The Supreme Court in the Civil Chamber, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           Dariusz Dończyk, Supreme Court Judge

Judges:                            Grzegorz Misiurek, Supreme Court Judge;

Karol Weitz, Supreme Court Judge (Judge – Rapporteur)

having examined at a hearing in the Civil Chamber on 6^th June 2023, the appeals in cassation of the Municipality of […] and the Poviat of […] in the case brought by K. K. – representative of a group of residents: [data of 133 persons]

The Regional Court in Szczecin, 1^st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           Barbara Smolska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Agnieszka Skrzypiec, Regional Court Judge;

Tomasz Cegłowski, District Court Judge (delegated)

having examined on 7^th December 2020 in S. at a session in camera the case brought by B. D. – representative of the group in group proceedings against the Housing Cooperative (…) in S. for payment

The Regional Court in Szczecin, 1^st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:               Tomasz Cegłowski, District Court Judge (delegated)

having recognized on 29^th September 2020 in S. at a session in camera the case brought by B. D. and others against the Housing Cooperative (…) with its registered office in S. group proceedings regarding the request of P. M., Regional Court Judge, for exclusion from consideration of the case

The Regional Court in Poznań, 1^st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:             Katarzyna Jelewska-Sterczała, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 31^st August 2021 in Poznań at a session in camera the case brought by [data of 31 persons] against (…) joint-stock company with its registered office in P. for determination

The Regional Court in Poznań, 1^st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           Katarzyna Jelewska-Sterczała, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Urszula Jabłońska-Maciaszczyk, Regional Court Judge;

Agnieszka Wieczorek, Regional Court Judge

having recognized on 24^th November 2020 in Poznań at a hearing the case brought by J. P. against (…) Joint-Stock Company with its registered office in (…) for determination

1. The decision of the court of first instance as to the composition of the group issued in group proceedings may be complained to the court of second instance (Article 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure in conjunction with Article 24 Section 1of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings).
2. In a situation where a given appeal is addressed to a specific court as competent to hear it (court ad quem) through the court that issued the appealed ruling (court a quo), the legal issue may be presented to the Supreme Court only by the court to which the appeal is addressed (court ad quem). This may not be the court through which the appeal is brought (court a quo).
3. The court through which the complaint is filed does not have jurisdiction to rule on the admissibility of the complaint filed in connection with the rule adopted as of 7^th November 2019 that the court through which the complaint is filed only transfers the case file to the court of second instance (new wording of Article 371 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 395 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
4. In a situation where the act allows a complaint without indicating which court has jurisdiction to hear it, it should be heard by the court of second instance, as this is still a model solution in civil proceedings. The assumption that the cases of complaint provided for by the act, for which a different composition of the court issuing the complained decision is competent to recognize, should be qualified as deviations from the model construction of the complaint expressed in Article 394 in conjunction with Articles 395-397 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and not a separate type of appeal.

1. Claims of group members shall be based on the same legal basis if they derive from the issuance of the same normative acts and from the same omissions of the defendant.
2. In order to establish the membership of a member in a group, probability is sufficient.
3. Group proceedings, in which the demand for the “determination of liability” of the defendant is formulated, have the character of a special autonomous proceeding. The autonomy of this proceeding is determined primarily by the separate legal regime of the group proceeding, as well as its purpose and legal functions, as it is intended to conclude with a decision that constitutes a specific prejudication for the resolution of future disputes involving a group of persons in the relevant individual court proceedings or as a result of the conclusion of appropriate settlements between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
4. In group proceedings individual circumstances of each group member are not examined, as these will be evaluated in possible subsequent individual trials. The issuance of a determining judgment in these proceedings concerning a large group of people is aimed only at determining the defendant’s liability for a specific event. If, on the other hand, there are individual proceedings in which the verdict issued under Article 2 Section 3 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings will be a prejudgment, it is only in these proceedings that the individual circumstances will be examined.
5. An action to establish the liability of the defendant in a case for a monetary claim arising out of a tort constituting a single event (Article 2 Section 3 in conjunction with Article 1 Sections 1 and 2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings) is also permissible in group proceedings when the premise of the occurrence of the damage and its amount depends on the individual factual circumstances of the individual members of the group.
6. The diversity of individual factual circumstances peculiar to individual group members (i.e., related to the occurrence of the damage itself, the exact mechanism of its occurrence and its magnitude) cannot constitute a reason for refusing to hear a lawsuit in group proceedings.

The Regional Court in Opole, 1^st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           Beata Hetmańczyk, Regional Court Judge

Jurors:                            Bogusław Kamiński, Regional Court Juror;

Izabela Bogusz, Regional Court Juror

having examined at a hearing on 24^th May 2021 in Opole the case brought by [data of 19 persons] against (…) LLC with its registered office in Opole for payment

The Regional Court in Opole, 1^st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:                Beata Hetmańczyk, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 6^th April 2022 in Opole at a session in camera the case brought by A.C. – representative of the group and [data of 18 persons] against (…) LLC with its registered office in Opole for payment

The Regional Court in Opole, 1^st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge: Beata Hetmańczyk, Regional Court Judge

having recognized on 4^th November 2021 in Opole at a session in camera the case brought by [data of 19 persons] against (…) LLC with its registered office in Opole for payment