Court of Appeals in Krakow III Labor and Social Insurance Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge: SSA Dariusz Płaczek

having recognized on February 7, 2024 in Cracow at a closed session the case of the action of K. Ł. – the representative of the group against the Provincial Hospital (…) in K. for determination and payment as a result of the complaint of the Provincial Hospital (…) in K. against the decision of the District Court in Kielce V Department of Labor and Social Insurance of September 21, 2023, file V P 7/23 decides:

1. It follows from the wording of Articles 1 and 2 of the Law of December 17, 2009 on the assertion of claims in group proceedings that group proceedings should be understood as civil proceedings in cases in which claims of one type are asserted by at least 10 persons, based on the same or the same factual basis. Only claims for consumer protection, liability for damage caused by a dangerous product, and tort claims can be asserted in group proceedings, with the exception of claims for the protection of personal property.
2. Among the fundamental issues of the Law on the Investigation of Claims in Group Proceedings is undoubtedly its subject matter scope, which in turn boils down to two problems: 1) the prerequisites for group proceedings (Article 1(1)) and 2) the type of claims that can be asserted in group proceedings (Article 1(2)). In this regard, the prerequisites for group proceedings are the homogeneity of claims, the same or the same factual basis for the claims, and a certain minimum number of ten persons for whose benefit protection is sought. In addition, taking into account the content of Article 2, the prerequisite for the assertion of monetary claims is their unification within a group or subgroup.
3. The assessment of whether the prerequisites for the admissibility of group proceedings are met with respect to a particular case is made exclusively by the court during the first phase of the group proceedings – on its admissibility, known in the literature as the certification of group proceedings.
4. According to the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is not required to indicate the legal basis of the claim, and can only limit himself to stating the circumstances determining the demand. This is because the choice of an adequate legal standard is up to the court. It is no different in group proceedings, with the proviso that the plaintiff must be aware of the limitation contained in Article 1(2) of the Act. It results in the fact that in this procedure, the Court’s assessment will be limited only to the normative standards listed in Article 1(2) of the Law. As a result, the Court should dismiss the claim if the prerequisites of Article 417 of the Civil Code have not been fulfilled. (or other provisions of Title VI of the Civil Code), even if even the amount claimed could be awarded under an alternative legal basis (other than those listed in Article 1(2) of the Law). This effect means that compliance with the condition of Article 1(2) of the Law will already occur if a party claims in a lawsuit that it is pursuing a claim derived from a tort. What matters, therefore, is the plaintiff’s declaration itself, and whether or not this assessment is correct is irrelevant.
5. The verification procedure under Article 10(1) of the Law must be based on the declaration in the lawsuit. This means that the rejection of a class action is possible only if the initiating party does not refer to any of the legal grounds indicated in Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Law. In other cases, the case should be referred to the merits, with the proviso that it will focus attention only on the legal grounds listed in the aforementioned provision.
6. The court, when deciding on the admissibility of the consideration of the case in class proceedings, does not examine whether the defendant actually committed behavior that meets the characteristics of a tort within the meaning of the Civil Code, and thus whether the claims asserted in the lawsuit are a consequence of the defendant’s culpable behavior, but only checks whether the premise in question was indicated in the lawsuit. Leaning into the issue of the validity of the plaintiff’s allegations, as well as the defendant’s arguments, occurs only at the stage of substantive examination of the lawsuit.

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

Presiding Judge: SSO Krzysztof Żyłka

having examined on June 28, 2023 in Katowice at a closed session the case of the claim of W. S. against (…) LLC in M. for payment decides:

1. Article 10(1) of the Law of December 17, 2009 on the Investigation of Claims in Group Proceedings stipulates that after hearing the parties, the court shall decide on the admissibility of group proceedings. The presentation of arguments by the parties in their pleadings meets the requirement of hearing the parties within the meaning of the cited provision.
2. The claim in group proceedings should be considered a procedural demand, which is an element of the action, and its specification is related to the issue of the division of actions into: actions for benefits, for determining the existence or non-existence of a right or legal relationship, and for the shaping of a right or legal relationship. Thus, the prerequisite for the admissibility of a class action is that all persons covered by the class action request legal protection in the same form. It is important that the condition for the assertion of claims in class proceedings is that they are of one type. Monetary claims can undoubtedly be considered to be of one type. Non-monetary claims, on the other hand, will be of one type only if they relate to the requested course of action (behavior) of the defendant, i.e. if all members of the class demand a certain action or omission (of the same type) on the part of the defendant. Undoubtedly, therefore, claims of a single type would not be monetary and non-monetary claims asserted simultaneously (in a single group proceeding), or different non-monetary claims asserted simultaneously.
3. An action to establish the defendant’s liability is brought when monetary claims are not suitable for unification in amount, or when the determination of monetary benefits could be associated with undue hardship.
4. In a class action to establish the defendant’s liability, the plaintiff does not have to prove the occurrence of damage or the amount of damage to individual members of the class, if these are individual and not common circumstances, but must determine what is the damage resulting from the tort constituting the basis of the claim. In turn, it is the court’s duty to determine and assess whether the property damage so identified can be considered damage caused by the tort identified in the class action, and whether it is common to all class members.

