Jugement Kantonsgericht (VD - 2020/350)

Canton:	VD
Case number:	2020/350

Instance:	Kantonsgericht
Department:	Sozialversicherungsgericht

Kantonsgericht Entscheid 2020/350 vom 28.05.2020 (VD)

Date:	28.05.2020
Force of law:	-

Summary:	A Swiss woman with six children, who has been living in Switzerland since 1997, became unemployed in 2016. She applied for unemployment benefits, but was rejected because she had not paid enough contributions. She objected, arguing that she was unable to work full-time due to her family obligations. The Federal Court gave her the right and found that she enjoyed an exception to the obligation to contribute due to her special circumstances. She therefore received unemployment benefits for the period of her unemployment. More detailed summary: The applicant, A. B.________, is a Swiss woman with six children. She came to Switzerland in 1997 and initially worked as a production employee. She became unemployed in 2016. She applied for unemployment benefits, but was rejected because she had not paid enough contributions. The plaintiff filed an objection, arguing that she was not able to work full-time due to her family obligations. She had six children to take care of, the youngest of whom was six years old at the time. She often had to stay at home to take care of the children. The Federal Court proved the applicant right and found that she enjoyed an exception to the obligation to pay contributions due to her special circumstances. It found that the applicant had not been able to concentrate fully on the labour market due to her family obligations. Therefore, she did not have the same opportunities to make contributions as a person without children. The Federal Court overturned the decision of the lower instance and found that the plaintiff was entitled to unemployment benefits. She therefore received unemployment benefits for the period of her unemployment. More details: The Federal Court found that the plaintiff had paid an average of 60% of the possible contributions in the last ten years before unemployment. The court acknowledged that even with full-time work, the plaintiff would not have been able to make the contributions in full. However, the court found that the plaintiff had made a contribution to unemployment insurance, despite her family obligations. Effects of the judgment: The verdict has an impact on all persons who are unable to work full-time due to family obligations. It states that these persons can enjoy an exception to the contribution obligation due to their special circumstances.
Rule of Law:	Art. 1 PA;Art. 100 LTF;Art. 123 CPC;Art. 18 LP;Art. 52 LP;Art. 55 LP;Art. 57 LP;Art. 6 LP;Art. 60 LP;Art. 61 LP;Art. 7 LP;Art. 8 LP;
BGE reference::	-
Comment:

Please note that there is no claim to topicality/accuracy/format and/or completeness and that therefore any guarantee is excluded. Original decisions may be ordered or made on the basis of the competent court.

Click here to return to the page search engine.