Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
K 78/06 KI-generiert

Revision Request Regarding Compulsory Health Insurance Premiums and Taxable Income

Geschäftsnummer K 78/06
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Schweiz · Bundesgericht (BGer / BGE) (CH)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The case involves a request for revision submitted by an individual against a prior decision regarding outstanding health insurance premiums for the months of January to June 2005. The individual contended that their taxable income for 2005 was below the threshold for premium reduction, based on a purportedly incorrect response from a local social insurance office. The Federal Insurance Court, however, determined that the individual's revision request did not sufficiently demonstrate that the prior ruling had overlooked significant arguments or evidence. Consequently, the court rejected the revision application, indicating that court costs would not be imposed in this instance.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Art. 134 OG, Art. 135 OG, Art. 136 lit. c OG, Art. 136 lit. d OG, Art. 136 OG, Art. 141 Abs. 1 lit. a OG; Revision Request Regarding Compulsory Health Insurance Premiums and Taxable Income: The individual contended that their taxable income for 2005 was below the threshold for premium reduction, based on a purportedly incorrect response from a local social insurance office. The Federal Insurance Court, however, determined that the individual's revision request did not sufficiently demonstrate that the prior ruling had overlooked significant arguments or evidence. Consequently, the court rejected the revision application, indicating that court costs would not be imposed in this instance.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Krankenversicherungsprämien Versicherungspflicht Revision eines Entscheids Anwaltskosten Recht auf Gesundheit steuerpflichtiges Einkommen

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Art. 134 OG
dass ein Revisionsverfahren nicht die Bewilligung oder Verweigerung von Versicherungsleistungen, sondern eine prozessuale Frage zum Gegenstand hat, weshalb es grundsätzlich kostenpflichtig ist ( Art. 134 OG e contrario),
Art. 135 OG
38 in Verbindung mit Art. 135 OG ), sie aber der Revision aus den in Art.
Art. 136 lit. c OG
dass die Gesuchstellerin mit Verweis auf die Gesetzesbestimmungen sinngemäss geltend macht, es seien Anträge unbeurteilt geblieben ( Art. 136 lit. c OG ) und in den Akten liegende erhebliche Tatsachen nicht berücksichtigt worden ( Art.
Art. 136 lit. d OG
c OG ) und in den Akten liegende erhebliche Tatsachen nicht berücksichtigt worden ( Art. 136 lit. d OG ),
Art. 136 OG
135 OG ), sie aber der Revision aus den in Art. 136, 137 und 139a OG genannten Gründen unterliegen ( Art.
Art. 141 Abs. 1 lit. a OG
Art. 141 Abs. 1 lit. a OG ) wahrt und auch die entsprechenden Anträge sowie die Begründung anforderungsgemäss - wenn auch in knapp genügender Form - vorliegen,
Art. 90 Abs. 3 KVV
Cited in the reasoning to justify the requirement for the insurer to collect full premiums regardless of pending subsidy review.
Art. 102 LTF
Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 102 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).
KI-generiert
9F_18/2019
Mandatory Health Insurance Premium Dispute: Revision Request Inadmissibility
9F_11/2020
Revision of Mandatory Health Insurance Claim Dismissed as Inadmissible
2P.260/2003
Denial of Revision for Subsidized Health Insurance Premiums Based on Later Tax Revisions
9F_5/2007
Federal Court Decision on Health Insurance Premium Calculation Revisions
9C_989/2010
Health Insurance Premium Dispute; Procedural Non-Admissibility

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
Art. 102 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 102 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 103 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 103 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 104 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 104 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 105 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 105 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 106 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 106 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 107 al. 1 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 107 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 108 al. 1 let. a LTF

Reference to the old procedural law (OG), which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 108 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 109 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 109 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 110 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 110 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 111 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 111 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 112 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 112 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 113 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 113 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 114 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 114 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 115 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 115 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 116 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 116 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 117 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 117 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 118 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 118 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 119 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 119 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 120 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 120 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 121 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 121 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 122 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 122 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 123 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 123 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 124 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 124 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 125 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 125 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 126 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 126 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 127 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 127 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 128 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 128 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 129 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 129 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 130 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 130 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 131 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 131 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 132 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 132 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 133 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 133 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 90 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 90 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 91 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 91 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 92 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 92 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 93 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 93 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 94 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 94 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 96 LTF

Reference to the old procedural law, which governed the procedure for the decision being addressed (now Art. 96 LTF post-2007 restructuring, but the text cites the old law where applicable to admissibility).

Art. 332 CO

Reference to the old procedural law applicable to the decision being addressed (not cited in the dispositive).

Art. 95 f. KVG

Reference to the general law governing insurance provision, which is the subject matter of the dispute but not cited in the dispositive.

