Month: October 2023

The Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the Constitutional Tribunal (decision of 8 July 2014, K 7/13) and the Supreme Court (resolution of 10 December 2015, III UZP 14/15) that the employer-paid business trip accommodation is an employee’s benefit. Such a benefit is considered to be income from the employment relationship, which is subject to PIT. Therefore, employers must withhold and make advance tax payments on such income. – Małgorzata Bielańska comments for Rzeczpospolita.

Article here.

Carrying out the digitalisation is primarily dictated by the formal requirements established by legal acts for particular legal transactions to be valid and effective. Digitalisation cannot lead to a situation in which the performance of these acts becomes easier and feasible by means of distance communication, but at the same time makes them invalid or ineffective under the law. – Bartosz Wszeborowski and Anna Kencel for Contact Online.

The article is avialible here. 

In our opinion, the provision does not apply to disciplinary dismissals. Different interpretation would lead to a contradiction. Since the preliminary injunction is revoked in case the employee commits a serious breach of employment duties after granting the injunction, there is no reason why it would be granted when the breach is committed earlier. – Paweł Sych comments for Business Insider.

The article in Polish is avialible here. 

The exact scope and nature of the detected irregularities in the Polish visa process is not publicly known, so it is difficult to assess the consequences for foreigners and their Polish employers. Certainly, some irregularities may have severe legal ramifications, even if the affected visa process took place long before the scandal broke out. Possible irregularities in the visa procedure may result in criminal liability for the foreigner as well as for their employer, and a visa annulment – a sudden loss of the right of stay and legality of employment. – Tomasz Rogala comments for Rzeczpospolita.

The article in Polish is avialible here. 

In ZUS’ opinion, making goods and services available at lower prices than retail, that the employer purchases for this purpose is different than making services that fall within the scope of employer’s business available to the employees. The latter does not fall within the scope of the exemption from the contributions because, as ZUS argues, the benefits do not meet the conditions set out in the legislation. Limiting the application of the exemption is not justified by the legislation, and it is difficult to agree with ZUS. Moreover, the Supreme Court does not see such grounds and has repeatedly indicated that goods and services that are offered by the employer and do not have to be purchased from a third party should be covered by the exemption. (Supreme Court judgement of 27 November 2018, ref. no. I UK 319/17) – Sandra Szybak-Bizacka comments for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

How far can employers go in dictating employee appearance, including clothes, hairstyle, tattoos or make-up? And what if an employee’s gender identity expressed in appearance does not match their employer’s expectations? – Karolina Kanclerz comments for kobieta.rp.pl

The article in Polish is avialible here. 

The guidelines of the EU Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems determine that cross-border remote working that happens only occasionally and for a limited time generally falls under Article 12 of Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems. Therefore, it should be treated as a temporary secondment of a worker to another country. As a result, for the entire period of such cross-border remote working, the employee remains covered by the insurance system of the country where they usually work, and the insurance institution of that country should issue an A1 certificate to confirm this. – Tomasz Rogala comments for the Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

The article in Polish is avialible here. 

Last week the German government announced its decision to introduce temporary border controls on the border with Poland and the Czech Republic.

Introduction of the border controls is not equivalent to closing the Polish-German border and does not impose any limitations on the right to cross the border by persons holding appropriate documents. In particular, foreigners whose passports entitle them to visa-free travel within the Schengen area, and foreigners with visas or residence permits recognized by Schengen countries, continue to have the right to cross the Polish-German border. They may only face practical inconveniences of border control.

However, in certain cases, travelers may face negative legal consequences when crossing the border from Poland to Germany, such as refusal of entry or declaration of illegality of stay. This is the case for persons who were not entitled to cross the border already under the existing rules (even though in practice they may have been able to travel due to lack of controls on the Schengen area internal borders) – e.g. foreigners staying in Poland solely on the basis of a stamp in their passport, confirming submission of a residence permit application (which authorizes stay in Poland, but not crossing the border) or on the basis of a residence right of extended beyond normal expiry date under provisions of certain special acts.

Therefore, before starting a trip that involves crossing the border between Poland and Germany, it is now particularly worth making sure that the documents one has carry the right to travel abroad.