{"id":157,"date":"2024-09-20T00:51:02","date_gmt":"2024-09-20T00:51:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jwk.mbmh.eu\/important-judgment-of-the-constitutional-court\/"},"modified":"2024-10-08T17:08:26","modified_gmt":"2024-10-08T17:08:26","slug":"important-judgment-of-the-constitutional-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/important-judgment-of-the-constitutional-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Important judgment of the Constitutional Court"},"content":{"rendered":"&#13;\n<p>The Constitutional Court said: &#8220;Article 70 \u00a7 6 of the law referred to in item 1   [Ordynacji podatkowej], as in effect from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2002, is incompatible with Article 64(2) of the Constitution.&#8221; The ruling was issued more than 10 years ago: October 8, 2013. (SK 40\/12). ZUS data provided to PAP shows the estimated financial impact of introducing a mechanism for recalculating benefits for these people, but already without deducting the pension base by the sum of the amounts of earlier pensions collected.<br\/>The Department&#8217;s estimates were developed for the previous leadership of the Family Ministry, headed by Minister Marlena Mal\u0105g, and therefore do not take into account this year&#8217;s benefit indexation, for example.<br\/>ZUS data provided to PAP shows the estimated financial impact of introducing a mechanism for recalculating benefits for these people, but no longer reducing the pension base by the sum of the amounts of early pensions collected.<br\/>The Department&#8217;s estimates were developed for the previous leadership of the Family Ministry, headed by Minister Marlena Mal\u0105g, and therefore do not take into account this year&#8217;s benefit adjustments, for example.<\/p>&#13;\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Constitutional Court said: &#8220;Article 70 \u00a7 6 of the law cited in item 1 [Ordynacji podatkowej], as in effect from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2002, is incompatible with Article 64(2) of the Constitution.&#8221; The judgment was issued more than 10 years ago: October 8, 2013. (SK 40\/12). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":39,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[14,13,12],"class_list":["post-157","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bez-kategorii","tag-constitutional-court","tag-ct","tag-lawtax"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":158,"href":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157\/revisions\/158"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jwk-law.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}