The Court of Appeal in Kraków, 3^rd Labor and Social Insurance Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:             Dariusz Płaczek, Judge of the Court of Appeal

having recognized on 7^th February 2024 in Kraków at a session in camera the case brought by 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 Regional Court in Kielce, 5^th Labor and Social Insurance Division, dated 21^st September 2023, file V P 7/23 hereby decides to:

1. It follows from the wording of Articles 1 and 2 of the Act of 17^th December 2009 on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings that group proceedings should be understood as civil proceedings in cases in which claims of one type are pursued by at least 10 persons, based on the same or similar factual basis. Only claims for consumer protection, liability for damage caused by a dangerous product, and tort claims can be pursued in group proceedings, with the exception of claims for the protection of personal interests.
2. Among the fundamental issues of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings is undoubtedly its subject matter scope, which in turn comes down to two problems: 1) the prerequisites for group proceedings (Article 1 Sections 1) and 2) the type of claims that can be pursued in group proceedings (Article 1 Section 2). In this regard, the prerequisites for group proceedings are: the homogeneity of claims, the same or similar factual basis for the claims, and a certain minimum number of ten persons for whose protection is sought. In addition, taking into account the content of Article 2, the prerequisite for the pursuit 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 norm is up to the court. It is no different in group proceedings, with the provision that the plaintiff must be aware of the limitation contained in Article 1 Section2 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 Section 2 of the Act. 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 Section 2 of the Act). This effect means that compliance with the condition of Article 1 Section 2 of the Act 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 it is irrelevant whether or not this assessment is correct.
5. The verification procedure under Article 10 Section 1 of the Act must be based on the declaration contained in the lawsuit. This means that the rejection of a group lawsuit is possible only if the initiating party does not refer to any of the legal grounds indicated in Article 1 Section 2 of the Act. In other cases, the case should be referred for substantive consideration, with the reservation 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 group 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 pursued 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.

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

Presiding Judge:                 Krzysztof Żyłka, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 28^th June 2023 in Katowice at a session in camera the case brought by W. S. against (…) Limited Liability Company in M. for payment hereby decides to:

1. Article 10 Section 1 of the Act of 17^th December 2009 on the Pursuing 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 legal briefs 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 group proceedings is that all persons covered by the statement of claim request legal protection in the same form. It is important that the condition for pursuing claims in group 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 group demand a certain action or omission (of the same type) on the part of the defendant. Undoubtedly, therefore, claims of one type would not be monetary and non-monetary claims pursued simultaneously (in a single group proceeding), or different non-monetary claims pursued 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 the amount of monetary benefits could be associated with undue hardship.
4. In group proceedings for the establishment of the defendant’s liability, the plaintiff does not have to prove the occurrence of damage or the amount of damage of individual members of the group, 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 group statement of claim, and whether it is common to all group members.

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

Presiding Judge:                    Marcin Ilków, District Court Judge (delegated)

having recognized on 16^th May 2022 in Opole at a session in camera, the case brought by 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 hereby decides to:

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

Presiding Judge:            Joanna Kruczkowska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Joanna Bitner, Regional Court Judge;

Grzegorz Chmiel, Regional Court Judge

having recognized on 9^th March 2017, in Warsaw, the case brought by E. D. against (…) Bank (…) S.A. in W. for payment, hereby decides to:

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

Presiding Judge:           Joanna Kruczkowska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                           Joanna Bitner, Regional Court Judge;

Andrzej Lipiński, District Court Judge (delegated)

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

The Regional Court in Warsaw, 3^rd Civil Division in the following composition:

Presiding Judge:           SSO Joanna Kruczkowska

Judges:                           SSO Joanna Bitner,

SSR Andrzej Lipiński

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

The Regional Court in Szczecin, 1^st Civil Division in the following composition

Presiding Judge:           SSO Barbara Smolska (rep.)

Judges:                           SSO Agnieszka Skrzypiec,

SSO Tomasz Cegłowski

having examined at a hearing on the 19^th 2023 in S., the case brought by B.D. – the representative of the group in group 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 the 10^th October 2022, ref. no.: V ACz 102/21 was corrected by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk of the 17^th November 2022 in such a way that in point 1. b), the words: “J. S. (point 104)” have been replaced 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 (the Article 17 in conjunction with the Article 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings). 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 the Article 10(1) in conjunction with the Article 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings.
3. Within the limits provided for in the Article 1(2) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, it is possible to pursue monetary claims (the Article 2(1) of the Act) and non-monetary claims (the Article 2(2) of the Act) in group proceedings. Pursuant to the Article 2(3) of the Act, limiting the action to a claim for a declaration of 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 the Article 2(1) of the Act, is not possible and therefore the scope of the court’s activity in group proceedings must be limited to determining certain circumstances relevant to the monetary claims pursued. Therefore, both the Article 2(1) and the Article 2(3) of the Act use the identical term “in cases concerning monetary claims.”
4. The concept of “defendant’s liability” under the Article 2(3) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings has a specific, autonomous meaning, different than undern the Article 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as different than under the Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure, determined primarily by the purpose and functions of group proceedings as special proceedings designed to facilitate and streamline the resolution of conflicts involving a large number of individuals.
5. A claim for a declaration of the non-existence of a specific contractual relationship does not constitute a claim for declaration of liability referred to in the 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 the 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 the Article 385¹ of the Civil Code
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.