II UZP 8/11 AI generated

Social Insurance Court ruled that a court cannot partially annul a constitutive decision based on new facts found during retrial.

Case Number II UZP 8/11

Court / Authority Sąd Najwyższy

Jurisdiction

Poland (PL)

Decision Date 2011-09-15

Outcome Dismissed

Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the legal questions regarding whether a Social Insurance Fund could partially annul a constitutive decision after a retrial. The case involved a dispute over a manager's liability for social insurance contributions where new facts emerged after the original final decision. The court held that courts must apply substantive law to annul decisions and are bound by final administrative decisions unless they are absolutely void.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 83a ust. 1 ustawy o systemie ubezpieczeń społecznych; Art. 151 § 1 k.p.a.: A court cannot partially annul a constitutive administrative decision based on new facts discovered during a retrial because the annulment must address the substantive rights defined in the original decision's basis.

Keywords

AI generated

constitutive decision annulment social insurance contributions retrial procedure manager liability final administrative decision binding force

Cited Legislation

AI generated

Art. 83a ust. 1 ustawy z dnia 13 października 1998 r. o systemie ubezpieczeń społecznych

Art. 145 § 1 pkt 5 k.p.a.

Art. 149 § 2 k.p.a.

Art. 151 § 1 k.p.a.

Art. 116 Ordynacji podatkowej

Art. 390 § 1 k.p.c.

art. 145 § 1 pkt 5 k.p

art. 149 § 2 k.p

art. 151 § 1 k.p

art. 390 § 1 k.p.c

Cited Case Law

AI generated

uchwała składu siedmiu sędziów z 9 marca 2009 r., I FPS 4/08

wyrok z dnia 29 stycznia 2008 r., I UK 173/07

wyrok z dnia 10 czerwca 2008 r., I UK 376/07

wyrok z dnia 7 kwietnia 2011 r., I UK 357/10

Supreme Court dismisses legal question due to unresolved factual dispute on delivery delay under CMR. The court refuses to interpret the statute because the existence of the delay itself remains contested between the parties. A legal question must be answered only after all material facts are definitively established. The court ruled that interpreting Article 30 of the CMR is premature without first determining if a delay actually occurred. The appeal court's attempt to interpret the statute while leaving the core fact in dispute was rejected as procedurally improper. Consequently, the request to refer a legal question to the Supreme Court was denied. This decision reinforces the requirement for factual clarity before statutory interpretation can proceed in civil litigation. The court emphasized that the existence of a delay is a prerequisite for applying the relevant compensation provisions. Therefore, the procedural step of referring a legal question was invalidly taken by the lower court. The final outcome was a refusal to accept the legal question for resolution.

III UK 38/09

Social insurance statute's limitation period for third-party liability decisions applies only to enforcement, not appeal proceedings.

Third-party liability for social security contributions arises only upon the tax authority's decision, not automatically upon asset acquisition.

Supreme Court allows appeal against social insurance decision due to appellate court's failure to examine substantive merits.

Supreme Court quashes pension award due to missing full-time work proof and premature ruling on special status teachers.

Full text