[ad_1]
Under pressure from the Strasbourg Human Rights Court, the Suva and IV had to put an end to surveillance in the fight against abuses. Now, a new law is being voted. Controversial is just how much insurance detectives are allowed to go.
The European Court of Human Rights requires a legal basis for the use of social security detectives. (Image: Simon Tanner)
It has been more than twenty years since a pedestrian woman was hit by a motorcycle while she was crossing the road and was seriously injured in the head, causing irreversible damage. The tragic road accident has become an infinite story, with which all jurisdictions have had to deal with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The November 25 vote on the supervision of the insured is also a delayed consequence of this 1995 disaster.
Parliament acted quickly
To clarify the severity of the injury and the degree of fitness for work (and thus the amount of insurance benefits) of the injured woman, the insurance was used, inter alia, by detectives . They watched the attacker buy and drive the car. The images were supposed to prove that the insured – by no means the one claimed – was by no means unable to work. Based on these photos, the benefits have been reduced. The insurance was right in front of the Federal Supreme Court, but the insurance was prior to the ECHR for a simple reason: there was no legal basis for the use of detectives, a criticized the court. Since then, social insurance has removed the observations.
To compensate for this, Parliament passed a law at record speed. On November 25, voters vote at the polls after the referendum. This concerns the federal government's social security funds, in which, in this context, disability insurance and accident insurance are of interest. On the other hand, the vote on the use of detectives to fight social assistance abuses provides no basis: the cantons are responsible for this area. The fact that comments have become a hot topic in recent years shows how tense the social work situation is. Today, it is hardly contested politically far in the camp of the left that it is possible to appeal to detectives.
More difficult is knowing in what cases and in what conditions insured persons can be observed. The new law requires "concrete indications" regarding the unjustified payment of benefits. At the same time, other clarifications must be hopeless or disproportionate. Such formulations leave some latitude. This is one of the reasons why four people opposed the referendum after parties and associations gave it up. They think insurance companies have received a free pass. De facto, the law leaves them the choice of when detectives should be used. This is not true But what is meant by "concrete evidence" in individual cases will probably only show judicial practice.
More skills than the police?
However, the main problems also include the means by which suspects may be under the law. Thus, for example, the use of "GPS plotters" is allowed, with which the location of a person can be determined continuously. It is true that Parliament has set limits and requires the approval of a court for such an ambitious measure. It will be difficult to use large-scale GPS beacons, unlike the image that draws the counter-campaign. Nevertheless, the wording of the law on this point goes beyond a similar provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO): Locating devices can only be used by the police for serious offenses (and also with court approval). For example, social assistance is not included. In addition, according to StPO, urgent suspicion must be given.
It can not be denied that insurance investigators tend to have more room for maneuver than the police. The Federal Council has in a Responding to a call from Parliament, he ensures that insurance investigators "have virtually no more supervisory powers than police or prosecutors". He therefore supports the model. But elsewhere, the wording of the law does not seem to be unequivocal: the wording used by opponents and supporters is different, according to which target persons can be observed in a room freely accessible from a generally accessible place. This same shoot through the window of the room is possible, warn opponents. Here too, the wording of the law goes further than the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the police.
Previous judicial practice in comparable cases indicates that fears are rather unjustified. The Federal Council even excludes it in a report according to which the bedroom could be filmed. The use of technical equipment such as drones or directional microphones is strictly prohibited. But even if the claim of supporters of the referendum and the left, that the new law of national mass surveillance is virtually open, is completely covered, quarrels over such issues are likely to shape the vote.
Most insureds are honest
The debate shows how intrusive privacy is. The referendum was held in a short time. But the insurers, and with them the bourgeois parties, rightly insist on the fact that it must be possible to fight effectively against social security abuses. The suspicion of 270 observations made by the disability insurance in 2016 was confirmed in 180 cases. And Suva has saved 117 million francs since 2006 in the fight against abuse, which also involves detectives. However, the Federal Council and social insurers also point out that the vast majority of insureds are honest. For example, Suva reports that, with a total of 460,000 cases processed each year, it reports only about 15 suspicious cases. This is also because it is a very expensive instrument.
Source link
