How do I appeal an RAV decision?

The rules are not available in English — and the English summary is not reliable here

Three texts govern this procedure: the Federal Act on the General Part of Social Insurance Law (ATSG, SR 830.1), the Unemployment Insurance Act (AVIG, SR 837.0) and its ordinance (AVIV, SR 837.02). Checked against the consolidated versions in force, each of the three is published in German, French and Italian, and in no other language. There is no English realisation to read.

SECO does run an English version of arbeit.swiss, and its FAQ covers this topic. It is useful for orientation. It is not a source you should rely on for a deadline, and there is a concrete reason to say so rather than a general caution. On the rule that an assignment to a labour-market measure cannot be challenged on its own, the German page says such a challenge only becomes possible with a suspension decision issued for "unentschuldbarem" non-attendance — inexcusable non-attendance, meaning your own fault. The French and Italian versions say the same thing: "sans excuse valable", "senza una valida motivazione". The English version says the suspension follows "because you failed to attend through no fault of your own". That is the reverse of the rule.

The practical consequence is small but real. Read the English page for the shape of the procedure, then confirm every number and every condition against the legal-remedies notice on your own decision, or against the German, French or Italian text of the same page. If those disagree with the English, the English is the one that is wrong.

Check whether you are holding a decision at all

ATSG Art. 49(1) requires the insurer to issue written decisions on benefits, claims and instructions that are significant or that the person concerned disagrees with. AVIG Art. 100(1) then reverses that default for unemployment insurance: outside a short list of special cases, "in derogation from Art. 49(1) ATSG the simplified procedure under Art. 51 ATSG applies, except where the request has been rejected in whole or in part".

So the monthly statement from your unemployment fund is not a decision. It is the informal settlement the act treats as normal. SECO states the consequence plainly on arbeit.swiss: "You can’t contest a daily allowance statement directly. If you don’t agree with a statement, you have to request a formal decision subject to appeal within 90 days from the time when you received it. You should state which point it is that you don’t agree with."

Ninety days is the figure to remember, and it appears in no article of the act — it is the practice the supervisory authority publishes. The legal basis for the request itself is one sentence, ATSG Art. 51(2): the person concerned may require that a decision be issued. An ordinary letter naming the disputed item and asking for an appealable decision is enough.

Once a decision does arrive, ATSG Art. 49(3) tells you what it owes you: a legal-remedies notice, reasons where it does not fully grant your request, and a guarantee that "no disadvantage may arise for the person concerned from the defective notification of a decision". If the notice is missing or wrong, that is the administration’s problem rather than yours.

When the thirty days start, and the sixty-three days on which they do not run

The period starts on the day after notification (ATSG Art. 38(1)). For registered post, Art. 38(2bis) adds a fiction: a communication handed over only against signature "is deemed to have been received at the latest on the seventh day after the first unsuccessful attempt at delivery". If you are away for three weeks and collect the letter afterwards, the clock did not wait for you.

Pulling the other way is a rule almost nobody outside the profession knows. ATSG Art. 38(4) suspends statutory and official periods counted in days or months during three windows each year: from the seventh day before Easter to the seventh day after Easter, from 15 July to 15 August, and from 18 December to 2 January, all inclusive. Counted out, that is fifteen, thirty-two and sixteen calendar days — sixty-three in total, roughly one day in six of the year. A decision that lands in the second half of July gives you considerably more than thirty days.

The same applies to the court stage, because ATSG Art. 60(2) declares Art. 38 to 41 applicable by analogy to the appeal period. What is not possible is an extension: ATSG Art. 40(1) says a statutory period cannot be extended. Only periods the insurer itself has set can be, and only if you ask before they expire.

What an opposition has to contain

The act sets no form for the opposition. SECO names three components, and they are the same three that ATSG Art. 61(b) later makes binding for the court stage: "it is important to state the result that you hope to achieve (petition) and to briefly explain why (statement of grounds). You have to enclose the contested decision and any documents you cite and that are in your possession."

A petition is a sentence saying what should replace the decision — not "I disagree", but "the suspension of entitlement is to be set aside" or "the benefit for month X is to be recalculated". Grounds are the fact or the provision you consider wrongly assessed. Short is better than thorough at this stage; the file is already with the office that wrote the decision.

The opposition procedure is free of charge and costs are normally not awarded (ATSG Art. 52(3)). SECO also puts a step in front of it that costs nothing: "In any case we recommend that you first arrange for a consultation with the instance issuing the decision before you submit a written appeal." A conversation does not pause the deadline, so the sensible order is both at once rather than one after the other.

Who decided is who you write to

The opposition goes to the office that issued the decision, and which office that is depends on the subject. The unemployment fund establishes entitlement and imposes suspensions in the cases of AVIG Art. 30(1) (Art. 81(1)(a) and (b) AVIG). The cantonal office decides on the suitability of work, reviews placeability and imposes suspensions in the cases of Art. 30(2) and (4) (Art. 85(c), (d) and (g) AVIG).

On top of that sits a cantonal option that changes the address. AVIG Art. 100(2) lets the cantons, in derogation from ATSG Art. 52(1), transfer the handling of oppositions against decisions issued by the regional employment centres to the cantonal authorities. Whether your opposition against an RAV decision is handled by the RAV or by the cantonal office is therefore a question of cantonal law.

