1. In the case of proceedings initiated prior to the date of entry into force of the Law of 7^th April 2017 on Amendments to Certain Acts to Facilitate Debt Recovery – 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 pursued in these proceedings; such review is not prevented by Article 10a of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings – as this regulation took effect on 1^st June 2017, and pursuant to Article 13 of the Act of 7^th April 2017 on Amendments to Certain Acts to Facilitate Debt Recovery, it applies to proceedings initiated from the date of entry into force of the said Act.
2. The homogeneity of the claims pursued in group proceedings and their reliance on the same or similar factual basis is evidenced by the very content of the demand and the concurrence or identicality of the facts indicated in support of it; Article 1 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings refers to a procedural claim, not a claim under substantive law.

The Supreme Court composed of:

Presiding judge:             Krzysztof Strzelczyk, Supreme Court Judge

Judges:                            Władysław Pawlak, Supreme Court Judge;

Roman Trzaskowski, Supreme Court Judge (Judge – Rapporteur)

in the case brought by D. D. as a representative of the group against V. AG in W. for payment, after hearing at a session in camera in the Civil Chamber on 12^th May 2022, the plaintiff’s appeal in cassation against the decision of the Court of Appeal in […] dated 2^nd October 2018, ref. no. VI ACz […],

revokes the appealed decision and remands the case to the Court of Appeal 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.

The Court of Appeal in Poznań, 1^st Civil and Intellectual Property Division, composed of:

Presiding judge:            Mariola Głowacka, Judge of the Court of Appeal

Judges:                            Małgorzata Kaźmierczak, Judge of the Court of Appeal;

Jerzy Geisler, Judge of the Court of Appeal

having examined on 22^nd March 2021 in Poznań at a session in camera the case brought by J. P. against (…) Investment Fund Society Joint-Stock Company with its registered office in P. for determination as a result of the respondent’s complaint against the decision of the Regional Court in Poznań of 8^th December 2020 ref. no. I C 1987/19 decides to:

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

Presiding judge:                    Katarzyna Jelewska – Sterczała, Regional Courte Judge

having recognized on 17^th February 2023 in Poznań in group proceedings at a session in camera the case brought by J. P. – representative of the Group against (…) Investment Fund Society Joint-Stock Company with its registered office in P. for determination of the issue concerning the composition of the Group decides to:

determine the composition of the Group, which includes 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..

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

Presiding judge:             Barbara Smolska, Regional Courte Judge

Judges:                            Agnieszka Skrzypiec, Regional Courte Judge;

Tomasz Cegłowski, Regional Courte Judge

having recognized on 20^th March 2023 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 decides to:

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 Act 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 decision 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 Act on Pursuing 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 group 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 pursued 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 group member, on the other hand, has substantive standing, so a group member has only such rights as are expressly provided for in the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings.

The Regional Court of Warsaw, 3^rd Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           Joanna Kruczkowska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Joanna Bitner, Regional Court Judge;

Andrzej Lipinski, District Court Judge (delegated)

having recognized on 20^th April 2015, in Warsaw, at a hearing, the case brought by the group 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 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. An assessment of whether the formulation of the claim pursued 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 group proceedings, the plaintiff is also not required to demonstrate a legal interest if the lawsuit is limited to a demand for determination when pursuing monetary claims. The plaintiff is relieved of this obligation by the content of Article 2 Section 3 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings.
3. The requirement to indicate the principles for unifying the amount of claims is a formal requirement of a group lawsuit, 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 group 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 group lawsuit, the court is obliged to assess them formally. In particular, the court should verify whether the prerequisites for bringing a group lawsuit provided for in Articles 1 and 2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group 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.