The ruling was reversed by the judgement of the Court of Appeals in Wroclaw dated 20^th November 2013, file ref. no. I ACa 1232/13.

It is beyond any doubt that a housing cooperative is a business entity and in the scope of its operations aimed at broadly understood satisfaction of its members’ residential needs it must be afforded identical treatment to that afforded to an entrepreneur, with this reservation that the housing cooperative’s business activity is not related to the satisfaction of residential and other needs of its members and their families.

1. Ultimately, the homogeneity of this type of claims in this type of proceedings is decided by the factual relationship occurring between them. It should be emphasised that it is precisely this relationship that eliminates claims of different type from those raised.

1. In accordance with the rules of logic and life experience, based on the rationality of the legislator, it is not possible to deliberate additional premises which the claim on consumer protection would have to fulfil, since in Article 1 section 2 of the Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings, the legislator deliberately formulates these types of claims widely. If the legislator foresaw any specific limitations in the scope of section 2 of the cited Act, this would be expressed in a relevant provision. Therefore, one should not overinterpret or treat the types of claims which the legislator allows to be heard as group actions too narrowly.

1. The institution of securing the costs of the proceedings, regulated by the provision of Article 8 of the Act of 17 December 2009 on pursuing claims in group proceedings serves securing the reimbursement of the defendant’s future costs of proceedings from the claimant. It seems that the argument substantiating obligating the claimant to submit a deposit is, first and foremost, the protection of the defendant’s interests against unsubstantiated statements of claims filling by the citizens. An argument may also be the expected difficulties and costs, which the defendant would have to incur in order to enforce the judgement awarding the costs of the proceedings.

1. The formal requirements indicated in Article 12 of the Act of 17 December 2009 on pursuing claims in group proceedings of a declaration on joining to the group applies also to those persons who are initially acceding to this group.

1. Standardisation may be performed in subgroups consisting of no fewer than two persons. The point is for the simplifications related to examining the case in the present proceedings not to be frustrated by the need to assess fragmented and different claims of each of the claimants. Deciding to conduct the dispute in these proceedings, a part of the claimants must take the inability to pursue their claims in full amount when other claimant’s claims are smaller into account. The standardisation of claims, being a condition of admissibility of the proceedings at issue, amounts to determination of a lump value of claims for all claimants (at least within the subgroup), not exceeding the lowest claims one of them is entitled to.

1. Requirements that each pleading must fulfill are indicated in Article 126 para 1 of the CCP (Polish Code of Civil Procedure), and additionally – in relation to the statement of claims – also in Article 187 para 1 of the CCP. Moreover, with respect to the matters regarding claims pursued in group proceedings, these requirements are also indicated in Article 6 of the Act of 17 December 2009 on pursuing claims in group proceedings (Journal of Laws from 2010, No. 7, item 44). This provision states that the statement of claims should satisfy the conditions indicated in the code of civil procedure, and also include: 1) the motion for examination of the case in group proceedings, 2) an indication of the circumstances prescribed in Article 1 section 1 of the Act, and in the case of pecuniary claims, also the rules for standardization of the claims of each group or subgroup member, 3) in the case of pecuniary claims, indication of the amount of the claim of each group or subgroup member, 4) the claimant’s declaration that he is acting in the capacity of the group’s representative.

The judgment has been partially changed by the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Białystok of 2^nd October 2013, file ref. no. I ACa 386/13.

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

Presiding Judge: Bożena Charukiewicz, Regional Court Judge

Judges: Wojciech Wacław, Regional Court Judge; Przemysław Jagosz, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 29^th March 2013 in Olsztyn the case filed by B.S., the representative of the group composed of (…) against (…) sp. z o.o. [Ltd] in O. for payment

hereby decides to:

I. award from the defendant to the benefit of

1. Provisions regulating the proceedings on securing the claims shall apply to the proceedings caused by bringing a group action.