1. As a direct result of the provisions of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, if, from the circumstances of the case it follows that not all of the potential members of the group have already submitted declarations on joining the group, the court decides on the announcement on the commencement of group proceedings.
2. The announcement on the commencement of group proceedings shall inform about the factual basis of the claims being pursued. A potential group member shall determine whether the factual basis of the pursued claims are identical with or similar to the factual basis of their own claim.

1. It is to be noted that the goal of group proceedings, in terms of procedural economics, can be realized on the grounds of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure – in labor law cases with multiple claimants and when separate actions were merged into a single case on the basis of Article 219. Thus the legislator’s will to create a separate piece of legislation for cases of a particular type admissible under strictly determined conditions cannot be disregarded.
2. Considering whether the claims brought in a class action case are indeed homogeneous and whether they are based on the same or equal factual basis it is to be said that, if the Claimant had brought pecuniary claims but based on two separate legal bases and thus based on different factual and legal bases, such claims do not meet the condition of homogeneity.
3. A mere formal reference to the wording of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings does not meet the statutory requirements if the analysis of the substantiation of the statement of claims reveals that the claim clearly does not belong to any categories listed in Article 1 (2) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. What the court should bear in mind is not the legal basis invoked in the statement of claims, but the factual basis invoked by the Claimant as the basis of the claim. An action ’for payment’, without further specification of the nature of demanded pecuniary performance’, results in a necessity of assessing of the factual basis – whether the factual circumstances invoked by the Claimant substantiate the admissibility of a class action (consumer protection, hazardous product liability, tortious liability case).

1. The essence of group proceedings is the commonality manifested in the demand which must be generic (common) for all claims. Therefore, a demand raised by the group representative in a class action must be generic for the entire group he or she represents. The condition indicated means that a legal or factual situation of members of the group must be the same, while the claim pursued must be homogenous (homogeneity of the claims) since only then a joint demand may be raised.

1. To amend the order of 29th August  2016 by way of ordering under Article 11 (1-3) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings an announcement on the opening of group proceedings, with the content which follows below.
2. Post the announcement on opening of group proceedings in the printed and online version of the “(…)” daily.
3. To obligate the claimant’s representative to pay PLN 7,183.20 (in words: seven thousand one hundred and eighty-three zloty and 20/100) as an advance payment for the announcement on the opening of group proceeding within 14 days as of the date of receipt of the summons.
4. (…)                                                                      

1. Obtaining the consent of all group members is a necessary condition for the commencement of group proceedings in a case for pecuniary claims. The formal requirements concerning the declaration on joining the group are specified in the first sentence of Article 12 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. Under this provision, in the declaration on joining the group, entitled group members should determine their demand and indicate circumstances which substantiate the demand as well as their membership in the group, and also submit evidence.
2. Under Article 11 (2) (3) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, the declaration on joining the group should be submitted to the group representative within the term specified by the Court. The term of two months, provided for in Article 11 (2) (3) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings does not pertain to submitting the list of the people who joined the group to the court.
3. There are three stages at which the declarations on joining the group may be submitted: 1) the period which runs from the date of filing the statement of claims (Article 6 (2) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings), 2) the period of two months from the date of the announcement of the filing the statement of claims (Article 11 (1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings), 3) the term which ends on the day of termination of the proceedings at the first instance (Article 13 (2) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings).
4. Because of the effects of submitting the list of declarations, the list of group members with the declarations on joining the group attached is – at the moment of filling them in court – considered to be a specific type of a procedural letter. The Act does not stipulate any requirements regarding the form and content of the list of individuals who joined the group. It is important for the list to specify the people who joined the group and for the content of the declarations to be the same as the content of the list. In case of discrpenacies between them, the court may request the group representative to remove defects correction or, alternatively, refuse to include particular parties in the decision on composition of the group.
5. Standardization of claims means that in group proceedings the claims for an identical amount for all group members are submitted. The discrepancies between value the claims are admissible exclusively by resorting to the institution of subgroups in such a manner that all members of a particular subgroup pursue claims of the same value whereas the value of claims may be different in case of members of different subgroups. Article 2 (1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings clearly refers to the standardization of the value of claims, not to e.g. ’standardization of rules for calculating the claims‘.

1. Declaration on joining the group is performed as to pursue the case in court and for the purpose of invoking a particular procedural effect. Such an effect takes place when the group representative presents the composition of the group to the court provided it includes the person submitting the declaration.
2. The absolute application of provisions on the declaration of intent in relation to the declaration on joining the group is not correct.
3. Admittedly the demand for awarding a claim includes implicite the demand for establishing [existence or not existence of legal liability]. However, the latter is determined only on the basis of the preconditions and is not explicitly stated in the operative part of the judgment. In result, the existence of a final and binding judgment in such a case does not create the res iudicata status for the demand seeking the establishment of liability.
4. The binding force of a final and binding judgment may also be extended to the motives of the judgment in the scope in which they constitute a supplementation, specify the operative part of the judgment as the decision on the matter of the case and determine the substance of a given legal relationship.
5. For the status of res iudicata to arise the object of the decision and the factual and legal grounds of the case must be identical.

1. From the perspective of homogeneity of claims such circumstances as differences in the provisions of agreements or contract templates binding the group members and the defendant are not an important element of the factual basis, insofar as each of the agreements includes a contested clause in dispute. Any discrepancies in the wording of the clause are irrelevant. That is because the decisive factor is whether the same mechanism is applicable in each transaction.
2. If all group members submitted declarations on joining the proceedings with the demand for adjudication, including also the demand for establishment of liability – they brought forth demands of the same kind.

1. As one of the goals of group proceedings, procedural economy can also be realised in proceedings with multiple claimants in labour and employment cases regulated in the CCP and in proceedings consisting of many separate cases of individual claimants joined according to Article 219 of CCP for joint examination. Thus the fact that the legislator created a separate statute regulating proceedings in the cases strictly listed therein cannot be overlooked.
2. It is necessary for the Court to examine whether the pursued claim belongs to any of the types of claims listed in the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. The Court did not overstep the permitted limits of examination of the admissibility prerequisites of group proceedings by examining the substantive legitimacy of the claim to the extend necessary to determine whether the claim qualifies as any of the ones listed in Article 1 (2) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings.
3. of the pursuit by each claimant of 2 monetary claims based on 2 distinct legal bases, each of them based on distinct factual bases, cannot be assessed as compliant with the homogeneity of claims prerequisite.
4. The formation of subgroups should be justified by a common factual basis exclusive for the members of a subgroup only.

The Regional Court in Warsaw 25^th Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge: Tomasz Gal, Regional Court Judge

Judges: Anna Błażejczyk, Regional Court Judge; Monika Włodarczyk, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 18^th August 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case in a class action filed by R.D. – the group representative against the State Treasury – General Prosecutor, Regional Public Prosecutor in Gdańsk and District Public Prosecutor Gdańsk-Wrzeszcz in Gdańsk for payment,

hereby decides to:

Order an announcement on initiation of group proceedings in the present case in the Rzeczpospolita daily with the content wich follows

The decision was reversed by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 1^st Civil Division of 15^th December 2016, file ref. no. I ACz 2273/16.

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

Andrzej Kuryłek, Regional Court Judge

Joanna Piwowarun, Regional Court Judge

Jacek Bajak, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 12^th August 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by the Municipal  Consumer Ombudsman in O. against Bank (…) S.A. with its registered office in W. for the establishment of the defendant’s liability,

decides to:

examine the case in group proceedings.