Decision of the Court of Appeals in Łódź 1st Civil Division of 9th June 2020
I ACa 80/19
The Court of Appeals in Łódź 1st Civil Division with the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Małgorzata Dzięciołowska, Court of Appeals Judge (rapporteur)
Judges: Jacek Pasikowski, Court of Appeals Judge
Jarosław Pawlak, Regional Court Judge (delegated)
having examined on 9th June 2020 in Łódź at the hearing in camera the group action filed by (…) in W. against (…) Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in W., for the establishment of the defendant’s liability,
on the plaintiff’s motion of 29th May 2020 for security, filed after the issuance of a judgement of the Court of Appeals in Łódź of 9th March 2020, in the case with file ref. no I ACa 80/19, regarding the plaintiff’s complaint against the judgement of the Regional Court in Łódź of 19th October 2018, file ref. no I C 519/16,
Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 20th Commercial Division of 29th May 2020
XX GC 1004/12
The Regional Court in Warsaw 20th Commercial Division with the following ruling bench:
Judge: Łukasz Oleksiuk, District Court Judge (delegated)
having examined on 29th May 2020 in Warsaw at a hearing in camera the case filed by (…) sp. z o.o. with its registered office in W. against (…) Limited (…) sp. z o.o. in W., against (…) (…) in N. (C.) for the protection of copyrights and related rights in group proceedings,
Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 4th Civil Division of 1st April 2020
IV C 1348/19
The Regional Court in Warsaw 4th Civil Division with the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Karol Smaga, Regional Court Judge (rapporteur)
Judges: Agnieszka Derejczyk, Regional Court Judge
Tomasz Jaskłowski, Regional Court Judge
having examined on 1st April 2020 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by the Municipal Consumer Ombudsman in O. against Bank (…) S.A. with its registered office in W. for payment,
/on the subject of the composition of the group/
Decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 5th Civil Division of 10th March 2020
V ACz 97/20
- Claims based on the same factual basis are claims, the factual basis of which are the same or claims whose relevant factual circumstances are common. The abovementioned “commonality” should be interpreted widely. The requirement of the same or equal factual basis of the claims does not mean that the factual basis of the lawsuit consists of identical circumstances, but their relevant similarity is sufficient.
- The essence of group proceedings is the gathering of many entities’ claims in one proceeding. Such a cumulation is justified due to the economics of the proceedings and the pointlessness of conducting many similar cases. Group proceedings are to be a special procedural institution to resolve more and more frequent conflicts which a larger number of people are involved in. The function of the proceedings is, among others, increasing the efficiency of examining cases regarding the same legal and factual issues, by including the assessment of these issues in one proceeding. This allows the courts to be relieved from the repeated and time-consuming judgement of analogous issues constituting the premises for many claims submitted by individual group members and eliminates the risk of incompatible judicature on these issues.
- The object of the group proceedings aimed at the establishment of the defendant’s liability, are the only circumstances common for all group members, not individual circumstances concerning particular group members, which will be examined in subsequent individual proceedings.
Judgement of the Court of Appeals in Łódź 1st Civil Division of 9th March 2020
I ACa 80/19
- The assumption that the mere fact that a judge incurred an obligation resulting from the credit agreement of various nature, e.g. in PLN, by definition means that they are not impartial and are obligated to recuse themselves from examining any pending case between the borrowers and the bank, leads to consequences that are contrary to the public interest and detrimental for the justice system.
- The concept of the defendant’s liability under Article 2.3 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings has a specific autonomous meaning, other than in Article 318 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, as well as in Article 189 of CCP, which is determined by the purpose and functions of the group proceedings as specific proceedings that should ease and improve the resolving of conflicts.
- The obligation to repay the amount of a used credit in specified repayment terms is the borrowers’ main performance. A valorization clause affects the amount of such performance. Stipulating such a clause in a contract cannot be deemed to be an action falling within the freedom of contract under Article 353(1) of Polish Civil Code, but gross exceeding the limits of that freedom.
- The moment relevant to decide whether a particular person is a consumer is the moment of performance of the legal act.
- The valorization or indexation clause is a main contractual provision. Unlike the currency spread clause, that clause is the essentialia negoti of the examined contracts.
- A gross violation of the consumer’s interests should be understood as an unjustified disproportion, to the consumer’s disadvantage, between their rights and obligations in a specific contractual relationship. Acting contrary to good practices (in the scope of shaping the content of the contractual relationship) means that the second party (consumer’s contractual partner) creates such contractual clauses which harm the contractual balance between the parties to the relationship.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of 27th February 2020
III CZP 57/19
The Supreme Court with the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Roman Trzaskowski, Supreme Court Judge
Judges: Monika Koba, Supreme Court Judges (rapporteur)
Krzysztof Pietrzykowski, Supreme Court Judge
in the case filed by Z. R. acting as a representative of the group consisting of: (…) against the State Treasury – the State Water Enterprise ‘Wody Polskie’ in Warsaw [Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie w Warszawie] and the (…) Voivodeship for the establishment of the defendants’ liability,
having examined at the hearing at the Civil Chamber on 27th February 2020 the legal issue presented by the Court of Appeals in (…) in the decision of 28th June 2019, file ref. no. I ACa (…),
Judgement of the Regional Court in Warsaw 3rd Civil Division of 17th February 2020
III C 603/15
The Regional Court in Warsaw 3rd Civil Division with the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Joanna Kruczkowska, Regional Court Judge
Judges: Joanna Bitner, Regional Court Judge
Andrzej Lipiński, District Court Judge (delegated)
having examined on 16th January 2020 in Warsaw at the hearing the case filed by A. R. – group representative against (…) Związek (…) in W., for payment:
Decision of the Regional Court in Katowice 1st Civil Division of 6th February 2020
I C 998/18
- It should be emphasized that the main purpose of the division into groups or subgroups is the standardization of claims and the easing of seeking pecuniary claims. However, single claim cannot be standardized. The standardization of claims is possible only if there are at least two claims. Moreover, creating a subgroup composed of two people which jointly represent only one claim is not admissible.
Decision of the Court of Appeals in Wroclaw 1st Civil Division of 27th December 2019
I ACz 2056/19
- At the stage of the proceedings regarding the admissibility of the group proceedings, the court only examines whether the premises for that admissibility such as: the homogeneity of the group members’ claims, similarity or identicalness of the factual basis of the group members’ claims, numerosity of the group, standardization of the pecuniary claims and the ability of the claims to be examined in group proceedings – are fulfilled.
- The requirement of a similar or identical factual basis does not mean that all the facts of each claim should be similar or identical. Group proceedings fulfill their functions if the group members’ claims are ‘typical’ or ‘representative’. Obviously, slight differences may appear between the individual basis of claims, but it is necessary for the relevant factual circumstances to justify the demand common for all claims.
- It is deemed to be sufficient that basic circumstances of group members’ cases, which may determine the very principle of the defendant’s liability, are similar.
- The jurisprudence emphasizes that a class action is treated as a whole and it is not possible to reject the claim as to some group members and to hear the case as to the others.
Decision of the Supreme Court of 19th December 2019
I CSK 395/19
- Article 391 para 2 sentence 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, under which in the case of the withdrawal of the appeal, the court of the second instance shall terminate appellate proceedings and award the costs in the same amount as in the case of the withdrawal of a lawsuit, applies accordingly in the cassation proceedings.