1. There are no grounds to apply the provisions on the proceedings for securing the claims (Article 730 et seq of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, CCP) in proceedings in the subject of the deposit to secure the future costs of the trial in a class action (Article 8 of the Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings). These proceedings are not a type of proceedings for securing the claims (despite certain similar traits). The very fact that Article 24 section 1 of the Act does not exclude the provisions of Article 730 et seq. of the CCP from being applied in group proceedings, does not automatically mean that in examining the motion on obligating the claimant to submit a deposit on the basis of Article 8 of the Act, the court should apply these provisions, especially apply them directly.

1. The deposit for the purpose of securing the costs of the proceedings is specific – unique in comparison with the rules of procedure indicated in the Code of Civil Procedure – institution prescribed in Article 8 section 1 of the Act of 17 December 2009 on pursuing claims in group proceedings – which in consequence can be applied only in cases examined in the group proceedings.

1. The subject metter of the statement of claims are not the claims of the individual group members for the payment, but only the prejudging of the principle of the defendant’s liability. The judgement, which is to be issued in the case, will fulfill the role of a precedent enabling the pursuit of claims for payment. In this situation, the estimation of the defendant’s potential proceeding costs must include the value of the subject of the proceedings, calculated uniformly for all of the group members, and not the value that is calculated separately for each of them. This is where the limit, established by the Court, of the possible costs of legal representation of the defendant (PLN 43,200) stems from.
2. In assessing the legitimacy of the defendant’s demand to secure the costs of the proceedings through the payment of a deposit by the claimant, one cannot lose sight of the stage, on which this assessment is made along with the aim of the above regulation. Without a doubt, the implementation of the regulation in the subject of the deposit for securing the costs of the proceedings was to constitute an effective barrier against abusing the institution of group proceedings. The defendant, in submitting such a motion, should, however, make plausible the fact that the initiation of the statement of claims against him is obviously groundless or that its consideration is highly improbable, therefore it carries the traits of “procedural barratry” and secondly, that the lack of establishing a deposit for securing the future claim on awarding the costs of the proceedings will impede or severely hamper their enforcement on the claimant.

Announcement on the commencement of the group proceedings

Under the Act of 17 December 2009 on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings (Journal of Laws from 2010, No 7, item 44), group proceedings initiated by the Z. R., acting as the group representative, against the State Treasury – Voivode Ś., the Director of the Regional Board for Water Management in K.; the Ś. Voivodeship; the Poviat of S. and the Municipality of S. (hereinafter jointly referred to as: ‘Defendants’) for establishment of their joint and several liability, has commenced before the Regional Court in Krakow 1^st Civil Division to file ref. no. I C 1419/10.

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

Presiding Judge: Małgorzata Zwierzyńska, Regional Court Judge

Judges: Piotr Daniszewski, Regional Court Judge, Karolina Sarzyńska, District Court Judge

having examined on 12^th November 2012 in Gdańsk the case filed by group representative (…) against (…) Sp. z o.o. in Gdańsk in bankruptcy for payment, at the hearing in camera,

decides to:

terminate the injunction proceedings.

1. 1. Partial rejection of the statement of claims is a construction known and applied in judicial practice, despite the lack of clear support in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no reason to deprive the court of such a competency in group proceedings. At the same time the refusal to examine the entire case in the group proceedings, in a situation in which there is no difficulty in separating the claims fulfilling its premises, would be artificial and not in compliance with the postulates of the universality of group proceedings.

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

Presiding Judge: Małgorzata Zwierzyńska, Regional Court Judge

Judges: Piotr Daniszewski, Regional Court Judge, Karolina Sarzyńska, Regional Court Judge

having examined on the 17^th October 2012 in Gdańsk the case filed by group representative (…) against (…) Sp. z o.o. in Gdańsk for payment, at the hearing in camera,

decides to:

suspend the proceedings under article 174 (1) (4) CCP.

1. The obligation to submit the Claimant’s deposit in a group proceedings serves to guarantee the procedural balance of the parties and prevents the abuse of the institution of pursing claims in a group proceedings. It should be noted, however, that this argument cannot be the only one taken into consideration when examining the motion.

1. The modification of the statement of claims brought by the claimant consists in bringing a new claim without changing the factual basis of the claim raised. It is beyond any doubt that the new claim (for establishment) was raised in place of the hitherto one (for payment). In this state of affairs, irrelevant was the Regional Court’s finding that the demand for payment still remains to be examined in the case, if the claimant expressly stated that that the modification of the statement of claims performed by him constituted neither a tacit nor express withdrawal of the suit or renunciation of the pursued claim.

1. At the stage of examination of the admissibility of group proceedings by the court, under Article 6.1.2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, the claimant is obligated only to indicate (not demonstrate) the circumstances mentioned in Article 1.1 of the Act. In the case of pecuniary claims, the claimant is also obligated to indicate the principles for standardisation of the value of claims of members of the group or subgroups.