III UZP 2/12
AI generated
Social security appeal jurisdiction determined by applicant's residence, not the social security office's location.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court resolved a legal question regarding the proper court for appeals in social security cases involving EU coordination. The applicant argued that specialized social security offices should determine jurisdiction, while the opposing party contended for the office's location. The court ruled that jurisdiction belongs to the court in the applicant's residence district, prioritizing accessibility for vulnerable individuals over specialized office locations.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 461 § 2, 22 k.p.c.; Jurisdiction in social security appeals is determined by the applicant's place of residence, not the social security office's location, to ensure accessibility for vulnerable parties.
Keywords
AI generated
social security jurisdiction
EU coordination rules
place of residence
specialized social security offices
accessibility principles
civil procedure law
appeal venue
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 461 § 2 k.p.c.
Art. 461 § 22 k.p.c.
Rozporządzenie Rady (EWG) nr 1408/71
Rozporządzenie Rady (EWG) nr 574/72
Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (WE) nr 883/2004
Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (WE) nr 987/2009
art. 390 § 1 k.p.c.
art. 461 § 22 k.p.c
art. 461 § 2 k.p.c
art. 461 § 21 k.p.c
Cited Case Law
AI generatedII UK 129/07
III UK 6/09
Supreme Court dismissed pension claim for early retirement due to failure to meet specific employment insurance requirements.
I UK 276/11
Supreme Court allows bridge pension for locomotive driver with medical incapacity certificate at application date.
I UK 378/04
Supreme Court dismissed pension claim for journalist who did not work on employment contract at retirement age.
I UK 128/06
Early retirement rights denied to worker who turned 55 after leaving special conditions employment.
I UK 239/07
Supreme Court dismissed widow's appeal for family allowance, ruling she must have received family pension before 1998.