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.

The Supreme Court composed of:

Presiding judge:    SSN Krzysztof Strzelczyk

Judges:                   SSN Władysław Pawlak, SSN Roman Trzaskowski (rapporteur)

in an action brought by D. D. as a representative of the class against V. AG in W. for payment, after hearing in closed session in the Civil Chamber on May 12, 2022, the plaintiff’s cassation complaint against the order of the Court of Appeals in […] dated October 2, 2018, ref. no. VI ACz […],

revokes the appealed order and remands the case to the Court of Appeals in […] for reconsideration and decision on the costs of the cassation proceedings.

1. Group proceedings in monetary claims are allowed only if the amount of the claim of each member of the group has been unified by equalizing the amount of the claim asserted by the members of the group or subgroup. Unification of the claims of members may take place in subgroups of at least 2 persons.
2. The Court shall decide on the admissibility of the group proceeding and dismiss the lawsuit if the case is not subject to examination in the group proceeding. Otherwise, the Court shall issue an order to hear the case in group proceedings.

Court of Appeals in Poznań I Civil Division and Intellectual Property in the following composition:

Presiding judge:    SSA Mariola Głowacka

Judges:                   SSA Małgorzata Kaźmierczak, SSA Jerzy Geisler

having examined on March 22, 2021 in Poznań at a closed session the case of the action of J. P. against (…) Towarzystwo Funduszy Inwestycyjnych Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in P. for determination as a result of the respondent’s complaint against the decision of the District Court in Poznań of December 8, 2020 ref. no. I C 1987/19 decides

District Court in Poznań, 1st Civil Division, in the following composition:

Presiding judge:      SSO Katarzyna Jelewska – Sterczała

Having recognized on February 17, 2023 in Poznań in group proceedings at a closed session the case of the claim of J. P. – representative of the Group against (…) Towarzystwo Funduszy Inwestycyjnych Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in P. for determination of the issue concerning the composition of the Group decides:

Determine the composition of the Group to include the following persons: B. K., G. P., M. W., A. W., J. Pł., A. C., E. N., D. O., B. D., S. M., S. B., S. M., P. C., E. C., B. B., S. B., P. M., J. K., M. K., A. W., A. S., J. G., R. D., J. S., D. M., D. K., J. M., M., J. M., A. S., D. B..

District Court in Szczecin, 1st Civil Division, composed of

Presiding judge:      SSO Barbara Smolska

Judges:                     SSO Agnieszka Skrzypiec, SSO Tomasz Cegłowski

Having recognized on March 20, 2023 in S. at a closed session the case from the claim of B.D. – representative of the group in group proceedings against the Housing Cooperative (…) in S. for payment decides:

1. The court’s decision on the admissibility of group proceedings is not discretionary. If a case meets the prerequisites for group proceedings (as specified in Article 1 of the Law on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings), the court may not refuse to hear the case in group proceedings.
2. The decision on determining the composition of the group is constitutive, and it is the decision that finally shapes the composition of the group in group proceedings. Once the order becomes final, the declaration of withdrawal from the group is ineffective. There follows the closure of the second stage of the group proceedings – that is, the so-called subjective stage.
3. The composition of the group is – according to Article 16 of the Law on Enforcement of Claims in Group Proceedings – subject to examination by the Court, and it is not possible to rely on the statements of the group representative and alleged members alone. The burden of proving group membership rests with the plaintiff (i.e., the class representative). In the case of monetary claims, mere assertion is insufficient, it is necessary for the representative to prove the composition of the group.
4. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure contained in Articles 227 – 315 apply to group proceedings, in terms of examining the status of the group. In group proceedings, it is necessary to prove the basis of the asserted claim of individual members of the group, so that it can be established that they are members.
5. The members of the group are not entitled to stand trial, the sole standing is held by the plaintiff, who is the representative of the group. A class member, on the other hand, has substantive standing, so a class member has only such rights as are expressly provided for in the Law on the Investigation of Claims in Group Proceedings.

The District Court of Warsaw, III Civil Division, in the following composition:

Presiding Judge: SSO Joanna Kruczkowska

Judges: SSO Joanna Bitner, SSR del. Andrzej Lipinski

Having recognized on April 20, 2015, in Warsaw, at a hearing, the case from the action of: class representative E. D. against (…) Bank (…) S.A. in W. for payment,

1. Each of the spouses appearing in the various subgroups may be considered a single person as referred to in Article 1(1) of the Law on the Pursuit of Claims in Group Proceedings. An assessment of whether the formulation of the claim asserted by each spouse corresponds to the content of the actual claims to which they are entitled cannot affect the determination of the number of persons appearing in the proceedings for the purpose of determining the admissibility of group proceedings, and should be considered by the Court when ruling on the merits of the case.
2. In class proceedings, the plaintiff is also not required to demonstrate a legal interest if the suit is limited to a demand for determination when asserting monetary claims. The plaintiff is relieved of this obligation by the content of Article 2(3) of the Law on Pursuing Claims in Class Proceedings.
3. The requirement to indicate the principles for unifying the amount of claims is a formal requirement of a class action suit, and not a prerequisite for the admissibility of such proceedings. Any failure to comply with this requirement (in the event of failure to comply with the obligation to remove the deficiencies of the lawsuit) should therefore result not in the rejection of the lawsuit, but in the return of the lawsuit.
4. Failure to attach the class representative’s contract with the attorney to the lawsuit can only be qualified as a formal deficiency of the lawsuit, the failure to remove which results in the return of the lawsuit, and not in the rejection of the lawsuit.

1. At this stage of the examination of the prerequisites for the admissibility of a class action, the court is obliged to assess them formally. In particular, the court should verify whether the prerequisites for bringing a class action provided for in Articles 1 and 2 of the Law on Pursuing Claims in Class Proceedings have been met.
2. According to well-established jurisprudence, claims based on the same factual basis are claims that have the same factual basis (premise sensu stricto) or claims whose material facts are common (premise sensu largo). Of course, there may be slight differences between individual bases of claims, but it is essential that the material facts justify the demand common to all claims.