1. The assumption that the mere fact that a judge incurred an obligation resulting from the credit agreement of various nature, e.g. in PLN, by definition means that they are not impartial and are obligated to recuse themselves from examining any pending case between the borrowers and the bank, leads to consequences that are contrary to the public interest and detrimental for the justice system.
2. The concept of the defendant’s liability under Article 2.3 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings has a specific autonomous meaning, other than in Article 318 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, as well as in Article 189 of CCP, which is determined by the purpose and functions of the group proceedings as specific proceedings that should ease and improve the resolving of conflicts.
3. The obligation to repay the amount of a used credit in specified repayment terms is the borrowers’ main performance. A valorization clause affects the amount of such performance. Stipulating such a clause in a contract cannot be deemed to be an action falling within the freedom of contract under Article 353(1) of Polish Civil Code, but gross exceeding the limits of that freedom.
4. The moment relevant to decide whether a particular person is a consumer is the moment of performance of the legal act.
5. The valorization or indexation clause is a main contractual provision. Unlike the currency spread clause, that clause is the essentialia negoti of the examined contracts.
6. A gross violation of the consumer’s interests should be understood as an unjustified disproportion, to the consumer’s disadvantage, between their rights and obligations in a specific contractual relationship. Acting contrary to good practices (in the scope of shaping the content of the contractual relationship) means that the second party (consumer’s contractual partner) creates such contractual clauses which harm the contractual balance between the parties to the relationship.

The Regional Court in Warsaw 21^st Division of Labour and Social Insurance with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Małgorzata Kosicka, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 6^th March 2020, at the hearing in camera , the case brought by R. L. and 374 members of the group against the State Treasury represented by the Minister of Interior, substituted by the State Treasury Prosecutor’s Office, for compensation,

The Supreme Court with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Roman Trzaskowski, Supreme Court Judge

Judges:                            Monika Koba, Supreme Court Judges (rapporteur)

Krzysztof Pietrzykowski, Supreme Court Judge

in the case filed by Z. R. acting as a representative of the group consisting of: (…) against the State Treasury – the State Water Enterprise ‘Wody Polskie’ in Warsaw [Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie w Warszawie] and the (…) Voivodeship for the establishment of the defendants’ liability,

having examined at the hearing at the Civil Chamber on 27^th February 2020 the legal issue presented by the Court of Appeals in (…) in the decision of 28^th June 2019, file ref. no. I ACa (…),

1. It should be emphasized that the main purpose of the division into groups or subgroups is the standardization of claims and the easing of seeking pecuniary claims. However, single claim cannot be standardized. The standardization of claims is possible only if there are at least two claims. Moreover, creating a subgroup composed of two people which jointly represent only one claim is not admissible.

1. At the stage of the proceedings regarding the admissibility of the group proceedings, the court only examines whether the premises for that admissibility such as: the homogeneity of the group members’ claims, similarity or identicalness of the factual basis of the group members’ claims, numerosity of the group, standardization of the pecuniary claims and the ability of the claims to be examined in group proceedings – are fulfilled.
2. The requirement of a similar or identical factual basis does not mean that all the facts of each claim should be similar or identical. Group proceedings fulfill their functions if the group members’ claims are ‘typical’ or ‘representative’. Obviously, slight differences may appear between the individual basis of claims, but it is necessary for the relevant factual circumstances to justify the demand common for all claims.
3. It is deemed to be sufficient that basic circumstances of group members’ cases, which may determine the very principle of the defendant’s liability, are similar.
4. The jurisprudence emphasizes that a class action is treated as a whole and it is not possible to reject the claim as to some group members and to hear the case as to the others.

1. Article 391 para 2 sentence 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, under which in the case of the withdrawal of the appeal, the court of the second instance shall terminate appellate proceedings and award the costs in the same amount as in the case of the withdrawal of a lawsuit, applies accordingly in the cassation proceedings.

The Regional Court in Warsaw 3^rd Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:              Agnieszka Rafałko, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                              Ewa Jończyk, Regional Court Judge

  Mariusz Solka, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 11^th December 2019 in Warsaw at the hearing held behind closed doors of the group action filed by the Municipal Consumer Ombudsman in S. City Hall against (…) Towarzystwo (…) S.A. (…) Group with its registered office in W., for payment,

1. The low own contribution insurance, as a security for the repayment of the credit, is not unlawful in itself. But it is contrary to good practices to shape the provisions on ‘UNWW’ (the low own contribution insurance) which: charge consumers the costs of insurance and does not set forth who the beneficiary of the insurance is; does not enable consumers to determine their rights and obligations resulting from the insurance contract; does not specify an amount, method and rules of shaping the due fee, which must be paid by consumers by virtue of the low own contribution insurance; oblige consumers to pay the insurance premium even though they would repay the secured part of the credit over the insurance coverage period; does not specify the maximum period of the insurance.

1. Interpretation of the concept ‘while exercising the act entrusted to him’, within the meaning of Article 429 of the Polish Civil Code, is determined by the facts of the specific case, and in particular by whether, from the injured party’s point of view taking their due diligence into account, the kind of act (which is related to the damage) provides objective grounds for the injured party’s acceptance of the existence of a functional relation between this act and activities that actually fell within the scope of the entrusted activities.
2. The provision of Article 429 of the Polish Civil Code stipulates the liability of a person who entrusts another on the basis of the fault. The liability is autonomous and independent of the direct perpetrator’s liability.

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

Presiding Judge:            Jolanta Polko, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Agata Młynarczyk-Śmieja, Regional Court Judge

Katarzyna Zadora, District Court Judge (delegated; rapporteur)

having examined on 30^th October 2019 in Katowice at the hearing in camera the group action filed by J. D. acting as a representative of the group consisting of 33 persons i.e. [data of the group members], who is a group member as well, against (…) Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością spółka komandytowa in Ś., for payment,