41 of the Dutch General Act on Administrative Law (Algemene wet bestuursrecht), court fees amount to 41 euros.
105 Law of 14th September 1994.
106 Art. 54 of the Law of 10th July 1991.
107 Hirvisaari v Finland, 27th September 2001, European Court of Human Rights, n°49 684/99, para.
30.
The extent to which this obligation applies, however, may vary according to the nature of the decision. Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not require a detailed answer to every argument and, in dismissing an appeal, an appellate court can, in theory, simply endorse the reasons given by the lower court in its decision.
Parties become aware of the decision taken upon its notification. As Bentham puts it:
“Publicity is the very soul of justice.”108 Notification is compulsory in most countries and a deadline is generally imposed upon the court or tribunal in question to notify the appellant of the decision. Article 8:79 of the Dutch General Administrative Code and Article R 143-14 of the French Code of Social Security, for example, provide the courts with two weeks in which to notify the parties of their decision. In Switzerland, Article 61 LPGA provides that judgments should be notified in writing and contain the reasons behind the decision as well as the remedies available in response to it and the names of the members of the court responsible for making the judgment.
In many countries, judges cannot grant more than what the parties have claimed. This is particularly apparent in France.109 Here, the French judge is barred from acting
“ultra petita” and granting more than what has been asked for.110 In Germany, for social security matters, the judge has more flexibility, as he can suggest that the appellant change his or her claim.111
In Belgium, a specialized prosecutor, “l’auditeur du travail”, is able to advise the appellant and rectify his or her claim, in case the claim presented does not present the sufficient arguments that could allow the claim to be successful.112 The active role which the “auditeur du travail” plays shows willingness to restore a certain balance between the parties, who find themselves in an inequality of arms. This intervention can have very positive effects, as it does in Belgium, where the public prosecutor can reshape the subject of the dispute and help the disadvantaged party, the individual appellant, to better defend his or her interests.
Conclusion
Given the current backdrop in which governments are increasingly strengthening the conditions required to access social security benefits,113
108 In Scott v Scott (1913) AC 417, para. 447.
109 MOTULSKY, p. 197.
110 Cass. Soc. 2 October 1985, Bull. Civ. V, n° 434.
111 Article 106 of the German Social Code (Sozialgesetzbuch) and Article 86 para. 3 of the German Administrative Code of Procedure (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz).
112 Art. 764 para. 2 of the Belgian Judicial Code; VAN LANGENDONCK, p. 183-186.
113 ESCANDE VARNIOL/ LAULOM/ MAZUYR, p. 20-25
criminalising social security offences,114 and where e-government is beginning to emerge,115 establishing strong procedural guarantees to defend individuals’ rights to social benefits has become paramount. In this vein, several international instruments ratified by Switzerland, in addition to the European Code of Social Security, have expressly recognised that individuals should have the right to complain against social security decisions.116
In 2003, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe issued a recommendation117 on improving access to social rights, in which the Committee acknowledged that the existence of strong social protection frameworks was not sufficient if strong procedural guarantees were not also established allowing individuals to claim their rights. The annex of the recommendation notably insisted on the importance of putting in place “accessible and transparent redress and appeal systems, including cost-free procedures for persons of modest means”.
As we have seen, despite the lack of detail provided by Article 69 ECSS as to how the right to complain and appeal should be implemented in the various contracting states to the European Code of Social Security, the various models present some similarities.
For example, when going before the court, applicants must first freely register their opposition to the decision before the social security administrative authorities.118 Following this, different kinds of court or tribunal can have jurisdiction to hear judicial claims and practices facilitating the proceedings for the claimant can vary from one country to the next. Comparing the procedural rights granted to individual claimants can be greatly beneficial when assessing the performance of the Swiss model, which presents its own peculiarities in large part due to its judicial organisation at the cantonal level.
One foreign practice that could notably be of interest and considered by Switzerland is the potential for close relatives (such as the spouse or the child of the benefits recipient) to take action on behalf of the rights-holder and hereby bring proceedings
114 LARKIN, p. 295-300; SAOUT, p. 523.
115 ROBBEN, p. 67-72.
116 See in particular Art. 70 of the ILO Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention (No.102), 1952 and Art. 34 of the Invalidity, old-age and survivors’ benefits Convention (No. 128) 1967.