Art. 90 Abs. 3 KVV

Cited in the reasoning to justify the requirement for the insurer to collect full premiums regardless of pending subsidy review.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Eidgenössisches Versicherungsgericht

Tribunale federale delle assicurazioni

Tribunal federal d'assicuranzas

Sozialversicherungsabteilung

des Bundesgerichts

Prozess {T 7}

K 78/06

Urteil vom 25. August 2006

III. Kammer

Besetzung

Präsident Ferrari, Bundesrichter Meyer und Lustenberger; Gerichtsschreiberin Weber Peter

Parteien

S.________, 1965, Gesuchstellerin,

gegen

Atupri Krankenkasse, Zieglerstrasse 29, 3000 Bern, Gesuchsgegnerin

(Urteil vom 5. April 2006)

In Erwägung,

dass das Eidgenössische Versicherungsgericht die von S.________ gegen den Entscheid des Sozialversicherungsgerichts des Kantons Zürich vom 16. Januar 2006 (betreffend ausstehende KVG-Prämien für die Monate Januar bis Juni 2005 [zuzüglich Mahnspesen] erhobene Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde mit Urteil vom 5. April 2006 abwies,

dass S.________ am 10. Juni 2006 ein Gesuch um Revision dieses Urteils vom 16. Januar 2006 gestellt hat,

dass ein Revisionsverfahren nicht die Bewilligung oder Verweigerung von Versicherungsleistungen, sondern eine prozessuale Frage zum Gegenstand hat, weshalb es grundsätzlich kostenpflichtig ist ( Art. 134 OG e contrario),

dass die Präsidentin des Eidgenössischen Versicherungsgerichts S.________ mit Verfügung vom 13. Juni 2006 aufgefordert hat, innert 14 Tagen nach Erhalt dieses Schreibens einen Kostenvorschuss von Fr. 500.- zu bezahlen, und angedroht hat, dass bei Nichtleistung innert der gesetzten Frist aus diesem Grunde auf die Rechtsvorkehr nicht eingetreten werde,

dass S.________ mit Eingabe vom 29. Juni 2006 innert der ihr gesetzten Frist um Bewilligung der unentgeltlichen Prozessführung ersucht hat,

dass die Urteile des Eidgenössischen Versicherungsgerichts mit der Ausfällung rechtskräftig werden (Art. 38 in Verbindung mit Art. 135 OG ), sie aber der Revision aus den in Art. 136, 137 und 139a OG genannten Gründen unterliegen ( Art. 135 OG ),

dass die Gesuchstellerin mit Verweis auf die Gesetzesbestimmungen sinngemäss geltend macht, es seien Anträge unbeurteilt geblieben ( Art. 136 lit. c OG ) und in den Akten liegende erhebliche Tatsachen nicht berücksichtigt worden ( Art. 136 lit. d OG ),

dass das beanstandete Urteil am 12. Mai 2006 bei der Gesuchstellerin eingegangen ist,

dass das am 10. Juni 2006 der Post übergebene Revisionsgesuch die Verwirkungsfrist von 30 Tagen für eine Revision nach Art.136 OG (vgl. Art. 141 Abs. 1 lit. a OG ) wahrt und auch die entsprechenden Anträge sowie die Begründung anforderungsgemäss - wenn auch in knapp genügender Form - vorliegen,

dass auf das Gesuch demnach eingetreten werden kann,

dass die Gesuchstellerin unter dem Titel des Art. 136 lit. d OG sinngemäss vorbringt, aufgrund einer falschen Auskunft des SVA des Kantons Zürich vom 12. Dezember 2005 sei nicht berücksichtigt worden, dass ihr steuerbares Einkommen im Jahre 2005 offensichtlich nicht über Fr. 36'000.- betragen habe, was aus der Steuererklärung für das Jahr 2005 ersichtlich sei,

dass das Eidgenössische Versicherungsgericht im angefochtenen Urteil (vgl. Erw. 3.1) den Umstand, dass das steuerbare Einkommen für das Jahr 2005 allenfalls die für das Jahr 2004/2005 massgebliche Limite von Fr. 36'000.- für Prämienverbilligung unterschreitet, insofern berücksichtigt hat, als es feststellte, dass dies im vorliegenden Verfahren nicht beurteilt zu werden brauche und nichts daran ändere, dass die Versicherte vorderhand die vollen Prämien zu entrichten habe, da ein Versicherer berechtigt und nach Art. 90 Abs. 3 KVV (seit 1. Januar 2003) auch verpflichtet sei, die vollen Prämienbeiträge einzufordern, selbst wenn für den betroffenen Versicherten der Anspruch auf Prämienverbilligung noch nicht abgeklärt oder die Prämienverbilligung bei ihm oder beim Krankenversicherer noch nicht eingetroffen sei,

dass ferner nicht erkennbar ist, inwiefern das Eidgenössische Versicherungsgericht einzelne Anträge nicht beurteilt haben soll, was Voraussetzung für den in Art. 136 lit. c OG verankerten Revisionsgrund wäre,

dass das Revisionsgesuch demzufolge in allen Teilen unbegründet ist,

dass von der Erhebung von Gerichtskosten ausnahmsweise abgesehen werden kann, weshalb sich das Gesuch um unentgeltliche Prozessführung als gegenstandslos erweist,

erkennt das Eidg. Versicherungsgericht:

1. Das Revisionsgesuch wird abgewiesen.

2. Es werden keine Gerichtskosten erhoben.

3. Dieses Urteil wird den Parteien, dem Sozialversicherungsgericht des Kantons Zürich und dem Bundesamt für Gesundheit zugestellt.

Luzern, 25. August 2006

Im Namen des Eidgenössischen Versicherungsgerichts

Der Präsident der III. Kammer: Die Gerichtsschreiberin: