In the case pending before the Olsztyn District Court, the entrepreneur appealed against the decision of the Social Insurance Institution, which denied him the right to a parking benefit because it did not occur 15% a decrease in the revenue from non-agricultural business activity compared to the month preceding the month of the application for parking service.
The entrepreneur (branch: fitness) did not gain any income in both months (in other words, in each of these months the income was 0 PLN).
The Olsztyn District Court noted that in the present case a non-literary interpretation is important Article 15zq Act on Special Solutions for Prevention, Prevention and Combating COVID-19, other infectious diseases and the resulting crisis situations (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1842) what a reasonable interpretation, referring to the effect to be achieved by that provision.
The Court of First Instance, in interpreting the rules applicable in the present case, indicated that the implementing rules which prohibited the party to the business and prevented entrepreneurs from obtaining revenue should also be taken into account.
As a result, he changed the decision of the pension authority and granted the right to a parking benefit to the entrepreneur.
This issue has already been highlighted by the SME Ombudsman, who, in his request from 15 April 2020 for legal clarifications, he pointed out that traders who ‘in the month preceding the submission of the parking application did not obtain any revenue should not be deprived of the right to grant and payment of the benefit’.
The ruling of the Olsztyn District Court shall be appealed to the parties.