The aim of the article is to present the positions of the jurisprudence on the impact of the "error of the authority" in issuing a decision on the pension provision of officers performing "service for a totalitarian state" on the possibility of reopening the proceedings and obtaining compensation for the benefit. The main thesis of the article, formed on the basis of an analysis of the positions of the case law, boils down to the statement that the concept of "error of the authority" is understood in the case law in a non-uniform way, and directly affects the possibility of effective application for compensation of the benefit from before its unjustified reduction. An analysis of the issue allows us to conclude that the reopening of the proceedings as a result of an "error of the authority" should constitute a sufficient basis for compensating the applicant's performance from before its unjustified reduction. At the same time, there is no development of a uniform position of jurisprudence, including at the level of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. It seems reasonable to take the position that the very reopening of the proceedings as a result of the occurrence of an error of the authority forces the assumption that the error occurred, and thus there are prerequisites for compensation of the performance from before the application for reopening of the proceedings, of course in a situation where the applicant was entitled to this benefit before the date of filing the application for reopening.

This study aims to show the evolution of the pension entitlement in the jurisprudence of functionaries performing "service for the totalitarian state" after the introduction of controversial changes in 2017. The main thesis of the article, created on the basis of the presented position of the judicature, boils down to the statement that the abolition of retirement privileges of people taking up activity in the security apparatus of the People's Republic of Poland does not apply top-down to all beneficiaries. The analysis of the issue allows us to conclude that in the light of a democratic state ruled by law, the criterion of "service to a totalitarian state" should be determined on the basis of all the circumstances of the case of a given beneficiary, his individual acts and functions performed by him in order to finally recognize whether he violated his or her fundamental rights. And human freedom, and thus whether there are grounds for lowering the collected retirement benefits. The factual findings and interpretations presented in the information obtained from the Institute of National Remembrance as to the course of the service provided by the recipient do not de facto bind the court which has jurisdiction to consider the case on the basis of all the evidence gathered in the case.

The subject of the article is an analysis of the legal situation of people born in 1953 (especially women) who took advantage of the possibility of early retirement (after submitting the application before 2013), through the prism of the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of March 6, 2019 (file ref. No. P 20/16). The controversy resolved by the Constitutional Tribunal concerned the legitimacy of reducing the new old-age pension after the end of the statutory retirement age by de facto early retirement benefits already received. The aforementioned judgment changed in favor of the insured the method of calculating the new old-age pension after reaching the general age. Nevertheless, on this level, doubts and discrepancies arose as to the attitudes and legitimacy of revoking decisions based on unconstitutional provisions in the field of social insurance. The article discusses possible solutions that could be taken by the insured born in 1953 until unfavorable retirement decisions were eliminated from the legal system in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal. Moreover, the solutions introduced in the Pension Act, which comply with the aforementioned judgment of the Tribunal, were indicated.