The Supreme Court in its enlarged composition dispelled any doubts about persons affected by the problem of not paying contributions by ZUS during the course of study after 25 d.g. Social Insurance Institution, who so strongly stood on the position of the unjustified payment of insured family pension for a further period after completion 25 If they attend postgraduate studies, they will be forced to change their position.
Supreme Court seven Judges of the Chamber of Labour and Social Insurance on 25 September This year, he adopted a resolution on the signature of the act III UZP 6/19, in which it clearly indicates how to read postgraduate studies in the sense of Article 68(2) Act of 17 December 1998 on the pensions and pensions of the Social Insurance Fund 2018, item 1270 as amended.
The case referred to by the Supreme Court concerns the dismissal of a woman from the decision of the Social Insurance Institution on the right to family pension. Doubts in this respect arose at the time when the pension authority refused to renew a woman's right to a survivor's pension after her deceased father for a period which fell after the end of the calendar month in which the woman completed statutory 25 years.
Supreme Court seven Judges of the Chamber of Labour and Social Insurance on 25 September This year, he adopted a resolution on the signature of the act III UZP 6/19, in which it clearly indicates how to read postgraduate studies in the sense of Article 68(2) Act of 17 December 1998 on the pensions and pensions of the Social Insurance Fund 2018, item 1270 as amended
The district court, which dealt with the appeal case of a woman, changed the decision of the Social Insurance Institution and thus granted a woman the right to a family pension for a further period.
The basis for such a decision was the following factual situation, according to which a woman from the day 23 May 2008 she received a family pension from her dead father. As a consequence, she was obliged to submit annual certificates to the pension authority confirming that she continued her education in higher education.
According to Article 68(2) Pensions and Pensions Act of the Social Insurance Fund, due to the continuation of education, the family pension is to be completed 25 years of age, except that if a child reached age 25 years in the last year of study, in which case the term of the family pension shall be extended until the end of the academic year.
In this state of affairs, a woman before reaching 25 she graduated undergraduate, then started postgraduate studies, which were planned to end in first half 2017. During postgraduate studies, the woman reached her age 25 years.
Unlike the Social Insurance Institution, the district court held that ‘(...) the collection of postgraduate education does not constitute a legal obstacle to the effective application by the person interested in extending the right to a family pension after reaching 25 years of age.
So if the listener completes his postgraduate studies 25 a year of age on the last year of postgraduate studies, it shall have the right to continue to collect a family pension until the completion of those studies, but no later than the end of the year of study."
From the judgment of the District Court, the appeal was lodged by the Social Insurance Institution, standing still in the position that the payment of the insured family pension for a further period after completion of the 25 years of age. The Court of Appeal, examining the matter, took a similar position as the District Court.
The appeal court’s ruling was rejected by the pension authority which brought the cassation action to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examining the cassation action raised a number of doubts as to the interpretation of the rules governing the acquisition or extension of the right to a family pension.
The particular doubts of the Supreme Court concerned the understanding of the concept of “last year of study”. For this reason, the Supreme Court has deferred its ruling and referred to the enlarged composition of the Supreme Court for the purpose of resolving the question of jurisdiction as follows:
"Or the person who achieved 25 years of age, being at the last year of postgraduate studies, the right to family pension is extended until the end of this year of study (Article 68(2) Act of 17 December 1998 on pensions from the Social Insurance Fund; uniform text: Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1270 as amended)?".
The Supreme Court, in its seven-member composition, answered the question in the affirmative, indicating that the provisions of social security law in a manner corresponding to the pension authorities define the concept of ‘studies’.
According to the Supreme Court, this means that the form of school education referred to as ‘postgraduate studies’, which, within the meaning of the rules governing the system of higher education, is not regarded as ‘studies’, entitles the child to receive a survivor’s pension in accordance with the same principles as the conduct of ‘ordinary’ studies, thus the Supreme Court confirmed unequivocally that the person who achieved 25 years of age, being on the last year of postgraduate studies, the right to family pension is extended until the end of that year of study.
Written by Nikol Małaszewska-Dąbrowska
Manager at the Legal Department. From 2011 It provides advice to leading companies from various sectors of the economy. He has extensive experience in conducting comprehensive projects in the field of national and international law. It participates in legal and tax reviews conducted to identify risks. He is also the author of numerous articles on tax issues, published in the industry press.