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

The Chairman: Ksenia Sobolewska-Ficek, Court of Appeals Judge

The Judges: Krzysztof Tucharz, Court of Appeals Judge (rapporteur); Urszula Wiercińska, Court of Appeals Judge

having examined on 8th July 2015 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by the Municipal Consumer Ombudsman of the Capital City of W. – the representative of the group, which comprises (…) against the Defendant (…) for payment, as a result of the Defendant’s appeal against the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw dated 17^th February 2015, file ref. no.  III C 976/12

decides:

1. to dismiss the appeal,
2. to decide on the costs of the appeal proceedings in the final judgment.

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

Presiding judge:          Marta Woźniak, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                          Agnieszka Włodyga, Regional Court Judge

                                       Ewa Olszewska, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 2^nd July 2015 in Krakow at the hearing in camera the group action filed by Z. R. acting as the representative of the group consisting of: [data of 27 group members] against the State Treasury – Voivode Ś., Director of the Regional Board for Water Management in K.; the Ś. Voivodeship; the Poviat of S.; the Municipality of S., for establishment,

1. The circumstance that individual awarding claims will require an examination of individual factual circumstances characteristic of individual members of the group is of no relevance for the assessment of the precondition of identity or homogeneity of the claim provided for in Article 1.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. A group proceedings is also admissible when the precondition in the form of damage and damage’s value depends on individual factual circumstances concerning individual members of the group.

1. “The same” factual basis of an action (identicalness of factual circumstances) takes place when a bond based on the unity of the damage-causing event occurs. In turn, an “equal” factual basis of claims takes place when many similar factual events occur. However, from the point of view of group proceedings, such a distinction is neutral. This is because each basis which is the same, is at the same time “equal”, hence, for group proceedings to be admissible, meeting the condition of commonality of the factual basis (equal) suffices.

The Supreme Court in the following ruling bench:

Hubert Wrzeszcz, Supreme Court Judge

in the action initiated by (…) against (…) for the protection of copyrights and related rights in group proceedings, at a closed door hearing at the Civil Chamber on 21^st May 2015 as a result of the claimant’s cassation complaint against the decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw dated 27^th November 2013, file ref. no. VI ACz 3170/13

accepts the cassation complaint for examination.

1. If individual issues dominate those common for the entire group, then bringing an action for adjudication in group proceedings is not possible.

1. The group proceedings in which the demand for ‘establishing the claimant’s liability’ was formulated, has the nature of specific autonomous proceedings which may not be identified in construction terms with the proceedings concluded by issuing a preliminary judgement in the meaning of Article 318 CCP, as well as with proceedings for establishing a right or a legal relationship under Article 189 CCP. The autonomous nature of these proceedings in first order is determined by a separate legal regime of group proceedings, as well as its goal and legal functions, since it is to conclude in a ruling constituting a unique precedent for solving future disputes with the participation of a group of individuals in adequate individual proceedings or as a result of concluding appropriate settlements between claimants and the defendant.

1. If the grounds of tortious and contractual liability coincide, the ruling court is obligated to decide based on which grounds the case should be adjudicated on, with taking into consideration which of the grounds is more advantageous for the injured party or due to the nature of the claim of the cases which may be applicable in a specific case.

1. Article 19 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings provides that the withdrawal of the statement of claims, waiver, or limitation of a claim as well as the conclusion of a settlement require the consent of more than half of the number of the group members. The court may find the withdrawal of the statement of claims, waiver, or limitation of a claim as well as the conclusion of a settlement inadmissible if the circumstances of the case indicate that the above-mentioned actions contradict the law or good practice or are aimed at circumventing the law or grossly violating the interest of members of the group.

1. The functional element which is connected to the conduct of economic or professional activity is of key importance for defining the notion of an entrepreneur. This is because the relevant provisions require the entrepreneur to conduct an economic or professional activity. The literature assumes that the phrase “conducts activity” assumes a specific sequence of actions, and not only individual acts. Therefore, an entrepreneur is only a party that performs repetitive actions and, all the more so, in a manner where they form a certain whole, while not constitute an isolated supply of specific goods or performance of specific services. If such actions are of an economic or professional nature, there are grounds to find that the entity engaging in them is an entrepreneur.