Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
I 2017 76 • VG SZ I 2017 76 Généré par l'IA

Pension Fund Benefit Reduction Notice Dispute

Numéro de cause I 2017 76
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Schwytz (CH-SZ)
Date de la décision
Ouvrir la source officielle Miroir Entscheidsuche Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

A plaintiff sought to enforce a claim for occupational pension benefits against a pension fund following the termination of employment, arguing that the required notice period for benefit reduction had not been observed. The court determined that the contractual agreement for the pension plan, which included a provision for benefit reduction upon termination, was valid and the statutory notice requirement for such a reduction, as stipulated in the relevant legislation, was indeed met, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal against the rejection of their claim for full benefits.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Pension Fund Benefit Reduction Notice Dispute: The court determined that the contractual agreement for the pension plan, which included a provision for benefit reduction upon termination, was valid and the statutory notice requirement for such a reduction, as stipulated in the relevant legislation, was indeed met, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal against the rejection of their claim for full benefits.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
suppression de la rente réduction de prestations fonds de pension délai de résiliation prestation de prévoyance plan de répartition de la prévoyance professionnelle Berufliche Vorsorge | Berufliche Vorsorge (mit med. SV)
Généré par l'IA
I 2018 112
Occupational Pension Benefit Dispute
II 2020 40
Pension Deferral Notification Requirement Dispute
I 2016 83
Pension Fund Disability Benefit Calculation Dispute
II 2018 107
Pension Institution v. Employer: Recovery of Unpaid Pension Contributions
II 2019 91
Pension Fund v. Employer: Occupational Pension Contributions Dispute

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n I 2017 76 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 20. Juni 2018 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n lic.iur. Achilles Humbel, Präsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.med. Bernhard Zumsteg, Richter Dr.med. Pierre Lichtenhahn, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Stefan Getzmann, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________, \n Kläger, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr.iur. S.________, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n B.________ (Pensionskasse), \n Beklagte, |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Gegenstand |\n Berufliche Vorsorge |\n \n\n

\n \n

Sachverhalt: