1. The examination of the case in the group proceedings is allowed only after cumulative satisfaction of the premises of such proceedings, including: homogeneity of the group members’ claims, equal or identical factual basis of the group members’ claims, number of the group members, standardization of pecuniary claims, subjective capacity of the claims to be examined in group proceedings.
2. The requirement of the same factual basis does not mean that all factual circumstances must be identical with respect to each member of the group, because always, even in the case of the same factual basis, there are individual circumstances which refer to particular group members. The factual basis of the claim consists in facts which substantiate the claimant’s demand, therefore, that basis must include facts primarily substantiating the legal relations which are the subject of the statement of claims.

1. Re-tendering by the defendant on the grounds of Article 15 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings a claim regarding membership of specific members of the group or subgroups, the same claims having been previously considered by the Court of Appeals following an appeal against the Regional Court’s decision on rejecting the action rendered as a result of these claims, which the Court of Appeals did not eventually deem legitimate, is entirely unjustified, due to which the said Court passed the case to be heard in group proceedigns.

1. A statement regarding acceding to the group is a formalized manifestation of the will to pursue a claim through a special court procedure.
2. The role of the representative is not limited to the physical delivery of the submitted statements, but to assess the statements and carry out their pre-selection in order to draw up a list of persons who have joined the group.
3. An examination of membership in a particular group of individuals is a secondary procedure to the examination of the admissibility of the proceedings, especially considering that the court examines the admissibility of group proceedings based on the circumstances of persons entitled from the beginning of the proceedings.
4. The procedural role of the representative of the group, corresponding to the plaintiff’s role in ‘ordinary’ civil proceedings, imposes the duty on him to apply due care for such a preparation of the procedural material, in particular in compiling of a list of persons joining the group, with the inclusion of the precise determination of membership of individual members to the group of members pursuing specific claims so that each of the group members can be assigned to a given claim, but also so each member of the group can raise their claims, taking the possibility of choosing these claims which are described in the lawsuit and in the press announcement, into account.
5. Pursuant to Article 130 CCP, in the case of discrepancies between the announcement and the statement of claims, the court should summon the group representative to explain the emergent doubts. The list of group members and their declarations on joining the group proceedings should be deemed as the pleadings.

1. The declaration on joining the group is a declaration of intent. The lack of the date on the document does not affect the validity and credibility of the declaration on joining the group.
2. The presence of non-significant dissimilarities between individual factual bases of claims of particular group members does not preclude recognition of the claims as based on the same factual basis.

1. The case may be examined in group proceedings if the following premises are fulfilled: at least 10 people pursuing one homogenous claim based on the same or similar factual basis and alternative inclusion of the object of the proceedings within the following categories: claims for the protection of consumers or claims for damage caused by hazardous products or claims for damage caused by a tort, save for claims for the protection of personal rights (Article 1 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings).
2. ’The same‘ factual basis of pursued claims exists when factual circumstances are identical and a legal protection is sought by participants of one event, thus a bond based on the unity of the damage-causing event occurs. Similar‘ (equal) factual basis means the similarity of particular established facts.
3. The essence of group proceedings is the commonality of demand which must be typical (common) for all claims and is based on the identical factual situation of the group members. non-significant dissimilarities may exist among individual grounds of the claims , but the significant factual circumstances should substantiate a demand which is common for all claims.
4. The literal wording of the provision indicates that for ascertaining the admissibility of the group proceedings it is sufficient if at least 10 people pursue homogenous claims based on the same factual basis. Whereas, ascertaining whether all persons who submitted declarations on joining the group may be its members – is the next stage of group proceedings, which pursuant to Article 17 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings ends with a decision on the group composition.
5. The term ’claim’ within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings (unlike Article 2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings) means the demand of the statement of claims. In consequence, the group proceedings are not limited only to action for performance.
6. The important dissimilarity between filing an action for establishment of liability under Article 189 CCP and an action under Article 2.3 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings ’for establishment of the defendant’s liability‘ is that the claimant is obligated to prove the legal interest if he pursues the claim under Article 189 CCP.
7. The defendant who files a motion for obligating the claimant to make a deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings, should make plausible, firstly, that the pursued claims against him is obviously unfounded or that the acceptance of the statement of claims is unlikely, therefore has the characteristics of litigiousness. Secondly, the defendant should make plausible that the lack of the deposit to secure the future claim for reimbursement of costs of the proceedings will make an execution of the costs from the opposite party impossible or significantly more difficult.

The Court of Appeals in Warsaw 1^st Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Jerzy Paszkowski, Court of Appeals Judge

Beata Byszewska, Court of Appeals Judge

Jolanta de Heij-Kaplińska, Court of Appeals Judge

having examined on 15^th December 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by (…) in O. against (…) S.A. with its registered office in W. for the establishment of the defendant’s liability, following the defendant’s complaint against the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw of 12^th August 2016, case file no. I C 1281/15, decides to:

reverse the contested decision and remitting the case to the Regional Court for rehearing, entrusting the Regional Court to decide on the costs of the complaint proceedings.

Non-final decision.

1. Admissibility of a legal course depends on the factual circumstances provided by claimant as a basis of the claim. It is not contingent upon the demonstration of the existence of the claim. Neither is it dependent on the defendant’s charges or the defence method selected thereby. Court proceedings should prove whether the assertions presented in the statement of claims find a legal basis in provisions of substantive law. The court assesses only the admissibility of group proceedings i.e. the circumstances which substantiate examination of the case in group proceedings.
2. A factual basis of the claims in group proceedings should be understood as the set of facts which substantiate Claimant’s claims in group proceedings. Claims may be based on the same or equal factual basis. Such claims should result from the same event or from similar events. When the same set of facts is the basis of rights and the parties to the proceedings are bound thereby, such a situation should be deemed as the same factual basis. In turn a set of analogical facts in the scope of a specific claim should be deemed as the equal factual basis.

The Regional Court in Warsaw 3^rd Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Joanna Kruczkowska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Joanna Bitner, Regional Court Judge, Grzegorz Chmiel, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 5^th December 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by K.K. as the representative of the group against the Housing Association (…) in W. for the payment of PLN 1,700,667.19 regarding the Claimant’s motion of 10^th November 2016 to complete or rectify the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw in the present case dated 28^th October 2016

hereby decides to:

1. rectify the obvious inaccuracy in the decision of 28^th October 2016 by putting (…) into point no. 1 subgroup I., 3^rd position, and designate the remaining members of the group with numbers accordingly;
2. discontinue the proceedings regarding the Claimant’s motion of 10^th November 2016 for completing or rectifying the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw dated 28^th October 2016.

Announcement on the commencement of group proceedings

Pursuant to the Polish Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, group proceedings were opened before the Regional Court, to the statement of claims of (…) Ltd in W. against (…) joint-stock company in W., file ref. no. XVI GC 352/15. (…) Ltd, as the representative of the group, for damages with statutory interest for each of the group members. The claimant indicated that she represented a group composed of insurance agents who pursue their claims arisen from the defendant’s activity being an advertising campaign conducted in 2008 which breached rules of fair competition by means of discouraging clients from using the services of insurance agents.

The Regional Court in Warsaw 20^th Commercial Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge: Maciej Kruszyński, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 17^th November 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera, the case filed by (…) limited liability company in W., against FS F. (…) in N. (Cyprus) for the protection of copyrights and related rights in group proceedings, following the claimant’s motion for an injunction