On March 19th 2024 the Poznań Appellate Court ruled in favor of the Law Firm’s Client in a dispute against the Social Insurance Institution over health insurance premiums. The Appellate Court dismissed in its entirety the Social Insurance Institution’s appeal against an earlier ruling by the District Court in Poznań, which overturned a decision stating that the Firm’s Client was a debtor for unpaid health insurance premiums. The Social Insurance Institution was obliged to refund the costs of the proceedings in both instances. The judgment issued is final.
In the appealed decision, the Social Insurance Institution stated that the Law Firm’s Client was a debtor on account of unpaid health insurance premiums in connection with the fact of simultaneously conducting so-called one-person economic activity on the basis of an entry in the CEIDG and having the status of a partner in a limited partnership – which, according to the Social Insurance Institution, constituted in itself a separate, independent title of being subject to health insurance.
In the course of the proceedings, however, the lawyers of the litigation department of the law firm Babiaczyk Skrocki and Partners demonstrated that the position of the Social Insurance Institution was wrong, and that the appealed decision lacked factual and legal basis. This is because it was clear from the evidence presented that the above-mentioned limited partnership, despite its formal incorporation and registration, had never commenced any business activity, had never made any offer or entered into any agreement, and – most importantly – had never earned any income. Thus, in light of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and common courts cited in the course of the trial, the fact of being a partner in such a company never became a title to health insurance.
In such a factual and legal state, in view of the Law Firm’s Client’s undisputed proper payment of health insurance premiums for the conduct of so-called one-person economic activity on the basis of an entry in the CEIDG, there was never any basis for establishing any arrears – which resulted in the legally binding revocation of the unfavorable decision.