The European Community allows citizens of Member States not only to travel freely, but also to undertake work and business activity in other EU countries. This may involve savings in social security costs for entrepreneurs.
According to the recent Supreme Court ruling, the actions of the Social Security Office were unfounded. According to the Court of First Instance, the annulment of the contract concluded outside Poland does not already fall within the competence of ZUS. In addition, the Court of First Instance confirmed that the person taking up employment in another State of the Union is subject to the social security legislation of that Member State in which the work is carried out.
In accordance with EU and national legislation, the person who is on the premises two The different Member States remain in employment and pursues economic activity, subject to compulsory social insurance solely for employment.
This means that a person employed on a local employment contract one from the Member States, at the same time conducting business activity in Poland, is subject to compulsory social insurance only in the country where he provides employment based on employment relations. It is therefore not obliged to pay social security contributions in Poland.
The abovementioned principle in practice may lead to significant savings for entrepreneurs in Poland, where the basic social security contribution is approx. 1,100 PLN.
This mechanism began to be used on a wider scale by Polish entrepreneurs, which raised doubts from ZUS. On the basis of such cases, ZUS questioned contracts concluded with foreign entities (employers), qualifying them as fictional contracts, concluded only to circumvent the law. The insured persons themselves were obliged to pay outstanding contributions, plus interest.
According to the recent Supreme Court ruling, the actions of the Social Security Office were unfounded. According to the Court of First Instance, the annulment of the contract concluded outside Poland does not already fall within the competence of ZUS. In addition, the Court of First Instance confirmed that the person taking up employment in another State of the Union is subject to the social security legislation of that Member State in which the work is carried out.
The facts in the case concerned a woman conducting an economic activity in Poland, who was at the same time employed 1/8 jobs in Slovakia. In the course of the procedure, the complainant was invited to submit additional documents confirming the fact that she was working in Slovakia, i.e. accommodation bills, travel tickets, etc.
In conclusion, the actions taken by Polish entrepreneurs to avoid the obligation to pay social security contributions are therefore not against the law.
Employment in another Member State even for a fraction of the term of office exempts from the obligation to pay social security contributions for economic activities carried out in Poland.
Even in the absence of documentation confirming the fact that the work is carried out for the foreign Employer, the Social Insurance Institution is not entitled to rule on the validity of the contract concluded.
Although this judgment seems to be of great benefit to entrepreneurs, it should be borne in mind that further practice of courts and ZUS may not be uniform. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that both the courts and the ZUS have the opportunity to request another Member State to investigate the case.