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

Presiding Judge: SSR del. Marcin Ilków

Having recognized on May 16, 2022 in Opole at a closed session the case from the action of P. L., P. N., T. W., J. M., S. W. (1), S. W. (2), B. W., Z. S., S. S., R. S., D. K., E. L., B. N., A. W., E. M., E. W., K. S., M. S., M. K., A. P., A. O. v. (…) Sp. z o.o. of O. for payment decides:

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie III Wydział Cywilny w składzie:

Przewodniczący:           SSO Joanna Kruczkowska

Sędziowie:                     SSO Joanna Bitner, SSO Grzegorz Chmiel

po rozpoznaniu w dniu 9 marca 2017 r. w Warszawie sprawy z powództwa E. D. przeciwko (…) Bank (…) S.A w W. o zapłatę postanawia:

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

Presiding Judge:    SSO Joanna Kruczkowska

Judges:                    SSO Joanna Bitner, SSR Andrzej Lipiński

having examined on January 24, 2017, in Warsaw, at a closed session, in class action proceedings in the case brought by E. D. (group representative) against (…) Bank (…) S.A. with its registered office in W. for payment, hereby decides:

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

Presiding Judge:     SSO Joanna Kruczkowska

Judges:                     SSO Joanna Bitner, SSR Andrzej Lipiński

having examined in closed session on February 26, 2019, in Warsaw, the case brought by E. D. as representative of the group against (…) Bank (…) S.A. with its registered office in W. for payment, hereby decides:

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

Presiding Judge:    SSO Barbara Smolska (rep.)

Judges:                    SSO Agnieszka Skrzypiec, SSO Tomasz Cegłowski

having examined on July 19, 2023, in S., at a hearing, the case brought by B.D. – representative of the group in class action proceedings, composed of: subgroup one: W.B. and M.B., B.D., R.P. and T.P. subgroup two: E.S. and J.S., U.J. and G.J., U.P. and K.P.; subgroup three: E.W. and B.W., K.K. and D.S., L.M., T.P., J.W. and T.W.; subgroup four: D.K., A.F., A.M., A.Ł. and R.Ł. against the Housing Cooperative (…) in S. decides:

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk of October 10, 2022, ref. no.: V ACz 102/21, was corrected by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk of November 17, 2022, in such a way that in point 1. b), the words: “J. S. (point 104)” with the words: “J. S. (point 104)”.

1. Due to the fact that the subgroup was intended only for the standardization of monetary claims, the creation of subgroups for the pursuit of other claims should be considered inadmissible.
2. When issuing a decision on the composition of the group, i.e. granting a specific person the status of a group member, the court should compare the claim submitted by that person with the characteristics of the group for which the proceedings were initiated (Article 17 in conjunction with Article 1 of the Act on Collective Redress). Therefore, the claim of an individual should fall within the scope of the subject matter of the group claim, as defined in the decision to hear the case in group proceedings issued pursuant to Article 10(1) in conjunction with Article 1 of the Act on Collective Redress.
3. Within the limits provided for in Article 1(2) of the Act on Collective Redress, it is possible to pursue monetary claims (Article 2(1) of the Act on Collective Redress) and non-monetary claims (Article 2(2) of the Act on Collective Redress) in collective proceedings. Pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Act, limiting the action to a claim for liability is permissible “in cases involving monetary claims.” This provision applies to situations where the members of the group are essentially pursuing monetary claims against the defendant, but their consolidation, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the Class Action Act, is not possible, and therefore the scope of the court’s activity in class action proceedings must be limited to determining certain circumstances relevant to the monetary claims pursued. Therefore, both Article 2(1) and Article 2(3) of the Class Action Act use the identical term “in cases concerning monetary claims.”
4. The concept of “defendant’s liability” under Article 2(3) of the Class Action Act has a specific, autonomous meaning, different from that in Article 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as different from that in Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure, determined primarily by the purpose and functions of class action proceedings as special proceedings designed to facilitate and streamline the resolution of conflicts involving a large number of people.
5. A claim for a declaration (determination) of the non-existence of a specific contractual relationship does not constitute a claim for determination of liability referred to in Article 2(3) of the Act on Liability for Damages Caused by the Operation of Motor Vehicles, but such a claim is based on the provision contained in Article 1(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, according to which the Act applies to consumer protection claims also in other matters, as well as in the content of Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure in conjunction with Article 3851c.
6. The possibility of submitting a declaration of joining the group before the publication of the announcement of the initiation of group proceedings is admissible and legally effective.
7. The burden of proof of membership in the group always lies with its representative. The defendant, on the other hand, is responsible for proving facts that prevent and nullify the plaintiff’s claim, i.e., facts that justify the defendant’s allegations against the plaintiff.