1.  For group proceedings to be admissible, it is sufficient that the fundamental circumstances of the factual basis were similar in relation to a sufficient number of people. Whereas is not absolutely necessary for all circumstances constituting the factual basis of demands of individual group members to be common.

The decision was partially reversed by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Wrocław 1^st Civil Division of 6^th September 2016, file ref. no. I ACz 1945/16.

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

Radosław Nawrocki, Regional Court Judge

Krzysztof Rudnicki, Regional Court Judge

Ewa Rudkowska- Ząbczyk, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 6^th April 2016 in Wrocław at the hearing of a class action filed by E. S. acting as a group representative against (…) Bank (…) S.A. in W. for payment,

hereby decides to:

1. declare the composition of the group consisting in: [11 people];
2. establish that the following people are not members of the group: [44 people].

The Regional Court in Warsaw 2^nd Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Tomasz Wojciechowski, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Magdalena Antosiewicz, Regional Court Judge

Katarzyna Waseńczuk, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 24^th March 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by the Consumer Ombudsman in the City Hall of S., acting as a group representative of the group consisting of [data of 31 group members] against (…) S.A. in W. for declaration,

1. The admissibility of the group proceedings is assessed on the grounds of the premises stipulated in the Articles 1 and 2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. The premises consist in: a) group size– at least 10 people (Article 1 (1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings), b) homogeneity of claims (Article 1(1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings), c) similarity of the factual basis (Article 1(1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, d) categories of cases – actions for protection of consumers, claims for establishment of liability for damage caused by hazardous products and claims for establishment of liability for damages inflicted by a tort, except of the claims for protection of personal rights (Article 1(2) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings), and the premises typical of admissibility of group proceedings concerning pecuniary claims e) standardization of value of each member’s claims (Article 2(1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings).
2. “The same” factual basis occurs- when there is one multilateral legal relation, however, “equal” factual basis occurs when there are many legal relations. There is no doubt that in the present case merely “equal” factual basis may be considered.
3. The factual basis of group proceedings consists in the complex of factual circumstances which substantiate examination of the case in group proceedings. If the facts justifying the existence of particular legal relations are identical with respect to all group members, the condition of similarity of the factual basis is fulfilled. This is not precluded by existence of other additional facts which are a part of the factual basis of the statement of claims (as a nature of individual claims, their maturity and value).

1. In a situation in which the composition of a initiating group is shaped outside of the court proceedings, the issues pertaining to the internal organisation of this group are not regulated by the provisions of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. Such entities, cooperating with each other, autonomously determine the content of the statement of claims, including the content of the raised claims, circumstances substantiating them, as well as motions for the taking of evidence, but also choose the group’s representative.

1. Filing the motion for obligating the claimant to enter a deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings, the defendant should, firstly, make plausible the fact that the action brought against him is obviously ungrounded or unlikely to be granted and, therefore, it has the characteristics of ‘barratry’ and, secondly, that non-establishing a deposit to secure his future claim for reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings will make enforcing it from the claimant. impossible or difficult.

The Regional Court in Piotrków Trybunalski having examined the case of I.G. – as a group representative against The (…) University of Business (Wyższa Szkoła Handlowa)  in P. for payment, during an in camera hearing on 18^th March 2016

hereby decides

that the group of people pursuing claims in group proceedings against the (…) University of Business (Wyższa Szkoła Handlowa) with its registered office in P. consists of: (names of group members).

1. In order to initiate group proceedings it is enough if basic circumstances of the case constituting the factual basis of the claim, are equal towards a sufficient number of parties. The analogy of all circumstances constituting the factual basis of claims of individual group members is not an absolute requirement..
2. In order to assess the admissibility of the statement of claim it is not important that the requests are derived from five formally different standard templates. The fundamental circumstance determining admissibility of group proceedings is the identicalness of the mechanism introduced by all these templates.
3. The differences in templates towards individual group members as well as the difference in circumstances of conclusion of each of the contracts, or differences in knowledge and life experience of each member of the group may not preclude an assumption that claims arte fit to be examined in group proceedings. That is simply because they have been based not on the same factual basis but on an equal factual basis in the meaning of Article 1 (1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings.
4. The question of legal interest from Article 189 CCP is of significance at assessment of the validity of the statement of claims, it constitutes a premise for the claim to be allowed, therefore, it may not be anticipated for the needs of the decision on the very admissibility of group proceedings.

The decision has been reversed by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Gdańsk 1^st Civil Division of 11^th January 2017.

1. It is the group representative’s duty to: collect the declaration on each person’s claims and to classify which subgroup each person should belong to based on the statements of the persons in which the specific claims were declared. The group representative cannot create the claims which were not to the subject of a declaration and, in such a case, cannot pursue such claims in group proceedings if the claims were not explicitly stated in the declarations on joining the group.
2. The consequence of the incorrect classification of the person to the subgroup may result in the dismissal of the case.
3. The group representative’s authorisation to change the classification of the person to the subgroup cannot be considered as possibility to submit new claims on behalf of the persons who join the group which were not stated in the declaration on joining the group.
4. Persons without full legal capacity (for example children) should be indicated as group members if they enjoy substantive legal capacity to pursue claims. This is because group members are attributed with the title to be authorised in their own name to pursue their own claims against the defendants. Minors should submit a declaration of joining the group. Their statutory representatives (parents) can only represent such a person during the trial, however, without the status of a group member.

1. Article 13 (1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings does not in any way pertain to the manner of calculating interest rates; it only institutes the lis pendens effect between a group member and the defendant.
2. Insofar as he introduction into the contract template of a clause providing for a valorization of the price of residential premises is to be deemed inadmissible in itself, nevertheless, it is the lack of a clause providing for a consumer’s right to withdraw from the contract in such a case that makes the abusive clause as a whole. Even a small several percent raise in prices or the building contribution may make it impossible for the consumer to acquire the residential premises being the object of the Financing Agreement.
3. The sole fact of payment of the valorization amount does not constitute impoverishment in a situation where it is further counted as a due performance, namely the future building contribution. Hence, it is legitimate to recognize the payments on those grounds to have been an advanced delivery of a due performance, which under Article 411 [4] CCP – excludes the possibility of demanding the payment return.