1. A member of a housing cooperative who holds a cooperative title to residential premises is a consumer in the meaning of Article 385¹ section 3 of the Civil Code. Consumer shall be the person who acting in the capacity of a potential buyer of goods or services enters into a legal relationship remaining in a direct relation with the entrepreneur’s actions in the capacity of a manufacturer or seller of goods or service provider. Group’s members’ agreements on the construction of premises and parking spaces should be classified within the above-given category of cases.

1. There is no doubt that claims for payment for undue payment are homogenous in nature. Since members of the group who are buyers of premises derive their claims addressed to the developer from the fact of including in the agreements valorisation clauses imposing the obligation on the buyer to make an extra payment to the price of the flat, undoubtedly these claims have equal factual basis.

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

Wojciech Rybarczyk, Regional Court Judge

Hanna Daniel – Kunach, Regional Court Judge

Hanna Rucińska, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 30^th July 2013 in Bydgoszcz at the hearing in camera the case filed by B.B. against G. N. B. S.A. with its registered office in W. for payment,

decides to:

declare the composition of the group which consists in the following members: 1. P. B., (…) 134 K. I.

1. It is essential to unambiguously distinguish two, independent procedural institutions of group proceedings: the premises of the admissibility of group proceedings indicated in Article 1.1 and 1.2 in conjunction with Article 2.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, the lack of which lead to the rejection of the statement of claims and the additional formal requirements of the statement of claims enlisted in Article 6 of the Act, the lack of which, if not completed after court’s summons, should lead to return of the statement of claims, according to the Article 130.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Homogeneous claims are claims originating from the homogeneous legal relationship, even if there are different substantive law claims arising out of it.
3. The necessity of the occurrence of a particular set of facts, that justify the existence of a particular legal relation does not mean that the entire factual status of the case has to be based on the same facts.
4. Declarations on joining the group are written declarations of will to participate in the group. This is only a demonstration of entering into the legal relation of representation for the purposes of the group proceedings. There is a possibility of specifying this by indicating particular elements by reference to the explicit and precise content of the statement of claims.
5. The persons organising the group gain member status after submitting the statement of claims together with declarations on joining the group, which makes it obvious, that the procedural effect is independent of the date indicated in the declarations.
6. The only limitation of the freedom of contracts relating to the legal counsel’s fee in group proceedings is the limit of the commission for pursuing pecuniary claims to 20% of the awarded amount. This limitation undoubtedly does not refer to the possibility of stipulating an additional success fee for pursuing non-pecuniary claims or accounting for the legal counsel’s associates’ remuneration at the established rate, as this is a common market practice, which is consistent with the law and principles of social coexistence.
7. If a comparison of the value of the object of the dispute and the amount of the expected costs with claimant’s material situation justifies the assertion that the possible costs of the proceedings will be reimbursed, it is possible to waive the obligation of paying the deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings by the claimant.

The decision was set aside with the decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 18^th February 2014, file ref. no. I ACz 22/14. The thesis questioned by the Court of Appeals in Warsaw have been italicized.

1. Disruption of gaining profits from the conducted business activity is undoubtedly a case of violating one’s personal rights. The location of the claim aimed at personal right’s protection and also whether this is an absolute protection (without fault) – as in the case of means of protection stipulated directly in Article 24 of the Civil Code, or relative – as in the case of means of legal protection resulting from the perpetration of a tort, is without any meaning.
2. In the scope of formal requirements, the legislator finally accepted the procedural limitations of group actions through the imposition of the requirement of the same or similar (equal) factual basis of the claims, as well as the standardization of the claims of each member of the group, in consideration of the common circumstances of the case.
3. The literature presents an opinion that the same legal basis of the claim (identity of the factual circumstances) takes place when there is a bond between the members of the group, based on the unity of a legal event. This would mean that the requirement of the same factual basis would be fulfilled through the indication by the claimant, of the event in the form of the broadcasting forbidden advertisements. Such an opinion cannot be agreed with. Such a factual basis of the claims would be sufficient in the event in which the claimant would pursue only the establishment of compensatory liability. However, in the present case, the claimant is not only pursing the establishment of compensation liability, but also further consequences, resulting from this fact, meaning the compensation for damages. And in such a case, apart from the event causing damage, the circumstances substantiating the extent of the damage and the causal link between the event and the damage should be indicated, as not every relationship is relevant but only an adequate causal relationship. i.e. covering the normal consequences of a given reason.
4. The aim of the group proceedings is enabling access to court as well as speeding up the proceedings with the significant lowering of their costs, while the group action alone is to become the instrument enabling fast and effective pursuit of claims by consumers as well as by entrepreneurs.

1. The aim of the provisions on group proceedings is facilitating the pursuit of claims even by a very large number of persons who claim that their rights were violated, and who, for various reasons, cannot take the effort connected with individual participation in court proceedings. This aim would be thwarted if the Court could reject the statement of claims due to laconically indicated charges.
2. Deciding on the admissibility of group proceedings, the court only examines the formal premises for examining the case in these proceedings. This is supported by the wording of Article 10 of the Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings, which provides for the rejection of the statement of claims in the event of the lack of premises, and not its dismissal. At this stage, the Court does not examine the demands from the content-related point of view. Deciding on the admissibility of group proceedings, the court only ascertains whether commencing to establish the composition of the group as well as to the content-related examination of the case is admissible.

1. The absence of the Defendant’s allegations does not signify that all the entities indicated by the representative of the group must be included within the group. This is because the court is in each case obligated to assess the preconditions of joining the group, whereby this can be carried out solely on the basis of the procedural material available in the proceedings.
2. A resolution of the Poviat Management Board is an internal act, and not a declaration of intent submitted in foro externo, and thus submission thereof does not constitute an effective declaration on joining the group.
3. There are no grounds to apply Article 165 (2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure to the declaration on joining the group directly. A possibility of recognizing a declaration on joining the group, which after all is addresses not to court but to the group representative to be a procedural letter also causes a fundamental doubt. Article 165 (2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure assumes a legal fiction exclusively in the scope pertaining to the filing of a letter with court and not to passing it to another addressee.

1. In terms of the credit value, time of duration of the agreement, fixed interest rates, and commission, the concluded agreements were diversified, and for this reason full standardisation of claims for personal performance, i.e. claims for payment, was not possible. Whereas due to the equal factual and legal basis of the claims, limiting the statement of claims to the demand for the establishment of the defendant’s contractual liability was substantiated. After the issuance of the verdict with the characteristics of a precedent and establishing defendant’s liability, individual group members shall have an opportunity to realise in court cases in the full scope the claims they are entitled to, or strive to prevent the dispute with the defendant in another manner, by concluding a a settlement.

1. Consumers are entitled to demand the redress of damage in the form of an wasted vacation from a tour operator. Damage in the form of the loss of pleasure expected in relation to travel remains exclusively within the sphere of impressions and feelings, it is often a purely mental phenomenon devoid of a financial or commercial element.

The decision was reversed by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Gdańsk 1^st Civil Division dated 14^th November 2013, case file no. I ACz 1162/13.

The decision of the Regional Court in Gdańsk 9^th Commercial Division, in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge: Dariusz Kardaś, Regional Court Judge

Judges: Marek Miastowski, Regional Court Judge; Dorota Majerska-Janowska,  acting Regional  Court Judge

having examined on 28^th June 2013 in Gdańsk at the hearing in camera in group proceedings a case filed by group representative (…) against (…) for payment

decides to:

dismiss the motion to secure the claim.