New judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court on the distinction between a contract of mandate and a contract for specific work

Recently, two judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court have been published regarding the distinction between a contract of mandate and a contract for specific work.

Pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 4 March 2022, ref. no. II GSK 50/22, an agreement the subject of which is giving a lecture cannot be deemed to be a contract for a specific work. The fact that the lecture was tailored to the individual needs and abilities of the students and that the contract contains provisions on copyright is irrelevant. The SAC held that only exceptionally, giving a lecture can be qualified as a work, provided that the lecture can be attributed the features of a creation, and this condition is met only by a scientific lecture of a non-standard and unique nature.

In turn, in a judgement of 26 April 2022, ref. no. II GSK 299/22, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that an agreement the subject of which was the performance of a monograph publishing review meets the characteristics of a contract for specific work and is not subject to mandatory health insurance. The SAC pointed out that a publishing review, by its very nature, is creative, unique and refers to an individual person. The parties to the contract specifically and unambiguously defined the subject matter of the contract, the performance of which required independence and intellectual input.