1. The claims can be considered as homogenous when they result from one type of legal relationship. Claims pursued by the group’s representative are claims for compensation, resulting from the defendant’s tort, hence they are homogenous claims.

1. The issue of individual negotiations between individual members of the group and the defendant remains irrelevant to determining the admissibility of examining the case in group proceedings.
2. If the facts legitimizing the existence of specific legal relations are the same for all members of the group, then the condition of the common factual basis is met. This is not precluded by the existence of other facts in the factual basis of the claim (such as the nature of individual claims, their maturity or amount).
3. The formation of subgroups is necessary whenever the group members are affected by the same event, albeit the mechanism and the extent of the event’s impact towards the individual group members differs. If it is possible to isolate smaller groups within the group, which were based e.g. on the approximate value of the damage, thus the establishing of subgroups according to the Article 2 sec. 2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings would be admissible. The only criterion for belonging to a particular subgroup is the amount of the pecuniary claim pursued in group proceedings, determined on the basis of a common factual basis. It must be the same for each member of the subgroup and be justified by a common factual circumstances.

The judgement was reversed by the judgement of Supreme Court of 14^th May 2015, file ref. no. II CSK 768/14.

1. The group representative is a key figure in the class action. This is the person who instigates the proceedings on his own behalf as well as on behalf of all of the members of the group, negotiates and concludes an agreement on behalf of the group members with a professional representative (attorney) and grants him power of attorney. In cases regarding non-pecuniary claims, even the enforcement of the awarded claims is initiated for the first 6 months only at the motion of the group representative.

1. The provision of Article 417 CC regulates the liability of the State Treasury and local government units for damage caused by an unlawful action or omission while exercising the public authority. The actions of a municipality related to the construction of a sewage grid and the conclusion of agreements with residents should be qualified as actions in the scope of civil law since no elements of the sovereign shaping of a situation of individuals arose. There are no grounds for qualifying the municipality’s actions generally related to the construction of the sewage grid, including the participation in the costs of construction, as acts of authority in its sovereign capacity.

1. The persons acceding to the class action proceedings need to meet all the conditions prescribed in art. 12 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, namely they ought to stake out the claim, indicate the factual circumstances which substantiate the claim, the circumstances which substantiate the affiliation to the group and show evidence in support of these facts.
2. The court should, already while establishing the composition of the group, check if these separate claims are not subject to a limitation period.
3. If a court finds at this stage a claim to be subject to the statute of limitations, a group member may pursue claims individually, e.g. invoking Article 5 CC.

1. From the substance of institution of deposit it follows that it should be applied when the status of claimant’s assets does not provide a guarantee of satisfaction of the defendant’s claim for the costs of the proceedings. It is the court’s duty to assess whether in the circumstances of the specific case, a deposit is necessary to ensure the protection of the defendant’s interest in the form of claim for reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings in the event of the defendant’s potential win.
2. A provision of an agreement between the group representative and members of the group, among others regulating the principles for bearing the costs of the proceedings by the group’s members, according to which all the members of the group will be obligated to provide funds for the costs of the proceedings awarded in favor of the defendant in the event of issue a judgement dismissing the action, constitutes a sufficient security for the defendant’s interest.
3. The defendant’s motion is an indispensable condition for imposing the claimant’s obligation to pay a deposit. This motion should specify the amount of the deposit together with an indication of the probable costs of the proceedings.
4. The Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings does not indicate a moment in which the court should issue a decision on the claimant’s payment of the deposit for securing the costs of the proceedings. The costs of legal representation are borne by the defendant already before the case is accepted to be heard in group proceedings and the establishment of the final composition of the group. Teleological reasons therefore indicate that a decision should be issued relatively quickly.

1. Claims based on Article 446.3 of the Civil Code, which aim at remedying the damage consisting in significant deterioration in living standards due to the death of the closest family member who died in a construction catastrophe, are of an individual nature and require the factual circumstances concerning the entitled party’s relationship with the deceased to be examined in detail by the court, which opposes the construction of group proceedings and does not allow the existence of legal relationships identical towards all members of a given group to be assumed, and hence the existence of an identical (the same or equal) factual basis to be assumed.

The decision was reversed by the decision of the Supreme Court of 28^th January 2015, file ref. no. I CSK 533/14.

1. 1. The subject of the proceedings, also conducted in the specific manner of a group proceedings, is the procedural claim specified by the claimant. It is the claimant who decides what type and from what title he is deriving his claim, and what legal protection he is demanding in connection therewith. The object of the court is to assess the legitimacy of the claim within the limits indicated by the claimant. The derivation by the court of the demands (claims), not indicated by the claimant, even if they are possible to pursue, should have been deemed as inadmissible. Since, in accordance with the will of the claimant, the subject of the group proceedings is not claims for the protection of personal rights of the individual members of the group, then this statement should be binding for the Court. In the manner of the Act on the pursuing claims in group proceedings, the examination of the case on the protection of personal rights is inadmissible, but it is not inadmissible to examine a case in which such clams can potentially be pursued.

1. In the factual status presented, not only the provisions on unjust enrichment may provide the grounds for the claim, since in the situation where agreements were concluded on the grounds of invalid provisions of a resolution, there are also basis for a compensatory claim from Article 417¹ section 1 of the Civil Code. This settled the issue of admissibility for the claim to be examined in a group proceedings, since under Article 1 section 2 of the Act regulating such proceedings, pursuing claims in this mode is applicable only in the cases on consumer protection claims, on the grounds of liability for damages inflicted by a hazardous product, and on the grounds of tortious acts, barring the claims for personal rights protection.
2. The costs of the proceedings were awarded in full from the group’s representative, for under Article 4 section 1 and 3 of the Act of 17 December 2009 on pursuing claims in group proceedings, he brought the action on his own behalf to the benefit of all members of the group. The question of settlement of costs of the litigation between all claimants is a separate issue which is not covered by the cognition of this Court.

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

Presiding Judge:     Anna Pogorzelska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                      Janina Dąbrowiecka, Regional Court Judge; Hanna Jaworska, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 31th January 2014 at the hearing in camera of a class action filed by E. L. against (…) for payment,