Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 4th Civil Division of 27th September 2019
IV C 281/18
The Regional Court in Warsaw 4th Civil Division with the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Magdalena Kubczak, the Regional Court Judge
Judges: Anna Tyrluk-Krajewska, the Regional Court Judge
Tomasz Jaskłowski, the Regional Court Judge
having examined on 27th September 2019 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the action filed by Ł. K. – a group representative against bank (…) S.A. in W. for the establishment of the defendant’s liability,
hereby decides to:
Decision of the Court of Appeals in Katowice 1st Civil Division of 12th September 2019
I ACz 629/19
- The Court while deciding on the admissibility of the group proceedings is obliged to issue a decision on the basis of the state of affairs at the time of the issuing of that decision. Thus, all the allegations concerning the original shape of the group action, in particular related to the numerosity of the group and subgroups, are irrelevant for that decision.
- At the stage of examination of the premises on the admissibility of the group proceedings, the Court is solely obliged to make a formal assessment on the admissibility of the group proceedings. However, the Court is not entitled to examine the merits of the claim.
Decision of the Regional Court in Wroclaw 1st Civil Division of 9th September 2019 I C 976/17
I C 976/17
The decision is not valid and final.
- The requirement of homogeneity of claims stipulated in Article 1 Section 1 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings means that all persons covered by the class action shall apply for legal protection in the same form.
- The pecuniary claims shall undoubtedly be considered as homogeneous claims. The non-pecuniary claims shall be homogeneous solely when they relate to the defendant’s requested course of action, which means that all group members request a specified defendant’s act or omission (of the same kind).
- The premise of numerosity shall be fulfilled at the moment of filing the lawsuit as well as at the moment of the Court’s on the admissibility of the group proceedings.
- The third subjective premise, stipulated in Article 1 Section 1 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, which shall be fulfilled to initiate group proceedings, is commonality of the factual basis. The commonality arises when a bond between group members based on the unity of the event leading to the damage exists.
- Therefore, the identical factual basis exists when there is one multilateral legal relationship, and a similar factual basis – many legal relationships.
- The very purpose of allocating the money from a loan for the purchase of a residential premises, its renovation or furnishing eliminates the debtor’s status as an entrepreneur.
- Even if the debtor, who concluded the contract for residential purposes, simultaneously runs a business activity, their consumer status does not change in the present proceedings, because the conclusion of the loan (credit) contract is not directly related to that activity.
Decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 1st Civil Division of 27th August 2019
I ACz 618/19
- Pursuant to Article 15 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings the deadline to raise objections shall be stipulated in the form of a decision (the Act uses the expression “within the term stipulated by the court”). However, imposing an obligation to express the defendant’s stance on successive modifications of the scope of the claim in the form of orders shall not be considered as resulting in being deprived the possibility to protect the party’s rights.
- The opinion that a list of group members shall be only one and final and the term to raise objections starts as of its service, is not correct.
- Running a business activity in the real estate, which was financed by a credit (loan) does not prejudge the direct relation between a contract of credit and the business activity.
- Group proceedings for the establishment of the defendant’s liability is specific and autonomous in nature and cannot be identified (in terms of structure) with the proceedings ending with a preliminary judgement within the meaning of Article 318 of Polish Code of Civil Procedure, as well as proceedings for the determination of law or a legal relationship pursuant to Article 189 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure.
Judgement of the Regional Court in Warsaw 24th Civil Division of 31st July 2019
XXV C 148/14
- Since the Polish legislator provides for autonomous grounds of liability resulting from assistance in inflicting damage (taking benefit from the damage inflicted by another person), it means that the ancillary’s action (who benefits from the damage) is not covered by the general regulation of liability for its own act stipulated in Articles 415 and 416 of the Polish Civil Code.
- Pursuant to the model set forth in Article 361 of the Polish Civil Code by the Polish legislator, a perpetrator of damage bears liability only for usual, not all, results of their acts or omissions. The usual results of the acts or omissions are such actions or omissions which usually happen in particular circumstances.
- The ancillary’s liability derives from the liability borne by the perpetrator of damage. Hence, the essential condition of liability resulting from assistance in inflicting damage is proving that the perpetrator’s tort liability is justified.
- It follows from the very construction of the ancillary’s liability that in order to be “helpful to inflict damage” one should be aware of the tort which the ancillary would participate in. If there is no such awareness, any ancillary’s actions or omissions are merely an elements of the facts leading to the occurrence of damage, but they are not acts which resulted in liability for damages.
- A bank’s professional duty to act with special diligence relates to the protection of funds entrusted to the bank by a bank account holder and, in its nature, is related to contractual liability.
Decision of the Court of Appeals in Kraków 1st Civil Division of 28th June 2019
I ACa 954/18
Court of Appeals in Kraków 1st Civil Division with the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Marek Boniecki, Court of Appeals Judge
Judges: Grzegorz Krężołek, Court of Appeals Judge
Sławomir Jamróg, Court of Appeals Judge (rapporteur)
having examined on 28th June 2019 in Kraków at the hearing of the group action filed by Z. R. acting as a representative of the group consisting of: [data of group members] against the State Treasury – the State Water Enterprise ‘Wody Polskie’ in Warsaw [Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie w Warszawie] and the (…) Voivodeship for establishment of the defendants’ liability,
following the defendants’ appeals against the judgement of the Regional Court in Krakow of 19th October 2017, file ref. no. I C 1419/10,
The Judgement of the Regional Court in Warsaw 21st Division of Labour of 24th June 2019
XXI P 113/18
- The responsibility of the State Treasury under art. 417 § 1 of the Civil Code is based on a tort of public authority – i.e. an unlawful act or omission in the exercise of public authority, the object of which may only be the violation of a specific standard ordering (or prohibiting) specific performance in a given situation. “Unlawfulness” must be understood strictly in accordance with the constitutional depiction of the sources of law (Articles 87-94 of the Polish Constitution). This concept is therefore narrower than the traditional depiction of unlawfulness under civil law which also includes, apart from the violation of legal provisions, the violation of moral and customary standards, defined as “principles of social coexistence” or “good customs”.
- The mere fact that the budget act provides for the average annual wage growth rate in the state budget sector in a certain amount does not impose an obligation to increase the remuneration of the employees of the state budget sector. Regulations providing for wage indexation do not create direct subjective rights but only provide guidelines for further action.
Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 25th Civil Division of 7th May 2019
XXV C 461/18
The Regional Court in Warsaw 25th Civil Division with the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Anna Pogorzelska, Regional Court Judge
Judges: Krystyna Stawecka, Regional Court Judge
Anna Ogińska-Łągiewka, District Court Judge (delegated)
having examined on 7th May 2019 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the group action filed by the Poviat Consumer Ombudsman in Poviat (…) against (…) S.A. with its registered office in W. for payment,