117 Recommendation on improving access to social rights.
118 As mentioned earlier, see e.g. Art. 3 of the Belgian Charter for Social Security Beneficiaries (Charte de l’Assuré Social); Art. 7:15 of the Dutch General Administrative Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht) ; Art. 142-1 ff of the French Social Security Code (Code de la sécurité sociale).
on the basis of being directly affected by the decision relating to the recipient’s social security benefits, as is already the case in France,119 Spain,120 and Germany.121 Moreover, the introduction of an institution akin to the “auditeur du travail” in Belgium122 that is, a specialised prosecutor advising on behalf of the interests of the claimant in respect of his or her individual claim, could be of great assistance to claimants if it came to be implemented in Switzerland as well, helping to reduce the inequality of arms that exists between the individual claimant and the social security authorities.
To conclude, comparative law can be useful at the national and international levels, including in the case of Switzerland, to develop ideas on ways to improve national rules and practice. Comparative law is at the core of the work of international organisations123 when developing harmonising international standards. The importance of comparative law in today’s globalized world cannot be understated, as it represents an exercise by which all countries necessarily learn from one another and improve their national legal orders.124
Bibliography
AKANDJI-KOMBE Jean-François, La justiciabilité des droits sociaux et de la Charte Sociale Euro-pénne n’est pas une utopie, in AKANDJI-KOMBE Jean-François (ed.) L’homme dans la société internationale. Mélanges en hommage au Professeur Paul Tavernier, Bruxelles 2013, p. 475-504.
ALVAREZ José, International Organisations as Law-makers, Oxford 2005.
BELORGEY Jean-Michel, Le RSA: un anti RMI?, RDSS 2009, p. 269-276.
BRITISH COMMITTEE ON MINISTERS’POWERS, Report, London 1932 (cité: Donougmore Report).
BUGNON Caroline, Vulnérabilité et accès au juge: l’accès au juge de l’aide sociale, in DONIER Virgi-nie/ LAPEROU-SCHENEIDER Béatrice (eds.), L’accès au juge. Recherche sur l’effectivité d’un droit, Bruxelles 2013, p. 474-483.
119 Art. R 142-20 of the French Social Security Code (Code de la sécurité sociale).
120 Art. 32 of the Legal Regime of Public Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure (LRJPAC) (Ley de Régimen Jurídico de las Administraciones Públicas y del Procedimiento Administrativo Común).
121 Sections 78 and 83 of the German Social Courts Act (Sozialgerichtsgesetz).
122 Art. 764 para. 2 of the Belgian Judicial Code (Code judiciaire).
123 ALVAREZ, p. 50-55; COUSINS, p. 6-10.
124 PENNINGS, p. 165-166.
CAMAJI Laure, La justiciabilité du droit à la sécurité sociale: éléments de droit français, RDSS 2010, p. 847-858.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE,Recommendation Rec(2003)19 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on improving access to social rights, adopted on 24 September 2003 at the 853rd meet-ing of the Ministers’ Deputies (cité : Recommendation on improvmeet-ing access to social rights).
COURTIS Christian, Standards to make ESC rights justiciable: a summary exploration, Erasmus Law Review 2009, p. 379-395.
COUSINS Mel, Social Security Law and the Council of Europe, Antwerp 2008.
CRANSTON Ross, Legal Foundation of the Welfare State, London 1985.
DE BURCA Gràinne/ DE WITTE Bruno (eds.), Social Rights in Europe, Oxford 2005.
DOGAN-YENISEY Kübra, Social security law in Turkey, Leiden 2013.
EICHENHOFER Eberhard, Sozialrecht, 9e éd., Tübingen 2015.
ESCANDE VARNIOL Marie-Cécile/ LAULOM Sylvaine/ MAZUYR Emmanuelle/ VIELLE Pascale (eds.), Quel droit social dans une Europe en crise?, Bruxelles 2012.
