ATA/221/1996•Jurisdiction over optional daily allowance insurance contract
ATA/221/1996Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberApr 23, 1996Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
The case concerned an optional daily allowance insurance contract concluded with an insurer that was not a caisse. The Administrative Court declined jurisdiction, holding that the dispute was not within its competence under the LAMA/LAMal framework. The court further noted that Art. 102(5) LAMal did not have retroactive effect, so the new law could not confer jurisdiction for this dispute.
Art. 102 al. 5 LAMal; jurisdiction in disputes concerning optional daily allowance insurance; the new law has no retroactive effect. A dispute arising from an optional daily allowance insurance contract concluded with an insurer that is not a caisse does not fall within the Administrative Court's competence. The competence rules of the LAMA and the LAMal must be applied according to their temporal scope; Art. 102 al. 5 LAMal does not retroactively extend jurisdiction to pending or prior contractual relations (consid. unspecified).
Descripteurs
ASSURANCE SOCIALE; COMPETENCE; ASSURANCE FACULTATIVE; INDEMNITE JOURNALIERE; ASSU
Normes
LAMAL.102 al.5
Résumé
Incompétence du TA : contrat d'assurance facultatif d'indemnité journalière conclu avec une assurance qui n'est pas une caisse. Incompétence du TA selon la LAMA et la LAMAL : pas d'effet rétroactif de la LAMAL (art. 102 al. 5 LAMAL).
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the Administrative Court had jurisdiction over an optional daily allowance insurance dispute with an insurer that is not a caisse.
The Administrative Court lacked jurisdiction because the contract concerned optional daily allowance insurance and the insurer was not a caisse.
Under the LAMA and the LAMal, such a dispute did not fall within the Administrative Court's competence. Article 102(5) LAMal had no retroactive effect.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.