This is why the legal-remedies notice on your own paper beats any general rule, and why SECO phrases its own advice that way: lodge the opposition with the body named in the notice. If you do get it wrong, ATSG Art. 39(2) softens the landing — if a party addresses the wrong insurer in time, the deadline counts as met. It costs days, but it does not cost the case.

Lodging an opposition does not put the decision on hold

AVIG Art. 100(4) is short and consequential: oppositions and appeals against decisions under Articles 15 and 30 have no suspensive effect. Article 30 is the suspension of entitlement, Article 15 is placeability — between them, the two most frequently contested decisions in the system. They take effect while you contest them.

The insurer can also remove suspensive effect itself: in the decision (ATSG Art. 49(5)) and in the opposition decision for any subsequent appeal (ATSG Art. 52(4)), "even if the decision concerns a cash benefit". Both provisions carve out the same exception — decisions ordering the restitution of benefits wrongly received.

ATSG Art. 54(1) completes the picture: a decision is enforceable not only once it can no longer be contested, but also where the available opposition or appeal has no suspensive effect, or where that effect has been withdrawn.

If nothing arrives at all

Silence is contestable too. ATSG Art. 56(2): an appeal may also be lodged where the insurer, despite the request of the person concerned, issues neither a decision nor an opposition decision. This is the complaint for denial of justice or unjustified delay, and it does not go back to the office that is sitting on the file — it goes straight to the court.

SECO describes both variants concretely. If the unemployment fund "does not issue a benefits statement, ruling or decision about the appeal for a period of several months", you can file such a complaint directly with the cantonal insurance court; the same applies where the RAV produces nothing for months. As a further route it names the supervisory complaint, which can be submitted instead of an opposition or an appeal. It is not a remedy that entitles you to a decision, and it does not preserve any deadline.

The cantonal court, and the fact that it has no single name

An appeal against the opposition decision goes to a cantonal court within thirty days (ATSG Art. 56(1), Art. 60(1)). Every canton appoints one insurance court as sole instance for social insurance disputes (Art. 57). Jurisdiction normally follows your canton of residence (Art. 58(1)) — but for decisions of a cantonal authority, AVIV Art. 128(2) sends the appeal to the court of that same canton.

If you have left Switzerland, ATSG Art. 58(2) sets out the fallback in order: the court of the canton of your last Swiss residence, or of the canton where your last Swiss employer was domiciled, and if neither can be established, the canton where the implementing body has its seat. A court that declines jurisdiction must forward the appeal without delay (Art. 58(3)).

The name of the court is the harder part when you try to find it. In Zurich and in Basel-Stadt it is the Sozialversicherungsgericht; in St. Gallen simply the Versicherungsgericht; in Geneva it is the Chambre des assurances sociales of the Cour de justice; in Ticino the Tribunale cantonale delle assicurazioni. SECO refers generically to "Insurance Court, appeals committee", because there is no one name to give.

Procedure before that court follows cantonal law but must meet ATSG Art. 61: simple, rapid and as a rule public. The appeal needs a concise statement of the facts, a legal request and short grounds, and if it falls short the court sets a period to put it right before refusing to hear it (letter b). A successful appellant is entitled to costs (letter g). Benefit disputes are subject to court fees only where the specific act provides for them; otherwise fees can only be imposed on a party acting frivolously or recklessly (letter f bis).

The last rung is the Federal Supreme Court (ATSG Art. 62(1)). Here the sources disagree with each other in a way worth flagging: the SECO FAQ still names the "Federal Insurance Court in Lucerne" in all four of its language versions. That court no longer carries the name: the present wording of ATSG Art. 62, in force since 1 January 2007, refers to the Federal Supreme Court. The location is still right — the Federal Supreme Court runs its social-law divisions in Lucerne.

Two things that can move against you

The cantonal court is not bound by the parties’ requests. ATSG Art. 61(d) allows it to amend a decision or an opposition decision to the detriment of the appellant, or to award more than was asked, provided the parties are first given the opportunity to comment and to withdraw the appeal. An appeal can therefore end worse than the decision it challenged, with that warning built in.

And the other side has standing of its own. AVIG Art. 102 gives SECO the right to appeal against decisions of the cantonal authorities, the regional employment centres and the funds before the cantonal insurance court, and to take the court’s decisions further. A ruling in your favour is not automatically the end of the matter.

After the thirty days have run

The decision is then formally final, and two routes remain, neither of which is a remedy. Under ATSG Art. 53(1), formally final decisions must be reviewed where the insured person or the insurer subsequently discovers significant new facts or finds evidence that could not previously be produced. The last clause carries the weight: a document you could have filed at the time is not new evidence.

Art. 53(2) is reconsideration, and it is discretionary — the insurer may revisit a final decision where it is manifestly incorrect and correcting it is of considerable significance. You can ask; the wording gives you no entitlement to be heard on the merits.

Art. 53(3) describes a window that quietly ends some cases early: until it submits its response to the appeal authority, the insurer may reconsider a decision that has been appealed. A well-argued appeal sometimes works before a judge has read it.

Separately, ATSG Art. 41 allows a missed deadline to be restored where you or your representative were prevented from acting through no fault of your own — on condition that you apply within thirty days of the obstacle ending and complete the omitted step at the same time.