GÄCHTER Thomas/ TREMP Diana, Social security law in Switzerland, Bern 2014.
JOXE Pierre, Soif de justice: Au secours des juridictions sociales, Paris 2015.
KAHIL-WOLFF Bettina/ GREBER Pierre-Yves, Sécurité sociale: aspects de droit national, international et européen, Genève 2006.
KORDA Maria/ PENNINGS Frans, The Legal Character of International Social Security Standards, European Journal of Social Security 2008, p. 131-157.
KULKE Ursula, The Present and Future Role of ILO Standards in Realizing the Right to Social Secu-rity, International Social Security Review 2007, p. 119-141.
LARKIN Philipp, The ‘Criminalization’ of Social Security Law: Towards a Punitive Welfare State?, Journal of Law and Society 2007, p. 295-320.
LAROQUE Michel, Unifier les juridictions sociales au profit des bénéficiaires, RDSS 2013, p. 1099-1106 (cité: LAROQUE M.).
LAROQUE Pierre, Contentieux social et juridiction sociale, Droit social 1954, p. 271-280 (cité : L A-ROQUE P.).
MIKKOLA Matti, Social Rights as Human Rights in Europe, European Journal of Social Security 2000, p. 259-272.
MOTULSKY Henri, Droit processuel, Paris 1973.
PENNINGS Frans (ed.), Between Soft and Hard Law: the Impact of International Social Security Standards on National Social Security Law, The Hague 2006.
RENGA Simonetta, Social Security Law in Italy, Alphen aan den Rijn 2009.
ROBBEN Frank, L’informatisation des procédures et de la gestion des institutions de sécurité sociale, in European Institute of Social Security, Technological Innovation and Social Security, EISS Yearbook 1991, p. 67–96.
ROMAN Diane, Le contentieux technique de la Sécurité sociale à l’épreuve du procès équitable, Droit Social 2001, p. 734-743 (cité : ROMAN, Le contentieux technique).
ROMAN Diane, L’accès à la justice sociale et l’effectivité des droits fondamentaux: quelle justice sociale pour le 21ème siècle?, Colloque national “Vers un Ordre juridictionnel social” 2014, p. 749-755 (cité : ROMAN, L’accès à la justice sociale).
SAOUT Christian, Fraudes et protection sociale: pour un ajustement nécessaire des discours comme des pratiques, Droit social 2011, p. 523-525.
SAYN Isabelle, Le contentieux de la protection sociale: procédures comparées (Allemagne, Angle-terre, Belgique, France), Saint-Etienne 2005 (cité : SAYN,Le contentieux de la protection sociale).
SAYN Isabelle, Accès au juge et accès au droit dans le contentieux de la protection sociale, Revue française des affaires sociales 2004, p. 113-135 (cité :SAYN,Accès au juge).
SUPIOT Alain, L’impossible réforme des juridictions sociales, Revue française des affaires sociales 1993, p.97-117
TULKENS Françoise, Le droit d’être jugé dans un délai raisonnable : les maux et le remède, in Rapport de la Conférence « Remèdes à la durée excessive des procédures : une nouvelle approche des obligations des Etats membres du Conseil de l’Europe », CDL(2006)34, Strasbourg 2006.
VAN LANGENDONCK Jef, Social security in Belgium, Leiden 2008.
VOXEUR Marcel, Faut-il supprimer la Cour nationale de l’incapacité et de la tarification et les tribu-naux du contentieux de l'incapacité?, La Semaine Juridique Social 2006, p. 1634-1636.
WARRIN Philippe, L’accès aux droits sociaux, Grenoble 2006.
ZACHER Hans, Der Rechtsschutz auf dem Gebiet des Sozialrechts im Ausland, in Entwicklung des Sozialrechts, Aufgabe der Rechtsprechung: Festgabe aus Anlaß d.100jährigen Bestehens d.
sozialgerichtl. Rechtsprechung / hrsg. vom Dt. Sozialrechtsverb., e. V. [Verantwortl. für d.
Hrsg.: Georg Wannagat]. – Köln/ Berlin/ Bonn/ München 1984.