Decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 1st Civil Division of 21st September 2015
I ACz 1648/15

1. There are no grounds for identifying the factual basis of a claim within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings with all circumstances which require to be established in order to rule in a judgement on the legitimacy of the claim; it is also incorrect to find that the facts raised by the defendant in the course of the proceedings constitute the basis of the action.
2. At the stage pertaining to the examination of the admissibility of group proceedings, anticipating the meaning of certain factual circumstances relevant for the assessment of the action’s legitimacy is not allowed.
3. Within the meaning of Article 1.2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, the category of claims for the protection of consumers undoubtedly includes pecuniary claims pursued with connection with using abusive clauses by the entrepreneur in their dealing with consumers.
4. The charge of participation of individuals not having the status of a consumer is of no significance at the stage of assessment of the admissibility of the group proceedings. Under Article 17.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, whether given individuals were consumers at the conclusion of the mortgage loan agreements should be settled at the stage of establishing the group’s composition whereas not at the stage of assessment of admissibility of the group proceedings which may be initiated already with participation of ten group members complying with the conditions of participation in such proceedings.
5. Even in the cases where a demand pertains to awarding standardised amounts due to members of a group (subgroup), in assessing whether the claim is based on the same factual basis, it is not required for all the factual circumstances, without exception, substantiating the claims pursued by each member of a group, also those pertaining to the scope of the damage, to be identical. Hence, the group proceedings may not be limited only to cases where group members pursue identical claims arising from identical circumstances. It is assumed that it is sufficient if the basic circumstances capable of settling the very principle of defendant’s liability are the same for the group’s members.
6. A judgement ruling on the legitimacy of class action for establishment a defendant’s liability, based only on statements common for all the group members does not constitute a preliminary judgement mentioned in Article 318 of the CCP. This is because it rules on the principle of the claim formulated with omitting individual circumstances which are not subject to examination in group proceedings, but in separate lawsuits initiated by individual group members after the demand for the establishment, examined in a class action was allowed with effect for such members.
7. The binding force of a judgement on establishment a defendant’s liability towards group members based only on common circumstances is limited to such circumstances. The issuing of such a judgement does not have to prejudge on all prerequisites of the defendant’s liability.