Constitutional Court
16 May 2013
Facts
The Court, acting on requests from two groups of members of the parliament, investigated whether a provision of the Law on State Social Insurance, according to which persons who receive income from author's contracts or from sports or performing activities are compulsorily insured with state social insurance, as well as a provision according to which self-employed persons are compulsorily insured for the purpose of receiving maternity, paternity and sick leave benefits are in line with the Constitution, an amendment to the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance, which reduced the amounts of maternity (paternity) allowances, and provisions of the Law on Health Insurance, which introduced the obligation to pay compulsory health insurance contributions for certain persons, including those earning income from author's contracts or from sports or performing activities, and set the timing of the entry into force and termination of compulsory health insurance.
Complaint
The applicants challenged the relevant provisions basing the request on principle of equal treatment, the principle of the rule of law and the State's duty to take care of the health of the population.
Court's ruling
The imposition of the obligation to pay State social insurance contributions on the economically active part of the population capable of contributing to the establishment of the social security system gives effect to the imperatives of social solidarity, social cohesion and justice, and guarantees the right to social security guaranteed by the Constitution, and the Court therefore did not consider that the provisions on compulsory insurance were unconstitutional.
The legislator may, taking into account various factors, including the means of society and the State, modify the legal regulation of the relationship between financial support, including the amount of such support, during the period of leave to bring up and educate children, and the provisions of the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance were also found not to be contrary to the Constitution.
However, the Court held that the provision of the Law on Health Insurance setting different time limits for the entry into force of health insurance for different groups of persons is unconstitutional as it violates the principle of equality.
The Court stressed that the State's obligation to provide free healthcare must be assessed in the light of the State's financial possibilities. It clarified that, although the State is obliged to provide free healthcare, the scope of this right may be limited.