In its decision of 24 February 2026 (I USK 661/26), the Supreme Court once again addressed a key issue at the intersection of labour law and social security: when an employment contract actually constitutes a right to social security, and when it is only an apparent act.
The case concerned the refusal to accept a cassation appeal in proceedings in which the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) questioned the existence of an employment relationship. The insured argued that the courts had erroneously deemed the employment contract to be a sham, thus depriving him of his social security entitlement.
The key thesis of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that what is decisive is not the content of the employment contract or the formal registration for insurance, but the actual performance of work under the conditions specified in Article 22 § 1 of the Labor Code.
This means that the existence of an employment relationship is determined by the actual performance of work, not by the contract itself, payment of remuneration, or filing with the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS). In such cases, it is crucial to determine whether the legal relationship truly constitutes an employment contract under the provisions of the Code.
A sham contract does not provide insurance protection
The court clearly confirmed the established case law according to which: an employment contract that is not actually performed and was concluded only "for appearances" does not produce any consequences in the field of social security.
Even if a contract has been formally signed and registered with the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS), this does not create an insurance entitlement if there is no actual performance of employee duties.
The Importance of Evidence and Fact Findings
The court also emphasized that the factual findings of the courts on the merits are of key importance in such cases, including: whether the work was actually performed, whether there was employee subordination, whether the employer actually benefited from the employee’s work, and whether there was evidence of work being performed.
The absence of such elements may lead to the conclusion that an employment relationship has not actually been established.
Taking into account the above ruling, it should be emphasized that ZUS relies on the actual performance of work and not on a contract concluded for the sake of appearances in order to establish the right to ZUS benefits.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of May 29, 2026.
Author / Editor of the series:
