The Supreme Administrative Court annulled the court order in Poznań, rejecting an appeal against the fee imposed for the lack of compulsory civil liability insurance – the Ombudsman's Office transferred. As emphasized by RPO Marcin Wiącek, who intervened in this case, so far the courts rejected such complaints, considering that the Insurance Guarantee Fund “is not a public administration body”.
As reported, this week, the Supreme Administrative Court repealed the decision rejecting such an appeal and – after the complaint of the ROP Marcin Wiącka – he transferred one such case to be re -examined by the Provincial Administrative Court in Poznań.
Punishment for the lack of liability
“It is often the case that the lack of civil liability insurance is not related to the deliberate operation of the car owner, but arose accidentally, even as a result of an error – e.g. incorrect filling in print sent by the insurer – and lasted only one day; was associated with staying in the hospital or illness or error of the insurer, or misleading by the vehicle seller” – the RPO office indicated in the announcement informing about the decision on the decision. NSA.
The case concerned an appeal against the request of the Insurance Guarantee Fund (UFG) to pay a fee for the lack of civil liability insurance of motor vehicle owners. Such insurance is compulsory and penalties are imposed for overlooking the fee.
As the ombudsman's office noticed in the conclusion to RPO, citizens often complain not only on far -reaching automatism and rigor in imposing these penalties, but also to their amount. “
The spokesman reminded that these fees are “imposed in high amounts, because the indicator that UFG uses the minimum wage in this respect.” As the RPO pointed out, if the period without insurance lasted, for example, more than 14 days, then the fee for a passenger car in 2025 is PLN 9,330, and when it lasted only one day – PLN 1870.
The courts reject complaints
Meanwhile, administrative courts, to whom references to such UFG calls, usually refuse to deal with these cases and reject complaints. They recognize that UFG is not a public administration body, and thus does not issue resolutions of the challengeable to the administrative court.
It was similar in the matter to which the RPO joined. In September last year, the Poznań Provincial Administrative Court estimated that “UFG issues an enforceable title in an administrative enforcement procedure in the field of criminal enforcement of a cash fee in relation to entities violating the obligation to conclude a civil liability insurance contract”, but “does not issue administrative decisions regarding the imposition of a fee for failure to conclude the obligation to conclude a compulsory insurance contract.” Therefore, he rejected the woman's complaint to impose a fee.
As the RPO argued in the cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, such decisions of administrative courts mean, however, that the citizen is not able to free himself from the imposed fee “even in the face of the occurrence of force majeure, for which he did not conclude an insurance contract.”
“The inability to free themselves from the obligation to pay a penalty causes that citizens perceive her as a kind of trap, from which they cannot get out regardless of necessity,” said Wiącek.
The RPO intervenes in the case of penalties
He added that usually administrative courts in such cases show citizens the possibility of bringing an action to determine the fulfillment or non -existence of an obligation for insurance. “This action applies to the obligation of insurance, not the sanctions borne by the obligated person in the event of a violation of the obligation to have liability insurance. As part of it, the court is not able to withdraw from imposing a penalty when the obligation has not been fulfilled” – believes the RPO.
Therefore, as emphasized by Wiącek in a complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court, “civil liability insurance is public” and the fee imposed for its lack “should be seen as an administrative fine”. “In addition, the need to assume that UFG's call to the fee is an administrative decision, other considerations also speak. The need to guarantee the unit of the right to trial,” emphasized the RPO.
The decision of the Provincial Administrative Court in Poznań appealed against by the Polish -MONDAY in Poznań on March 13 in closed session. He has no justification for the Supreme Administrative Court's decision – the spokesperson's office informed.
Source of the main photo: Shutterstock