1. On the grounds of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, it is of no significance whatsoever whether claims arise from the same or from different legal relationships. The provision of Article 1.1 of the Act provides only that claims should be based on the same or equal (similar) factual basis. In the case a diversification of the situation of the members of the group undoubtedly occurs in the scope of such circumstances indicated by the defendant as: different content and terms of insurance agreements, application of various standard contract terms, participation of various agents and persons performing agency activities, or various manners of realisation of substantial information obligations by parties brokering the conclusion of agreements. These circumstances may not, however, influence the assessment of homogeneity of the factual basis of the action. It should be emphasised that in the case being heard, the issue is the agreements concluded with the use of the same standard terms including a contentious clause concerning the insurer’s right to collect glaringly extortionate fees constituting the entirety or a part of the policy account value in the event of termination of the insurance agreement. In truth, each of the agreements included an identical provision specifying the value and the manner of calculating the policy redemption fee. Also, the circumstance that each member of the group could differently understand the meaning of the contentious clause is of no significance for the identicalness of the factual basis of the action.

1. The commonality of the basis of pursued claims substantiates the possibility to join claims in a single group action. The entities in the group are characterised by a specific bond of a subjective and objective nature. The subjective bond pertains these members of the group who suffered damages as a result of the perpetrator’s single action. In a class action these persons pursue claims form a single entity (violator). In turn, subjective uniformity is related to the type of violation which results in pursuing claims jointly by the group becoming substantiated and possible. The bond existing between the group’s members must be based on the same or equal factual basis.

1. The Act on Pursuing Claims in Group proceedings does not regulate the costs of proceedings separately. Therefore, general provisions concerning the costs of the proceedings and general provisions concerning the reimbursement of the costs of proceedings should be applied in this scope.

1. The Legislator did not specify the criteria of examination the request based on Article 8.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, leaving the decision at the discretionary, but not arbitrary recognition of the court. The court should refer to certain circumstances of the particular case. The defendant demanding the payment of a deposit should indicate and prove the factual circumstances justifying such a decision.

1. 1. The amounts indicated in the declarations on joining the group cover the value of the claims which individual members are entitled to. Therefore, the amount indicated in the declaration defines the value of the demand of the person joining the group, and this value may be later standardised. The individual parties give their consent to such a standardisation, which is a consequence of joining the group. In the case standardisation is performed, the value of the claims pursued in the subgroup may undoubtedly be lower than the value of individual claims to which members of a given subgroup were initially entitled to.

1. The defense of the limitation period is not to be tested at the stage of establishing the group’s composition.
2. The catalogue of the admissibility of the class action conditions results from Article 1 sec. 2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings and includes: the headcount of the group, the homogeneity of the claims, common factual basis of the claims, the subject of the claim being one of the items listed in the statute’s catalogue – Article 1 sec. 2, the category of the case – Article 1 sec. 2, in cases of monetary claims (unless the claim is limited to a claim on the establishment of the defendant’s liability) – standardization of the values of each group member’s claim. The hereinbefore listed conditions are exhaustive and need to be met cumulatively.
3. The Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings does not differentiate between the conditions of the admissibility of the group proceedings and conditions of affiliation to the group. “Establishing whether a person belongs to the group” is tested at the stage of establishing of the composition of the group; the establishing of the affiliation to the group nevertheless comes down to the confirmation that the conditions of the admissibility of the group proceedings are met in case of each person willing to accede to the group proceedings. Thus testing any allegations concerning one’s affiliation to the group is permissible in the above mentioned scope only.
4. A decision on the establishing of the composition of the group plays a vital role in any group proceedings. It should be stressed that it is not a declaration of will to join the group proceedings made by the person willing to accede to the group proceedings which is the decisive factor, but the decision of the court on the establishment of the group composition only. Thus the final subjective framework of the given group proceedings is formalized in the court’s decision; the core idea of group proceedings is the fact that these lawsuits – brought by no fewer than 10 claimants – are based on a common factual basis. A legally valid court decision on the group’s composition closes the second stage of the proceedings, at the same time completing the determination of the subjective and objective scope of the case.
5. Setting up the limitation period itself does not determine the dismissal of the statement of claims in a definitive way. Before the court makes such a decision, it must determine whether the claimant’s statement on the lapse of this period is justified in the legal and factual circumstances of the case. This means that the determination of the legitimacy of the defense can be made during the examination of the case only, and this stage of the proceeding is opened with the issuance of a decision establishing the composition of the group and is completed with the issuance of the judgment in meriti.

1. The issue of the statute of limitations is not examined at the stage of determining the composition of the group.
2. The catalogue of prerequisites for the admissibility of group proceedings stems from Articles 1 and 2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings and includes: the size of the group, homogeneity of claims, similarity of the factual basis, subject matter of the claim included in the statutory catalogue – Article 1(2), type of case – Article 1(2), and for the admissibility of group proceedings in cases involving monetary claims (provided that the claim is not limited to a request to establish the defendant’s liability) – standardisation of the claims of each member. These conditions are listed exhaustively and must be met jointly.
3. The Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings does not draw a clear line between the prerequisites of admissibility of group proceedings and the prerequisite of belonging to a group. Although the subject-matter of the examination at the stage of determining the composition of a group is the verba legis ‘determination of a member’s membership of the group’, the confirmation of ‘membership of the group’ is in fact a confirmation that the prerequisites of admissibility of the procedure are met in each individual case of a person seeking to join the group. It is therefore only to the extent indicated above that it is admissible to examine the charges concerning membership in a group.
4. The decision on the determination of the composition of the group must be attributed key importance in group proceedings. It should be indicated that it is not the declaration of a person to join a group but only the court’s decision on the composition of the group that ultimately determines the composition of the group in group proceedings. With regard to the final determination of the composition of a group, the subjective framework of group proceedings is outlined, as the essence of group proceedings is the pursuit of claims of one type by a group of at least ten persons. The final decision of the court on the composition of the group concludes the second stage of the group proceedings, at the same time terminating the findings on the subjective and objective scope of the case.
5. The mere fact of raising the charge of the limitation period does not yet definitively prejudge the dismissal of an action. Before taking such a decision, the court must verify whether the defendant’s claim, that the limitation period has expired, is substantiated in law and in fact. This means that the raised claim of the limitation period may only be resolved in the course of the examination proceedings, and this phase of the proceedings begins after the decision on the composition of the group has been made and ends with the content-related ruling.

1. It does not belong to the Court to settle any content-related prerequisites of the claims at the present stage of the proceedings, nevertheless, the goal of the passed act (the Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings) is for the potential judgement to identically affect all participants of the group, that is to say that the situation where the statement of claims is allowed only towards a part of the group and it is dismissed in relation to the remaining members is inadmissible. Only differentiation in terms of the awarded amounts is admissible.

1. Establishing the categories of facts that should be indicated by the claimant in the statement of claims, so that the claims pursued in group proceedings are based on the same or equal factual grounds is not possible in advance and in abstract terms. The court decides whether the claim pursued in the group proceeding is based on the same or equal factual basis after having analyzed the factual situation in a specific case.
2. Admissibility of the group proceedings depends on premises strictly defined in the Act, among which there is no premise of the purposefulness of examining a case in a group proceedings.

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

Presiding Judge: Agata Stankiewicz-Rataj, Regional Court Judge

Judges: Izabella Knych, Regional Court Judge, Anna Bogaczyk-Żyłka, District Court Judge (delegated)

having examined on 5^th June 2014 in Katowice at the hearing in camera an action for a declaration of the invalidity of the contract and for payment filed by M.L. – the representative of the group in the class action against the Housing Association (…) in B.