The European Court of Human Rights agrees with an Appenzeller widower who had complained about gender discrimination. Switzerland is now faced with the question: should widowers receive more money? Or widows less?
Switzerland must change its policy on widows’ pensions, says the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
When it comes to AHV survivors’ pensions, Switzerland has to go over the books, and to a great extent. That is the quintessence of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on Tuesday. The decision does not come as a surprise, and it is also difficult to evade its logic in terms of content.
The ECtHR is bothered by the fact that Switzerland massively disadvantages widowers compared to widows. Widowers only receive a survivor’s pension from the AHV if they have minor children. When the youngest child turns 18, the AHV stops making payments altogether. Widowed mothers, on the other hand, receive an unlimited pension, even when the children have long since grown up. Even childless women are entitled to a widow’s pension if they are older than 45 and the marriage lasted at least five years.
It is also known in Switzerland that these differences are no longer up-to-date and no longer justifiable. However, it has not yet been possible to agree on a solution, none of the previous attempts have been successful.
But Max Beeler, a Swiss widower from the canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden, was successful in taking legal action against the discrimination against men. After the early death of his wife in an accident, the 70-year-old gave up his job as an insurance clerk to look after their two little daughters. In 2010, when the younger daughter turned 18 and Beeler was 57, the AHV widower’s pension that he had received up to that point was canceled. Had Beeler been a woman, he would still have been entitled to a pension.
Deliberate discrimination against men
Beeler did not want to accept this and went to court. He failed in all instances. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court informed him that the discrimination against widowers contradicted the constitutionally required equal treatment of men and women. But the legislature deliberately decided so, so nothing can be done in court.
In Strasbourg, however, Beeler found support. The ECtHR already found in 2020 that there was gender discrimination. Switzerland did not agree with this judgement. She took the case to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR and took the position, among other things, that Switzerland had not ratified the first additional protocol to the Human Rights Convention, which deals with social benefits, and that the survivors’ benefits therefore did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court fell.
In terms of content, she argued that the betterment of widows was still justified on the basis of social realities. In addition, the plaintiff was not restricted in his family life by the loss of the widower’s pension, since his children had practically no longer lived at home.
This argument was not heard in Strasbourg. According to the judges, the actual inequalities between men and women in Switzerland are not so pronounced that a legal preference for widows would appear justified. Rather, it would perpetuate gender stereotypes, which is a disadvantage both for women’s careers and for men’s family life. There is also no reason to assume that it was easier for Beeler to get a foothold again at the age of 57 than for a woman in a similar situation.
Emergency aid for widowed father
The judgment of the Grand Chamber, passed by a vote of 12 to 5, is definitive. Switzerland now wants to react immediately. According to the Federal Social Insurance Office (BSV), the compensation offices are to be instructed to allow widowed fathers to keep their pension if their children turn 18 with immediate effect. The same applies to widowers who, like Max Beeler, have contested the loss of their pension and whose appeal is still pending. All other widowers with adult children, on the other hand, get nothing; According to the BSV, their claim is considered to have expired. The FSIO estimates the additional costs that will be incurred every year for the payment of widower’s pensions at around 12 million francs.
However, this quick adjustment is not enough, since it brings an improvement for widowers, but does not yet bring them equality with widows. A political solution is needed. Several requests on the subject are pending in Parliament, and it can be assumed that the judge’s verdict from Strasbourg will now advance the debates. The main question will be: Should equality be achieved through expansion or through dismantling? Reducing widows’ benefits is politically very sensitive, and bringing widowers’ benefits up to widows’ levels is costly.
Parenthood instead of marital status
An important preliminary decision has already been made: the National Council has rejected a proposal that calls for the claims of widowers to be adjusted one-to-one with those of widows. The National Council said it was wrong to give childless widowers a pension in the future.
On the other hand, the proposal to build on parenthood has better chances: Anyone who has children and loses their partner should receive an AHV survivor’s pension until the youngest child is of legal age or has completed his or her education – regardless of whether the parents are married were or not. However, that would mean that widows’ pensions would be noticeably reduced and childless women would no longer be able to claim survivors’ pensions in the future. However, this idea is likely to meet with some resistance from left-wing parties – now of all times, after the increase in the retirement age for women and the vehement protests from left-wing feminist circles.