1. In the stage of certification, the premises of admissibility of the group proceedings, which are assessed by the court, are limited to the issues provided for in Article 1.1 and 1.2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings: the quantity of the group (at least 10 people), homogeneity of the claims, the same or similar factual basis and objective ability of being examined in group proceedings. The assessment of the substantive reasonableness of the claims is not recognized at the stage of the admissibility of the group action, is beyond the scope of the assessment of the admissibility, as this takes place in the subsequent stage of proceedings.
2. The phrase “similar (equal) factual basis” means the situation in which the claims are based on similar events. This term corresponds to the same factual basis in the concept of formal joint participation.
3. The dissimilarities between the standards applicable to each member of the group, as well as dissimilarities between the circumstances in which particular contracts were concluded, do not exclude the possibility that the precondition of the same or similar factual basis will be satisfied, as the main circumstance which determines the admissibility of the group proceedings is the identical mechanism introduced by formally independent standards declared by the claimant. This fact is also not changed by the different amounts of the contributions and the frequency of their payment or different amounts of the fees of redemption applicable to particular group members. Members of the group base their claims on the same provision, that is on the contract clause, subject to which the defendant may charge the fees of redemption, which were (in the members’ opinion) grossly excessive and restricted the possibility of the termination of the contract. The claims are not based on the same factual basis, but on similar (equal) factual basis within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings.

The Court of Appeals in Warsaw 6^th Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge: Urszula Wiercińska, Court of Appeals Judge

Judges: Małgorzata Borkowska (rapporteur), Court of Appeals Judge, Jolanta Pyźlak, Court of Appeals Judge

having examined on 23^rd February 2016 in Warsaw the case filed by K.K. – the representative of the group against the Housing Association (…) in W. for payment following the Defendant’s complaint against the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw of 13^th August 2015, file ref. no. III C 798/15

1. In a class action for establishment of a defendant’s liability, the claimant is not obliged to prove the occurrence of damage or value of damage incurred by members of the group if these are individual and not common circumstances, yet he has to specify what the damage is for all group members, hence – what loss in assets they consider to be damage arising from a tort constituting the grounds of the claim. Whereas it is the duty of the court to establish and assess whether the loss in assets thus specified may be considered as damage caused by a tort indicated in the statement of claims and whether it is common to all members of the group.

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

Presiding Judge: Krystyna Stawecka, Regional Court Judge

Judges: Anna Błażejczyk, Regional Court Judge; Krystyna Dymek, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 8^th February 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the group action filed by J. K. – the group representative against Bank (…) S.A. in W. for payment

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

Presiding Judge: Mirosława Gołuńska (rapporteur), Court of Appeals Judge

Judges: Iwona Wiszniewska, Court of Appeals Judge, Dariusz Rystał, Court of Appeals Judge

having examined on 5^th February 2016 in Szczecin at the hearing in camera the case filed by K. P. as the representative of the group in proceedings for payment against the State Treasury, following the ’appeals of the Claimant and of the Defendant’ against the decision of the Regional Court in Szczecin from 23^rd October 2015, case file reference I C 762/12

1. For assessing whether consumers’ claims are based on a similar factual basis, the potential disposal to other individuals by consumers who previously purchased tickets, is of no significance. This is because all consumers indicated in the statement of claims as buyers of the tickets – parties to an obligational relationship binding them with the defendants, are entitled to the claims for payment on the grounds of previously purchased tickets. The factual basis of pursued claims is therefore similar and it results from a single event, i.e. purchasing of tickets and participation in a sports event organised by the defendant.

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

Presiding Judge:  Roman Dziczek, Court of Appeals Judge

Judges:                  Przemysław Kurzawa, Court of Appeals Judge, Beata Byszewska, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 26^th January 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by (…) Ltd in W. against (…) Society (…) joint stock company in W. for compensation following the claimant’s complaint against the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw of 6^th November 2015, file ref. no.  XVI GC 352/15 on the exclusion of judges from adjudicating in the case

The decision has been amended by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw, 1st Civil Division of 10^th March 2016, file ref. no. I ACz 1586/15.            

1. The members of the group are linked with one another by a subjective and objective bond. The subjective bond refers to the individuals in the group who have been injured as a result of the perpetrator’s single action. In group proceedings these individuals pursue claims from one entity (infringer). On the other hand, the objective bond is related to the type of violation which makes it legitimate and possible to simultaneously pursue the claim by the group. The bond existing between the group members must be based on the same or similar factual basis. Therefore, it is of key importance to determine the homogeneity of the claims of individual members of the group which allows them to be covered by a class action.
2. As the pursued claims need to be homogenous, one should determine whether these are substantive or procedural claims. Nevertheless, it can be clearly assumed that the claims pursued in group proceedings constitute a procedural claim. This homogeneity is expressed by the fact that all the Claimants are seeking the awarding of a specific performance, determination or creation of a legal relationship or a right. Members of the group therefore need to submit the same demand – for the awarding of a performance, for determining the existence or non-existence of a specific right or legal relationship, for establishing a legal relationship or a right.
3. In group proceedings, in the case of multiple entities on the part of the defendant, the provisions of the CCP on joint participation are applicable.

1. The institution of the security for costs of the case in a class action is of a facultative nature and the possibility of obligating the Claimant to secure the costs, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings falls within the Court’s competence.
2. 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 claims pursued against the defendant are obviously unfounded or that the statement of claims is unlikely to be allowed, therefore has the characteristics of litigiousness. Secondly, the defendant should make plausible that the lack of the deposit to secure the future claim for the reimbursement of costs of the proceedings will make the execution of the costs from the adversary party impossible or significantly more difficult.

The decision was fully amended by the Decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw, 1^st Civil Division of 8^th April 2016, file ref. no. I ACz 534/16 by accepting the case in group proceedings.

1. If pecuniary claims are the subject of a dispute, the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings allows the possibility of pursuing them in group proceedings, only if for each of the claimants they were standardized on the basis of shared circumstances of the case.