Gross procedural errors by the pension authority are expected to broadly allow the court to overturn the decision and remand the case for reconsideration. The Sejm has passed an amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, which also regulates the procedure for resolving cases not substantively resolved by the authority.
For many of us, a dispute with the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) is primarily associated with the question of whether benefits are due and in what amounts, or whether contributions were correctly determined. However, before the case goes to court, the pension authority must conduct proceedings in accordance with applicable regulations. What happens if the authority commits serious errors at this stage?
The legislator addressed this problem by preparing a draft amendment to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely Article 477¹⁴, specifying the possible decisions of the court examining an appeal against a decision of the pension authority.
Wider scope of control
The current Article 477¹⁴ § 2¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the annulment of a decision issued in gross violation of procedure if it imposes an obligation on the insured person, determines its amount, or reduces the benefit. The amendment abandons this calculation.
A court will be able to overturn a decision issued in flagrant violation of the provisions of the pension authority's procedure, with the exception of a decision determining the right to benefits for the first time. The scope of application of this provision is therefore to be defined more broadly, while maintaining a clear exclusion regarding the first determination of the right to benefits.
The change in the wording of the court's authority is also important. The current provision states that the court "annuls" the decision. The new wording provides that the court "may annul" it and remand the case for reconsideration. This means that annulment will not automatically result from a finding of a flagrant violation of procedure.
The authority will receive instructions on how to proceed further
When remanding a case, the court will indicate the circumstances that the pension authority must consider when reconsidering it. This approach can help eliminate specific procedural flaws and reduce the risk of reissuing a decision tainted with the same error.
The annulment of a decision does not mean that the benefit is granted
For the insured, a favorable procedural resolution does not necessarily mean the end of the dispute. Once the decision is overturned and the case is remitted, the body will review it. The outcome of this procedure is not a foregone conclusion.
The new regulations may therefore provide a more effective response to defective proceedings, but they do not guarantee a faster payment of benefits or consideration of the appealing party's position. The key will be to assess whether a new procedure before the authority or a substantive court decision is appropriate in a given case.
Currently, the bill was submitted to the Senate on October 9th. The final version of the bill may still change, but the announced changes may positively impact proceedings against the pension authority and streamline the process.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
October 15, 2026 .
Author / Editor of the series:
