1. The lack of an advance payment for the cost of the newspaper advertisement prevents the case from being given further course.
2. According to the wording of Article 177 § 1(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may suspend the proceedings ex officio if, as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders within the prescribed period, the case cannot be given further course.

1. The failure to carry out the vacation caused the plaintiffs harm within the meaning of Article 445 of the Civil Code and Article 50 of the Law on Tourist Events and Related Travel Services.
2. The amount of compensation demanded by the plaintiffs was excessive, as it exceeded the costs that the plaintiffs had incurred to purchase the trip.
3. In determining the amount of compensation, the Court relied on the so-called Frankfurt Table. This document does not have the value of a legal act in the Polish legal order, but it is generally accepted to use the rates established therein in determining the amount of benefits.

1. Reparation of the damage by the person deriving the benefit can be made both by restoring the previous state of affairs and by paying a sum of money. In any case, however, the upper limit of this person’s liability is the value of the gained benefit, which is to be valued according to the state at the time of its attainment and at the prices on the date of judgment (argument from Article 363 § 2 of the Civil Code). Such a limitation of liability follows from the wording of Article 422 of the Civil Code, which imposes liability only on the one who, after the tort, obtained a benefit from it. Thus, if someone helped the perpetrator after committing the tort, but did so gratuitously and did not gain any benefit from it, he will not be liable for damages.
2. Immediately it should be pointed out, the subsidiary nature of the evidence itself from the testimony of class members, treated in this aspect like the plaintiff, and the lack of “disciplinary” provisions in the situation of refusal to testify or answer individual questions.
3. The limit of the defendant’s liability to individual persons is the amount of money actually received at the time of the loan agreements, and therefore without taking into account the amounts paid by the borrowers for the tax on civil law transactions.
4. Evaluating the actions of the defendant, aimed first at securing its own claim and then at obtaining satisfaction of its own claim at the expense of other creditors with a much weaker position than that of the defendant, should be assessed as an abuse of subjective right.
5. In favor of married members of the group, the awarded amounts were awarded jointly, in accordance with the case law on claims asserted by persons in the regime of marital joint property.

1. The provisions of Article 5 of the Class Action Law do not contain “separate provisions” on the principles of reimbursement of litigation costs, and therefore it is impossible to oblige the defendant under them to reimburse the plaintiff for litigation costs so significantly exceeding the amount of the minimum rates of attorney and legal counsel fees. The possible adoption of a different concept would have to result in a violation of the principle of equality of parties, because if the suit was dismissed, the defendant would remain entitled to reimbursement of the costs of legal representation only in the amount resulting from the applicable minimum rates of fees for the activities of attorneys and legal advisers.

1. The defendant’s objections to class membership should focus on demonstrating that a specific person cannot obtain class membership status. The allegations should indicate that the claim of a specific person does not exhibit the characteristics of a specific group, or that the claim of a specific person(s) does not exhibit a factual connection with the claims of other persons, or that the claim of a specific person is not of the same type as the group claim. Importantly, however, the defendant’s claims, in accordance with generally applicable procedural rules, must be duly demonstrated by the submission of relevant evidence.
2. Necessary co-participation occurs in a situation where the claim for determining the invalidity of the contract is the subject of the lawsuit, and then the participation of all borrowers is required. Since the claim to determine the invalidity of a legal act is an indivisible claim in this regard, all borrowers should appear in the case. In the present case, the claim concerns the determination of the defendant’s liability for the use of prohibited provisions in the contract. The fact of establishing that such provisions are in the contract will not affect the situation of the other borrowers. This circumstance will not deprive them of the opportunity to bring their own action. The same applies to those who have been denied participation in the group by the Court and remain co-borrowers as to those who are members in the group.

1. The view that the ranking of the claims of class members into subgroups is opposed by the nature of these claims: the fact that they are due to co-owners and are related to their shares in co-ownership should be considered unconvincing. Such unification is not explicitly prohibited by the provisions of the Law on the Investigation of Claims in Group Proceedings.
2. A prerequisite for the recognition of a claim as a consumer protection claim is that the consumer seeks protection in relations with a professional entity (entrepreneur). Thus, the existence of a consumer-entrepreneur relationship is necessary. In addition, in order to speak of a claim for protection, an additional element is also necessary, because intentionally the legislator used the term “consumer protection claims” and not the term “consumer claims”.

1. Given the nature and purpose of the proceedings, which are conducted under the provisions of the Act of December 17, 2009 on the enforcement of claims in group proceedings, it is unnecessary to make findings beyond the facts (facts) common to all members of the group. In particular, it is superfluous to establish facts individualizing the factual and legal situation of each group member separately. Since the premise determining the effective commencement of proceedings under the said procedure is the fact that the parties in the substantive legal sense (members of the group) are pursuing claims of a single type, based on the same or the same factual basis, everything that goes beyond the indicated iunctim is not within the limits of the examination of the case set by the purpose of the cited law (its ratio legis).

1. The subject matter of the dispute in a class proceeding is the sum of the individual claims of individual plaintiffs – members of the class, of one type, based on identical factual and legal grounds.
2. The legitimacy of conducting a trial under the group procedure is decided by a separate decision.

Court of Appeals in Łódź, 1st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding judge: SSA Małgorzata Stanek (spr.)

Judges:                SSA Dorota Ochalska-Gola, SSA Joanna Walentkiewicz-Witkowska

having recognized on March 17, 2021 in Łódź, at a hearing, a case brought by W. S. as a representative of a group in group proceedings, consisting of: [data of 28 group members] against the State Treasury – Mazovian Governor, the State Water Management Company Wody Polskie, the Mazowieckie Voivodeship, the Plock District for determination

as a result of the appeal of the respondents State Treasury – Mazovian Governor, State Water Management Wody Polskie and Mazowieckie Voivodeship against the judgment of the District Court in Plock dated April 23, 2018, ref. no. I C 863/12

As well as the plaintiff’s complaint against the decision on legal costs contained in paragraph 4 of the said judgment

1. In the case of proceedings initiated prior to the date of entry into force of the Law of April 7, 2017 on amendments to certain laws to facilitate the enforcement of claims – the validity of the decisions to hear the case in group proceedings does not preclude the Supreme Court from reviewing whether the claims sought can actually be asserted in these proceedings; such review is not prevented by Article 10a of the Acts of the Supreme Court – as this normalization did not take effect until June 1, 2017, and pursuant to Article 13 of the Act of April 7, 2017 amending certain laws to facilitate the enforcement of claims, it applies to proceedings initiated from the date of entry into force of the said Act.
2. The homogeneity of the claims asserted in group proceedings and their reliance on the same or the same factual basis is evidenced by the very content of the demand and the concurrence or identity of the facts indicated in support of it; for Article 1(1) of the A.d.r.p.g. refers to a procedural claim, not a claim under substantive law.