On the calculation of state social insurance contributions from the income of a person insured by more than one insurer
By its ruling of 7 July 2022, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provision of paragraph 9 (wording of 11 December 2018) of Article 10 of the Law on State Social Insurance under which the state social insurance contributions paid for an insured person (employee) who had an employment relationship or a relationship that corresponded in substance to an employment relationship and who was insured by more than one insurer had to be calculated for each insurer separately from the maximum amounts established by law where the part of the income exceeding those maximum amounts was subject to the contribution rate of 0 per cent.
In this ruling, the Constitutional Court noted that, under the Constitution, the legislature has the discretion to regulate social security relationships; by establishing the obligation of employed persons (who carry out active economic activity) to pay state social insurance contributions, the legislature may associate the payment of those contributions with the respective maximum amount (established by law) of received income, i.e. to establish that social insurance contributions are not calculated from the part of income exceeding a certain amount. When establishing such a legal regulation, the legislature must pay regard to the Constitution, among others, the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and the equality of the rights of persons.
The Constitutional Court also noted that, according to the impugned legal regulation, the rate of 0 per cent of social security contributions had to apply to the part of the income of an employee insured by a single insurer exceeding the maximum amounts established by law, but with respect to the part of income of an employee insured by more than one insurer where that part exceeded the same maximum amounts the rate of 0 per cent of social security contributions had to apply only if the income comprising and exceeding the said maximum amounts was received from each insurer separately, and only with respect to the income that was received from a separate insurer (separate insurers) exceeding the maximum amounts established in the law.
In assessing the impugned legal regulation, the Constitutional Court held that the legislature consolidated, in the impugned provision, a different, less favourable legal regulation for the calculation of social insurance contributions in relation to employees insured by more than one insurer compared to that established with respect to employees insured by a single insurer in the absence of differences (between the said categories of persons in the same (similar) situation) of such a nature and scope that would objectively justify the unequal treatment, thus disregarded the principle of the equality of the rights of persons, which is enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution, and violated the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.