1. In the Court’s assessment: [personal details of all members of the group] have complied with all requirements entitling them to appear in the present case in the capacity of members of the group.

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

Presiding Judge: Marzena Góral, Court of Appeals Judge

Judges: Edyta Jefimko, Court of Appeals Judge (rapporteur), Joanna Staszewska, Regional Court Judge (delegated)

having examined on 13^th November 2014 at the hearing the case filed by the Poviat of (…) as the representative of the group of poviats comprising: (…) against the State Treasury – the Minister of Infrastructure and Development for establishment following the Claimant’s appeal against the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw dated 17^th December 2013, file ref. no. II C 593/12

decides to:

on the grounds of Article 390 (1) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure to submit the legal issue with the following content for settlement to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland

The Regional Court for Warsaw-Prague in Warsaw 3^rd Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge: Ewa Dietkow, Regional Court Judge

Judges: Beata Karczewska-Mazur, Regional Court Judge, Radosław Olszewski, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 28^th October 2014 in Warsaw at a hearing in camera in a closed session the case filed by S.P. against (…) Ltd. in Z. for payment

hereby decides to:

establish the following group membership

1. Standardisation of the value of claims means raising in the group proceedings claims of identical value for all members of the group. The diversification of the value of the claims among the members of the group is possible only with the use of subgroups, in such a way that all members of a given subgroup pursue claims of the same value, whereas the value of the claims may be different in case of members of different subgroups. Article 21 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings expressly refers to the standardisation of the value of claims, and not, for example, “standardisation of the rules for calculation of claims”. Joining the group entails the group member’s consent for his claim to be standardised.

1. In group proceedings the demand must be typical for all the claims. Therefore, the demand raised in group proceedings by the group’s representative must be typical for the entire group he or she is representing. The indicated condition means that a legal or factual situation of the group members must be equal. Of course, slight differences can exist between the individual grounds of the claims, however, it is necessary for the material factual circumstances to substantiate the common request for all of the claims

1. The scope of the action is determined by the claimant and the statement of claims determines the frames of the further proceedings. However, the scope of the proceedings is not identical with the scope of the statement of claims. The proceedings do not always use all the factual circumstances indicated by the claimant, it is also necessary to establish facts not indicated in connection with the claim’s construction. The scope of proceedings will in the future determine the scope of adjudication of the case. In examining the admissibility of the group proceedings, the court must first and foremost assess what claim the claimant is bringing forth and what circumstances the claimant should prove with this claim. Only in further order it is possible to assess whether these circumstances will pass the test from Article 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings.

1. The statute of limitation cannot be the grounds for rejecting a class action because the issue of limitation is a substantive matter to be examined only after establishing that a class action is admissible.
2. The condition for initiating group proceedings regarding a cash claim is for all group members, not merely the representative of the group, to give consent to the Court for lump sum damages. Should it be assumed that the Group Representative may submit such a declaration, there would be no obstacle to find that it had been already incorporated in the contents of the statement of claims itself and other pleadings indicated the amounts sought for, without the necessity of submitting a separate document.

1. Deciding on the admissibility of group proceedings is the first stage of the proceedings and constitutes the form of a unique prejudication, unrelated to the content-related assessment of the legitimacy of the claims pursued in the statement of claims.

1. The withdrawal of a motion for obligating the claimant to enter a deposit is admissible. In the event the defendant withdraws the motion before the decision by virtue of which the subject motion was examined becomes final or is challenged, the court of first instance shall reverse the decision and discontinue incidental proceedings initiated by the motion, if it finds the withdrawal admissible.

1. In order to speak of the sameness of the factual basis substantiating a possibility of pursuing claims in group proceedings, prerequisites for the emergence of claims should be common for all participants of the group.