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

Presiding Judge: Małgorzata Zwierzyńska, Court of Appeals Judge

Judges: Małgorzata Idasiak-Gordzińska, Court of Appeals Judge, (rapporteur); Leszek Jantowski, Regional Court Judge (delegated)

having examined on 5^th November 2015 in Gdańsk at the hearing in camera the case filed by group representative P. S. in group proceedings against (…) and (…) for payment, following the Claimant’s cassation complain against the decision of the Court of Appeals in Gdańsk dated 19^th May 2015 case file no. I ACz 286/15

decides to:

reject the cassation complaint.

1. Indication of specific allegations pertaining to particular persons would only make it possible to state whether these allegations require taking concrete evidence (taking the situations regulated in Articles 228, 229, 230 and 231 CCP into consideration, in which taking evidence is not required), to determine who the person bearing the burden of proof relating to specific circumstances of the case is (irrespective of the general rule laid down in the Article 16 of the Polish Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings) and to state what conclusions are to be drawn from a potential lack of such evidence.
2. Group proceedings lack grounds for a court to allow the motion to address the National Archive for sending over class sections. According to Article 16 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, the duty to deliver all the necessary documents rests, with the representative of the group.
3. The grounds for recognizing the persons designated as group members as the legal successors of the late shareholders are confirmations of the acquisitions of the inheritances and inheritance notarization acts (Article 1025 (1) CC). From the appended confirmation of the acquisition of the inheritance results a legal presumption that the indicated persons are the shareholders’ heirs whose shares are indicated in the class sections of shares (Article 1025 (2) CC).

1. Group proceedings procedure was established for cases with significantly approximate factual statuses. The level of similarity should be such that all the circumstances essential for settlement in the case are similar if not outright identical.
2. In order to provide efficiency of the group proceedings, such proceedings must be based on the similar factual circumstances. This similarity should take into account the possibly identical assessment in context of a settlement as to the merits. Hence, no differences may exist which would expressly differentiate this assessment in reference to each member of the group. This applies to all factual circumstances concretising the hypothesis of the applicable legal norm.
3. In group proceedings, the court decides on admissibility of the action in the form in which it was brought before the court and he court has no power to modify the statement of claims even if by selection of the particular elements fit to be examined in group proceedings and rejection of the remaining ones. Hence, it is the statement of claims in the form lodged with the court that is assumed to be the object of the assessment, obviously with taking into account actions related to supplementing formal defects.
4. The group proceedings are a specific kind of civil proceedings. The inadmissibility of group proceedings does not preclude the possibility of pursuing a claim in ordinary civil proceedings. The inadmissibility only signifies an impossibility of hearing a case under provisions of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings while pursuing claims in group proceedings could be more convenient for the parties to the dispute. It, however, does not in any way preclude access to justice or breach the rights stemming from the Constitution or international law.

1. In the event the amount of the statement of claims of each group member includes both compensation for the lack of valorisation of remuneration by the average salary increase annual rate, and the statutory interest compensated on the day of filing the claim, due for the delay in payment of the basic claim, the claimant admittedly raises monetary claims, however, in this case the procedural claim is based on two different substantive grounds, therefore the claim of each claimant is partially based on a different factual and legal basis.
2. The raising of in fact two different pecuniary claims by each claimant (compensation and compensated statutory interest) leads to a violation of Article 2(1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings.
3. It seems that the rationale for regulating group proceedings does not include the possibility of pursuing two different monetary claims by standardising them not by the common circumstances of the case, but by limiting the value of the compensated statutory interest.
4. In a situation in which the factual and legal basis of the pursued claims and their homogeneous nature are the same for all of the claimants, all these claims need to be standardised if the Claimants decide to pursue them in group proceedings, without the possibility of dividing them into smaller groups, conditioned only by different amounts of the same claims.
5. The potential undervaluation officers’ remuneration (specified in the legal provisions) related to the lack of valorisation in 2009 and 2010 should be the object of a dispute concerning remuneration, without the need to refer to tortious liability which makes it impossible to examine the dispute as a class action.
6. It is not possible to attribute unlawfulness to the Minister for Internal Affairs’ omission of the valorisation of salaries of the Border Guard officers from 2009-2014, since the defendant was bound by the provisions of the budget law, the compliance with the Constitution of which raises no doubts in connection with the stance of the Constitutional Tribunal.
7. Where the circumstances referred to in the statement of claims correspond to the statutory grounds of admissibility of a class action, but the factual circumstances substantiating the claim are not related to a tort, the actions is subject to dismissal.

1. The factual basis of an action in group proceedings is a conglomerate of statements indicated by a group’s representative in the substantiation of the statement of claims, from which the claim of each of the group members expressed therein is derived. A similar basis of claims pursued in an action may be spoken of when the basic factual circumstances comprising the basis of the demand in the statement of claims are equal.

The Regional Court in Warsaw, 16^th Commercial Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:     Magdalena Śliwińska – Stępień, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                      Marta Sadowska, Regional Court Judge, Cezary Skwara, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 6^th November 2015 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by (…) Ltd in W. against (…) joint stock company in W. for compensation in a class action following the claimant’s motion to exclude judges

1. The issue of the injured parties’ contribution in causing the damage cannot be classified as a factual circumstance, which is to justify the existence of premises of the defendant’s liability for damages.

1. There are no grounds for identifying the factual basis of a claim within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings with all circumstances which require to be established in order to rule in a judgement on the legitimacy of the claim; it is also incorrect to find that the facts raised by the defendant in the course of the proceedings constitute the basis of the action.

1. The entities concerned may express a will to participate in a group proceedings in two ways. Firstly, they may become part of the so-called initiating group, on whose behalf the group representative files a statement of claims including a motion for examining the case in group proceedings. Secondly, they may join the group proceedings already after issuing by the court a decision on examining the case in group proceedings and publishing by the court an announcement on commencement of the group proceedings.

1. In class action for establishment of the defendant’s liability on the basis of Article 2.3 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, the claimant must also formulate a pecuniary claim, the pursuit of which the establishment of the defendant’s liability is to serve in later individual proceedings and the establishment of this liability in group proceedings is to take place in reference to a pecuniary claim, the performance of which is sought from the defendant by members of the group. This is because establishing the defendant’s liability on the basis of Article 2.3 of the indicated Act may not occur in separation from the legal relationship being the source of this liability or from the claim stemming therefrom and the performance of which is sought by members of the group and which, under Article 1.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, must be of the same type and based on the same or similar factual basis. Elements common for group members are of decisive significance for the admissibility of group proceedings and the court’s cognition. This is because, in these proceedings, the court is to establish circumstances common for all group members which constitute a precondition for the pursued claim.