Art. 36 LCAMal Legge di applicazione della legge federale sull’assicurazione malattie (LCAMal)

36.2018.8 · ti (Art. 36 cpv. 2 LCAMal)

Health Insurance Premium Reduction Revocation Upheld Due to Undisclosed Cohabitation and Income Aggregation

Cited in reference to the previous norms for the 2012-2014 calculation period.

36.2018.8 · ti (Art. 36 cpv. 3 LCAMal)

Health Insurance Premium Reduction Revocation Upheld Due to Undisclosed Cohabitation and Income Aggregation

Cited in reference to the previous norms for the 2012-2014 calculation period.

36.2018.8 · ti (Art. 36 cpv. 4 LCAMal)

Health Insurance Premium Reduction Revocation Upheld Due to Undisclosed Cohabitation and Income Aggregation

Cited in reference to the previous norms for the 2012-2014 calculation period.

36.2018.8 · ti (Art. 36 cpv. 5 LCAMal)

Health Insurance Premium Reduction Revocation Upheld Due to Undisclosed Cohabitation and Income Aggregation

Cited in reference to the previous norms for the 2012-2014 calculation period.

36.2017.3 · ti (Art. 36 LCAMal)

Insured Persons Appeal Recalculated Premium Reductions Based on Undisclosed Cohabitation

Cited in the reasoning concerning the percentages used for income exceeding the threshold in 2012/2013.

36.2016.129 · ti (art. 36 LCAMal)

Claimants v. Compensation Fund: Health Insurance Premium Reduction Retroactive Revocation Based on Cohabitation Status

Cited in reasoning to define the percentages related to the supplementary income portion for financing premiums, applicable for the 2012 calculation.

36.2016.122 · ti (art. 36 LCAMal)

Recalculation of Health Insurance Subsidies Based on Stable Cohabitation

Cited in the reasoning defining the percentages for income surplus contribution applicable until 2014.

36.2016.26 · ti (art. 36 LCAMal)

Health Insurance Premium Reduction Denial Based on Cohabiting Partner's Income Aggregation

This article fixed the reduction percentages applicable to the income exceeding the threshold for calculating the premium reduction for the years 2013 and 2014.

36.2015.80 · ti (Art. 36 LCAMal)

Recalculation of Health Insurance Subsidies Based on Undisclosed Cohabitation

Cited in the reasoning regarding the percentages applicable for the portion of supplementary income to be allocated to premium financing for the years 2012-2014.

36.2014.93 · ti (Art. 36 LCAMal)

Health Insurance Premium Reduction Appeal Based on Earnings Calculation

This article, cited in reasoning 2.22, details the percentage applied to the income surplus to calculate the premium reduction, which was part of the final calculation.

36.2014.6 · ti (Art. 36 LCAMal)

Taxpayer Appeal: Property Value Attribution Following Habitation Right Establishment

Cited in the dispositive order 2.13 to determine the percentage of income that must contribute to premium payments above a certain threshold, although the final order itself does not explicitly repeat the percentage determination.

36.2014.8 · ti (Art. 36 LCAMal)

Insured Person v. Compensation Fund (2013 Premium Reduction Calculation)

Cited by the appellant in the reasoning, but the court's final order only dismisses the appeal without explicitly grounding the decision on this article.

36.2013.28 · ti (Art. 36 LCAMal)

Appellant v. Health Insurance Fund on Premium Subsidy Calculation

The court confirmed the administrative calculation, which relied on applying the reduction percentages of this article based on the interpretation of the legislature's true intent, despite the literal text of Art. 35 al. 2 LCAMal suggesting otherwise for 2013.

36.2012.71 · ti (Art. 36 LCAMal)

Insurance Premium Reduction Appeal Based on Recalculated Disposable Income

Cited in the reasoning to confirm the calculation method leading to the rejection of the appeal.

36.2012.49 · ti (Art. 36 LCAMal)

Insured Person v. Health Insurance Premium Subsidy Authority

Cited in the reasoning section concerning the percentages used to determine the claimant's contribution to premium payment when income exceeds the maximum subsidy limit, and explicitly referenced in the section outlining the costs/charges related to the appeal (though costs are usually Art. 66 LTF, this article governs the substantive reduction which is the core issue resolved).