1. Since the legislator has provided for separate bases of liability for aiding and abetting (benefiting from the damage caused by another person), it means that the act of the helper (benefiting from the damage) has been taken out of the general regulation of liability for one’s own act, provided for in Articles 415 and 416 of the Civil Code.
2. In accordance with the model adopted by the Polish legislator in the provision of Article 361 of the Civil Code, the perpetrator of the damage is liable only for the normal, and not for all, consequences of an act or omission, whereby “the normal consequences of an act or omission are considered to be those that usually occur under the circumstances.”
3. Aider liability is merely derivative of the liability of the wrongdoer. Therefore, the basic condition for accepting liability for aiding and abetting is to show that the tort liability of the principal perpetrator is justified.
4. It follows from the very construction of the liability of an aider that in order to be “aiding and abetting to cause damage” one must include with consciousness the tortious act in the commission of which the aider would participate. If there is no willfulness understood in this way, any acts or omissions of the helper are only an element of the facts leading to the damage, but are not acts to which the legal system attaches liability for damages.
5. The professional duty of banks to act with special care relates to the protection of funds entrusted to the bank by the account holder, and inherently involves contractual liability.

The Court of Appeal in Wroclaw, 1^st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:            Ewa Barnaszewska, Judge of the Court of Appeal (Judge – Rapporteur)

Judges:                            Małgorzata Lamparska, Judge of the Court of Appeal;

Janusz Kaspryszyn, Judge of the Court of Appeal

having recognized on 12^th October 2020 in Wrocław at a hearing

the case brought by K. K. – representative of a group of residents: [data of 132 persons]

against the Municipality of K. – President of the City of K. and Poviat of K. – Starost of K.

for determination

as a result of the plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court in Opole dated 11^th August 2016, ref. no. I C 123/14:

1. The change made by the group representative in the disputed pleading was a consequence of the filing of a new declaration to join the group. As stressed by commentators, statements of this kind made after the decision on the hearing of the case in the group proceedings became final should be treated as statements made after the announcement of the commencement of the group proceedings.
2. It should be noted that from the point of view of the resolution referred to in Article 10 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, it is primarily important whether there can be group proceedings in a given case. The idea is to eliminate the need for a number of individual trials. Issues concerning the determination of the composition of the group and the subsequent validity of the claims are not prerequisites for the admissibility of group proceedings.

The Supreme Court, composed of:            Jacek Grela, Supreme Court Judge

in the case brought by S. P. acting also on behalf of the members of the group: (…) against J. S. A. in Z.

for payment,

at a session in camera in the Civil Chamber on 17^th February 2021, as a result of the plaintiff’s appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in (…) dated 5^th June 2018, case file VI ACa (…),

1. In order to qualify claims for group proceedings, they must be averaged, which the plaintiffs did both in the lawsuit and its modification. This is because the lack of such averaging of claims would result in undermining the point of group proceedings at all, since the court would have to examine in detail and individually the case of each injured party in order to determine the actual value of his claim, which it can just as well do in individual proceedings. On the other hand, one of the benefits of group proceedings is that the court examines the circumstances of the case collectively with respect to all members of the group, so that the proceedings can be conducted more quickly and efficiently.
2. The case law is unanimous in emphasizing that damage in the form of lost benefits must be demonstrated by the injured party with such a high degree of probability that, in light of life experience, justifies the assumption that the loss of expected benefits actually occurred. From damage in the form of lucrum cessans, it is necessary to distinguish the concept of potential damage, by which is meant “the loss of the chance to obtain a certain material benefit.” The difference is expressed in the fact that in the case of lucrum cessans the hypothesis of loss of benefit borders on certainty, while in the case of eventual damage the probability of loss of benefit is much lower. It is assumed that the eventual damage is not compensable.
3. The construction of the provisions on abusive clauses does not allow the performance of the so-called reduction that maintains the effectiveness. Therefore, it is not possible to correct an abusive contractual provision, that is, to change its content in such a way that the provision no longer constitutes a prohibited provision.
4. The mere fact that the claim is asserted in a group proceeding does not exempt from proving the fact and amount of damage suffered individually with respect to each member of the groups and subgroups. Article 2 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings cannot be used as such a basis. The disposition of this provision is addressed to the plaintiff and relates to the manner in which the claim is formulated, not to the court obliging it to “lump sum” amounts awarded. Moreover, any “lump-sum” compensation would be tantamount to the introduction of a contractual penalty unknown in the legal relationship between the parties. The allowance of the claims of the individual members of the group was therefore conditional on proving in the course of the proceedings that they had actually suffered damages, in an amount at least equivalent to the damages claimed in the proceedings. There is no room here for any “estimated” amounts to make up for the damage they suffered.

