Dismissal of a lawsuit against a law firm client in a commission refund case – a success for HWW Law Firm

Stages of the procedure

The HWW Law Firm successfully represented a client in a dispute with the Social Insurance Institution regarding the determination of her being subject to mandatory social insurance for employment. The case involved a decision by the Social Insurance Institution, in which the pension authority challenged the claim of the law firm’s pregnant client for payment of benefits. One of the main reasons cited was the short period between enrollment in labor insurance and our client’s claim for Social Security benefits.

HWW challenged the position of the pension authority, pointing to erroneous findings both in terms of the facts and the legal assessment made by the Social Insurance Institution. Indeed, the authority assumed that the application for insurance was a sham, and that the employment relationship was not actually carried out. Moreover, ZUS took the position that the client’s main goal was to obtain benefits from the social insurance system, which, according to the authority, was to preclude her from being covered by insurance.

The firm filed an appeal against the decision of the Social Insurance Institution to the Regional Court – Labor and Social Insurance Court, accusing the appealed decision of, among other things, failure by the authority to take all necessary steps to clarify the facts accurately and basing the decision on incomplete evidence. The appeal also pointed to a violation of the principle of equal treatment by public authorities, manifested in the Social Security Administration’s adoption of a narrative leading to the conclusion that the mere establishment of an employment relationship during pregnancy could constitute an attempt to defraud social security benefits.

After taking evidence, the Regional Court fully agreed with the arguments presented by the firm and amended the contested decision of the Social Insurance Institution, stating that the insured, as an employee, is subject to mandatory social insurance by virtue of her employment with the payer of contributions.

Legal argumentation of the law firm

The HWW Law Firm’s litigation strategy was based on consistently demonstrating that in the realities of the case there were all the elements characteristic of an actual employment relationship, while the findings made by the Social Insurance Institution were arbitrary in nature and unsupported by the accumulated evidence. In the course of the proceedings, the Firm focused on demonstrating the actual performance of work by the insured, emphasizing the existence of labor subordination and the performance of duties for and under the direction of the employer, as well as on challenging the automatism of the pension authority’s assumption that a short period of employment or the moment of registration for insurance could in itself prove the ostensibility of the employment relationship.

At the same time, the firm pointed out that the pension authority is not entitled to arbitrarily question the employment relationship. The assessment of social insurance coverage should be based on an objective analysis of the duties actually performed, and not on presumptions as to the motives of the parties. In particular, it noted the inconsistency of the contested Social Security decision with the position presented by the authority in official information materials published on its website.

The Law Firm argued that – according to the information made available by the Social Insurance Institution – the right to maternity benefit is granted regardless of the length of sickness insurance coverage, even in the case of coverage the day before childbirth. In the Law Firm’s opinion, the posting of this type of information by the pension authority falls within the scope of the principle of citizen’s trust in the state and the laws it enacts, and the informational activities of public administration bodies cannot lead to negative consequences for citizens acting on the basis of the communicated messages.

In addition, the Firm referred to doctrinal positions, pointing out that even if, according to the claims of the pension authority, the main motive for concluding an employment contract was to take advantage of social security benefits, this circumstance in itself does not constitute a violation of the law. The conclusion of an employment contract for such a purpose is within the limits of the permitted legal order and cannot be considered contrary to the principles of social intercourse, especially with regard to pregnant women, whose situation in the labor market is objectively more difficult. By contrast, a refusal to establish an employment relationship on the basis of gender or health status could expose the employer to charges of discrimination.

An important part of the argumentation was also to show that even in situations that raise doubts with the pension authority, the burden of proof cannot be shifted entirely to the insured. The law firm pointed out that the Social Security Administration had failed to present credible evidence proving that the insured’s employment contract had been concluded for a sham.

Effects of actions and protection of customer interests

As a result of HWW’s actions, the Court upheld the appeal in its entirety, changing the decision of the Social Security Administration and confirming the existence of a title to mandatory social insurance. This settlement provided the insured with full protection under the social security system, including the right to benefits that the Social Security Administration had originally denied.

The verdict in the present case proves that consistent and substantive argumentation makes it possible to successfully challenge even the far-reaching findings of the pension authority.

The importance of the case and its implications

The case is of significant practical importance for both the insured and contributors. The ruling confirms that the mere fact that the employment is disputed by the pension authority does not prejudge the absence of social insurance coverage, and that each case should be evaluated individually, taking into account the actual nature of the relationship linking the parties and the actual manner in which the work was performed.

The ruling underscores that the Social Security Administration is not entitled to substitute for the labor court in assessing the existence of an employment relationship, nor to formulate conclusions based solely on presumptions about the parties’ intentions. The proceedings of the pension authority should be based on a sound analysis of the totality of the facts, and not on schematic assumptions detached from the realities of the case.

The judgment in question is a signal for the practice of applying the law in social insurance cases – insurance protection cannot be arbitrarily limited, and the decisions of the pension authority are subject to full judicial review. A properly established and actually implemented employment relationship enjoys the protection of the social insurance system regardless of the circumstances surrounding its conclusion.

The law firm’s team responsible for handling the case

The HWW law firm’s litigation team, under the supervision of attorney Nicholas Heelt, MBA – Partner, was responsible for handling the case.