@ARTICLE{Michałowska-Maksimczyk2025:i8817,
	author="{Michałowska-Maksimczyk, Małgorzata}",
	title="{Glosa aprobująca do uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 10 grudnia 2024 r. o sygn. III UZP 3/24}",
	year="2025",
	type="artykuł naukowy",
	language="pl",
	journal="{Przegląd Prawa Administracyjnego}",
	issn="2545-2525",
	volume="10",
	pages="211--220",
	doi="10.17951/ppa.2025.10.211-220",
	url="https://journals.umcs.pl/ppa/article/view/19881",
	keywords="układ ratalny; ulga w spłacie zobowiązań; decyzja administracyjna; odwołanie od decyzji ZUS; ubezpieczenia społeczne; installment arrangement; debt repayment relief; administrative decision; appeal against ZUS decision; social insurance",
	abstract="{This approving commentary concerns the Polish Supreme Court’s resolution of 10 December 2024 (III UZP 3/24), which held that the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) is obliged to issue an administrative decision when refusing to grant an instalment plan for the payment of overdue social insurance contributions. The commentary aims to examine the legal and practical implications of the resolution, particularly in light of the common practice whereby ZUS merely issued informal letters instead of formal decisions, thus depriving entrepreneurs of the right to judicial review. The analysis focuses on the obligations of ZUS in situations where entrepreneurs apply for legal relief measures such as debt rescheduling, deferral of payment deadlines, or cancellation of social insurance liabilities. Using a doctrinal and systemic interpretation of the Social Insurance System Act and the Administrative Procedure Code, the commentary evaluates the Supreme Court’s reasoning as correct and consistent with constitutional principles, especially the right to a fair trial and the rule of law. The author argues that the ruling helps to eliminate legal uncertainty and contributes to greater transparency and consistency in ZUS practices. The commentary, written de lege lata, highlights the legal and institutional significance of ensuring access to justice for entrepreneurs and restoring predictability in administrative proceedings concerning public law obligations. It also emphasizes the broader systemic value of the Supreme Court’s interpretation in strengthening procedural safeguards for payers of social insurance contributions.}",
}