Key legal question
Whether the appeal against the cantonal judgment on supplementary benefits was sufficiently reasoned to be admissible.
Extracted holding
The appeal was not sufficiently reasoned and the Court therefore did not enter into it.
Extracted reasoning
The appellant failed to show that the cantonal court’s factual findings on residence were manifestly incorrect. His submissions did not effectively dispute the decisive finding and contained contradictions, so the appeal did not meet the reasoning requirements of Art. 108(1)(b) BGG.