Compliance with the law is essential to art. 84 para. 3 of the Act of 13 October 1998. Social Insurance System (Journal of Laws of 2015. Pos. 121 as amended.) To the extent permitted a decision ordering the return of rehabilitation benefit, regardless of the passage of time – so decided yesterday Constitutional Court.
Judges in the grounds of the judgment indicated that ZUS as a specialized public body should be carried out without undue delay its monitoring task in the field of social security. It has since right tools to achieve this goal. At the same time art. 84 para. 3 of the Act not only violates the principle of legal stability of the insured, but favors indolence pension body, giving him too far-reaching powers. And that is why it is necessary for a time limit to claim a refund of unduly paid benefits. It turns out that the Ministry of Labour as early as March is preparing an amendment to the same rules. According to his plans, the decision on the reimbursement of unduly paid benefits will be able to be delivered within 5 years from the end of the period for which he collected last support.
The difficult thing
the reason for the judgment of the Tribunal was the legal question of the Warsaw regional court. The judges have considered the appeal of the insured, the Social Insurance Institution until 2014. Challenged the right to provide rehabilitation for the three months of 1998. It ordered her to return the money collected, together with interest, raising the reasons for the decision, that in this period concerned was and collects a salary. The woman, however, refused to return the money. While examining her appeal against the decision of the Social Insurance Institution has raised concerns about art. 17 paragraph. 1 in connection with art. 22 of the Act of 25 June 1999. On cash benefits from social insurance in case of illness and maternity (i.e., OJ 2014. Pos. 121 as amended.). On the basis of a person who was working at the time of sickness benefit or rehabilitation benefit, must return the money received – even in situations where previously informed the authorities about the lack of entitlement to the payment (ie, for example. Took a job). But the real trap for the insured became art. 84 para. 3 of the Act of 13 October 1998. The social insurance system (i.e., Journal of Laws of 2015. Pos. 121 as amended.), Which is also subject to assessment by the court. Thus, under this provision enjoyed by ZUS right to enforce undue taken to provide for the last three years – from the date of receipt of the last payment – there is no statute of limitations.
The moment of truth
ZUS meticulously reaches such duties. Although the principal amount is sometimes symbolic, it’s interest – not.
Frequently discovery by ZUS wrongly occurred when the person concerned applied for a pension. He must be noted all the periods of contributory and non-contributory. When covered, the authority demanded repayment of wrongly paid money, even if it is the office made a mistake.
Another source of problems of the insured was an amendment to the Act on cash benefits from social insurance in case of sickness and maternity , in force since 1991., recognizing sick time as contributory. Enables you to identify periods of illness and work of the past 25 years.
Sick by analogy
– Judgment TK concerns the recovery of wrongly paid rehabilitation services. Such narrow results from the scope of the legal question. The Court, in considering it, because he was bound by its contents. What, however, does not change the fact that people forced by ZUS to the recovery of unduly paid sickness benefit from years ago can during court proceedings to rely on that judgment by analogy. Since, in the case of the provision of rehabilitation ZUS could not indefinitely claim a refund benefit, the same should be the case for other benefits – explains Andrzej DGP Radzisława, legal adviser of the Office of Legal LexConsulting.pl.
In the specific case, which concerned the decision of the Constitutional tribunal, asking the court will decide on the basis of a judgment. – As for the other entities, they must wait for its publication in the Official Gazette – explains Pawel Pelc, legal counsel.
At the same time, you can file a complaint about the resumption of court proceedings within three months from the the date of entry into force of the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal. On the other hand, in cases concluded by a final decision on which it has not been brought before a court of law, the time limit for bringing an action for revision is one month from the entry into force of the judgment TK.
It changes
– the reason for the problems of the insured was that ZUS began to count only barred from issuing its decision. This is because the funds from the unduly collected benefits shall expire 10 years from the date on which the decision setting those charges – explains Andrzej Strębski, an independent expert insurance.
This is Article. 84 para. 7 of the Act system. If you combine this with a recognized unconstitutional art. 84 para. 3, it turns out that the insured were virtually hopeless situation. Moreover, the legislator did not specify the time of receiving the last of these benefits and the date by which the authority may issue this decision. The case law of the Supreme Court was also beneficial to the Social Insurance Institution. The judges recognized the fact that the body indefinitely is entitled to demand repayment of wrongly paid benefits. The basis is the decision establishing the receivable and obliging them to return. And such a law ZUS is not barred (the Resolution of the Supreme Court of 16 May 2012., Ref. Act III UZP 1/12).
– It has long been demand changes to the limitation of unduly paid benefits were counted from the last payment, and not from the date when ZUS will overpayment. Pension body had no interest to hurry. At the end, and so the insured has paid for everything, because he was charged interest, – says Dorota Wolicka, vice president of the Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers. At the same time it adds that the same should be given all the unduly paid benefit. Some experts would like to legal changes went even a step further. – Much more ZUS would check to the work, who pays what if the legislator has introduced the principle that the insured does not have to pay the money in the event of an error lying on the side of the body. Otherwise, continue to be practiced dragging cases and look for the way the load of the insured costs of the lack of professionalism of the pension body – adds Andrzej Strębski.
CASE LAW
TK Judgment of 6 July 2015., Ref. No. P 131/15.
Recommended product: 2016 Benefits & gt; & gt;
No comments:
Post a Comment