1. Group proceedings have a number of significant differences from ordinary civil proceedings. First of all, the course of the proceedings, the prerequisites for the admissibility of the proceedings and the scope of civil cases that can be recognized in group proceedings, the formation of the subject party, the rules for determining the remuneration of an attorney, the specific requirements for the content of a lawsuit, as well as a number of formal differences related to the conduct of group proceedings are different. All these differences mean that it is not possible to apply directly all the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code that have not been excluded by the provision of Article 24 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. This leads to the conclusion that also to proceedings initiated before 1^st June 2017, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code should be applied accordingly.
2. The provision of Article 24 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings has never excluded the application of Article 193 of the Code of Civil Procedure, despite its several amendments. In view of the importance of this provision, the exclusion from application of neighboring provisions, i.e., Articles 194-196 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the lack of changes in this regard when subsequent amendments were made, it should be considered that this was a conscious decision by the legislator. Nor does the application of this provision is definitively excluded by the distinctiveness of group proceedings. Therefore, it should have been assumed that, in principle, the modification of the action recognized in the group proceedings is permissible.
3. The act does not provide for a specific procedure for resolving the issue of admissibility of the inclusion of new claims in group proceedings. As a result, the provisions relating to the claims filed in the lawsuit should be applied accordingly.

Court of Appeals in Warsaw VI Civil Division composed of:

Presiding Judge:           SSA Marzena Miąskiewicz

Judges:                           SSA Teresa Mróz, SSA Grażyna Kramarska

after hearing on March 23, 2021 in Warsaw at a closed session

the case from the action of the District Consumer Ombudsman in the District (…)

against (…) Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Życie Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in W.

for payment

1. The term “exploratory proceedings” has a different meaning under the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings than in typical civil cases. For in this case it also refers to the adjudication of the plaintiff’s request for the admission of group proceedings and the inclusion of certain persons in such proceedings. Thus, in this case, the adjudicatory proceeding is to decide whether group proceedings are permissible within the limits specified in the lawsuit, as well as whether the persons included in the list filed by the group representative are entitled to the status of a group member (Article 13 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings).
2. The court shall make this assessment by virtue of the indications contained in the Act, but if the court allows group proceedings, the relevant exploratory (substantive) proceedings shall already be conducted on the basis of the Code of Civil Procedure, excluding only those provisions referred to in Article 24 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. This is because the Act does not introduce any special solutions when it comes to the phase of substantive examination of a group case, which takes place after the decision on determining the composition of the group becomes final (Article 17 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings). The only provision that relates to the substantive phase of group proceedings is Article 21 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, which regulates the content of the judgment rendered in group proceedings.
3. Article 2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings is procedural in nature. In no way can this provision be considered substantive in nature. It cannot be considered that the mere requirement to standardize the amount of monetary claims asserted facilitates the conduct of group proceedings at their substantive stage. For it is still the case that in these proceedings the plaintiff must prove the amount of the monetary claims asserted for the benefit of each group member individually.

The Regional Court in Warsaw, 20^th Commercial Division, composed of:

Łukasz Oleksiuk, District Court Judge (delegated)

having examined on 13^th August 2020 in Warsaw, at a session in camera, the case brought by (…) limited liability company with its registered office in W. against (…) with its registered office in N. (C.) for the protection of copyright and related rights in group proceedings

The Regional Court in Warsaw, 3^rd Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:            Joanna Kruczkowska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Joanna Bitner, Regional Court Judge;

Andrzej Lipinski, District Court Judge (delegated)

having examined at a hearing on 16^th January 2020 in Warsaw the case brought by A. R. – representative of the group against (…) Union (…) in W., for payment: