Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
II 2020 15 • VG SZ II 2020 15 Generato dall'IA

Social Security Premium Reduction Denial Appeal: Residency Requirement Dispute

Numero d'incarto II 2020 15
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Svitto (CH-SZ)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The case concerns an appeal against a decision by the social security fund denying premium reduction benefits, where the central issue was the appellant's residence as a prerequisite for entitlement. The court's reasoning, based on the facts presented, would have determined whether the appellant met the necessary residency requirements for the premium reduction, ultimately upholding or overturning the initial denial by the lower instance regarding the factual or legal basis of domicile.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Social Security Premium Reduction Denial Appeal: Residency Requirement Dispute: The court's reasoning, based on the facts presented, would have determined whether the appellant met the necessary residency requirements for the premium reduction, ultimately upholding or overturning the initial denial by the lower instance regarding the factual or legal basis of domicile.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
prestazioni della sicurezza sociale riduzione dei contributi obbligo di residenza base fattuale vertenza di assicurazione sociale emissione di valori Prämienverbilligung (Wohnsitz als Anspruchsvoraussetzung) | Prämienverbilligung
Generato dall'IA
II 2019 67
Appeal of Social Security Premium Reduction Calculation
II 2018 91
Premium Reduction Eligibility Appeal
II 2016 101
Social Security Contribution Reduction Appeal: Income Assessment Upheld
II 2024 80
Social Security Supplementary Benefits Denial Upheld Due to Unsubstantiated Asset Reductions
II 2023 5
Social Security Benefits Appeal Dismissed for Insufficient Proof

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n II 2020 15 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 7. April 2020 |\n \n\n

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

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n Dr.iur. Vital Zehnder, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.oec. Andreas Risi, Richter Dr.iur. Frank Lampert, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Marco Lacher, a.o. Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n

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

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________ \n Beschwerdeführer, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n Ausgleichskasse Schwyz, Rechtsdienst, Postfach 53, 6431 Schwyz, \n Vorinstanz, |\n \n\n

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

\n\n| | | |\n Gegenstand |\n Prämienverbilligung (Wohnsitz als Anspruchsvoraussetzung) |\n \n\n

\n \n

Sachverhalt: