The enactment of a bill classified as urgent that aimed at increasing disability pension contributions paid by employers. K 7/12
The Act increasing disability pension contributions paid by employers is consistent with the Constitution.
At the hearing on 15 July 2013 at 9.00 a.m., the Constitutional Tribunal (full bench) considered an application, submitted by a group of Sejm Deputies, with regard to the enactment of a bill classified as urgent that aimed at increasing disability pension contributions paid by employers.
The Constitutional Tribunal adjudicated that:
1. the Act of 21 December 2011 amending the Act on the Social Insurance System is consistent with Article 123(1) of the Constitution;
2. Article 2 of the Act referred to in point 1 above is consistent with Article 2 of the Constitution.
Dissenting opinions were submitted by: Judge Maria Gintowt-Jankowicz and Judge Teresa Liszcz.
Introduced by the government, the challenged Act was a bill classified as urgent, and hence it was enacted in accordance with a special procedure. The said Act increased disability pension contributions from 6 % to 8 % of the basis of assessment. The said increase affected only employers. The applicants alleged that the challenged Act – being, in fact, a tax bill – was enacted in breach of the legislative procedure for bills classified as urgent (Article 123(1) of the Constitution) as well as in infringement of requirements concerning tax regulations (Article 2 of the Constitution).
The Constitutional Tribunal assumed that the fact whether a given bill constituted a tax bill was determined by the tax character of a public impost referred to in the bill. For a given bill to be a tax bill, a public impost mentioned therein must display all the characteristics of a tax. Terminology assumed by the legislator is irrelevant.
The Constitutional Tribunal stated that disability pension contributions paid by employers did not have the character of taxes – they were reciprocal payments, incurred for a specific purpose, and constituted the non-budgetary income of a public entity (the Social Insurance Fund). Taxes and disability pension contributions paid by employers were two separate legal institutions. Since disability pension contributions paid by employers were not taxes, then a bill which introduced changes in the amount of such contributions might not be regarded as a tax bill.
Therefore, the Constitutional Tribunal deemed that the challenged Act was consistent with Article 123(1) of the Constitution.
Moreover, the Constitutional Tribunal assumed that a disability pension contribution has the character of a non-tax public impost calculated and paid on a monthly basis. Consequently, in the context of such contributions, prohibition against changing annual taxes during the financial year and the protection of relevant interests in that respect did not apply.
Also, the Constitutional Tribunal stated that the challenged Act was assigned a 32-day adjustment period – appropriate period of vacatio legis – with regard to changes introduced in the law on public imposts.
Thus, the Constitutional Tribunal deemed that Article 2 of the challenged Act did not infringe Article 2 of the Constitution.
The hearing was presided over by the President of the Constitutional Tribunal, Judge Andrzej Rzepliński, and the Judge Rapporteur was Judge Andrzej Wróbel.
The judgment is final and its operative part shall be published in the Journal of Laws.