Blocher should receive a million: the legal situation is not clear

Blocher should receive a million, as the Federal Council was ill advised

Former federal councilor Christoph Blocher should be able to claim his retirement pension retroactively for five years. The state government’s decision is based on a legally unstable foundation.

Andreas Maurer / ch media

During the crisis, the Federal Council does not put aside the other files, but works on them one after another. This includes the retirement pension of former federal councilor Christoph Blocher.

In the summer, the billionaire submitted a surprising request to the Federal Chancellery: he retroactively requests his retirement pension. Every former magistrate is entitled to half the annual salary after at least four years in office. At the time Blocher was removed from office in 2007, that was 200,000 francs. Therefore, it invoices 2.7 million francs.

Does this right also exist retrospectively? This issue has not been regulated and arises for the first time. After much back and forth, the Federal Council has now found an answer. Pensions can be claimed up to five years later. Therefore, Blocher should receive a million. While this is not in the sense of the regulation and should be excluded in the future, it corresponds to the legal situation.

The Federal Chancellery is asking the wrong question

The Federal Council bases its decision on two external legal opinions and an opinion from the Federal Office of Justice. The Federal Council has published these three documents. In the thrill of the crown, these have so far been lost. The content is explosive. Expert opinion does not support the decision as claimed. It comes from St. Gallen professor of labor law Thomas Geiser.

He writes that a magistrate is not entitled to the money he has given up: “The resignation allows the claim to be reduced forever.” The resignation is irrevocable. Therefore, a magistrate could not demand that the money be returned to him. But you could demand to be paid in the future. Because she didn’t do it without him.

The problem with the Geiser report is that the answer may be correct, but the question is incorrect. Because Blocher has never officially given up his pension. You just haven’t made the claim until now. That is a big difference.

Zurich social security professor Ueli Kieser addresses this issue in his report, which is longer than Geiser’s. The Federal Chancellery asked him the same question, but his answer was more different. In the case of a waiver, you also deny a claim. In the event of failure to register, a subsequent claim is allowed retroactively for five years. This is because it corresponds to the general conditions of labor law.

The Federal Chancellery has realized its mistake. When he asked the Federal Office of Justice for a third assessment, he phrased the question better. She no longer uses the term resignation, but writes about a non-use. In its response, the Federal Office of Justice shares Professor Kieser’s conclusion, but criticizes his derivation. So it really applies: two lawyers, three opinions.

Does the million disappear with the tax bill?

It is also interesting that the Federal Chancellery posed a second question to the experts: is reimbursement also possible in sections? Blocher probably wants this to save taxes. The teachers answer no. The Federal Office of Justice, on the other hand, cautiously says yes. If Blocher complains, he has a good chance given this starting position.