The decision was partially amended with the decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 6^th June 2012, file ref. no. I ACz 868/12. The thesis questioned directly by the Court of Appeals in Warsaw is marked in italics.

1. Proceedings on the establishment assume the omission of the examination of the circumstances closely regarding the individual group members, which are to be examined in the series of later proceedings conducted in a regular manner. For this reason the unification (standardization) of the amount of the claims is not required.
2. The provisions of the Act (Polish Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings) do not stipulate the partial rejection of the statement of claims in group proceedings. The Court is not competent firstly to “choose” only those claims, from amongst the ones submitted, which are suitable for the said proceedings, and secondly – at the stage of examining the admissibility of the statement of claims – to eliminate the individual entities indicated as group members.

1. The legislator’s reference in Article 1 section 1 of the Act to the notion of the claim requires to point out that the Court of the lower instance correctly identified this notion as a claim in the procedural, and not substantive law sense.

1. The factual basis within the meaning of Article 1 section 1 of the Act is only the basic (initial) set of facts substantiating the claim. The discrepancies in terms of the facts substantiating only the amount of the claim are not an obstacle in assessing the group proceedings as admissible. Of course, it is the assessment of the Court as to which level of identicalness should be applied so that the given factual grounds would be similar to each other. In such a context, the aim which the group proceedings is to serve cannot be omitted. In this case, the group proceedings are aimed at increasing access to court and increasing the effectiveness of the legal protection by enabling the simultaneous ruling on the legitimacy of the claims of a larger group of persons. It is therefore to increase the effectiveness of the actions of the judiciary and facilitate potential members of this type of dispute in achieving the aim which is the comprehensive ruling.
2. The unification (standardization) of the amount of the pecuniary claims is tightly linked with a different premise of admissibility of the group proceedings, i.e. the requirement of the existence of a relationship of a factual nature between the claims. The pecuniary amount pursued in group proceedings is to therefore result from the factual circumstances, common for everyone, in order to be able to establish the amount to which each of the group members is entitled on their basis. These common factual circumstances are not only the commonality of the factual basis but also those connected with the scope of the demand.

1. Legal representation by a professional counsel stemming from Article 4 (4) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings applies also to the Poviat Consumer Ombudsman whereas an action filed in group proceedings without adherence to the requirement of mandatory legal representation by a professional attorney-at-law or legal counsel is returned without the call to remove the defects.

1. The nature of the claims based on Article 446 section 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Code (CC), Article 448 of the CC, Article 444 section 1 and 2 of the CC, Article 445 section 1 of the CC, Article 447 of the CC, Article 415 of the CC, Article 417 of the CC, qualifies them as pecuniary claims in the part derived from the provisions on the protection of personal rights. Claims on the protection of personal rights from tort actions, as indicated, were excluded from the category of claims, which can be pursued in group proceedings.
2. The claims regarding the costs of treatment, funeral costs, alimony payments or compensation for the significant deterioration of one’s life situation as a result of death of the closest family member do not meet the requirements of the homogeneity.

1. The capacity to be a party in civil proceedings is or is not granted to a given entity and is not of a divisible nature, hence having the capacity to be a party in civil proceedings is not dependent on, or linked with the territorial scope of competency of a given entity.

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

Presiding Judge:            Katarzyna Sieheń, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Ryszard Kądziela, Regional Court Judge

Izabela Bogusz, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 26^th September 2011 in Opole at the hearing the case filed by K. K. – group representative of group of residents of ul. (…) and ul. (…) in K. and the city of K. against the municipality of K. – the President of K. and the poviat of K. – the Starost of K. for ascertainment,

1. At this stage of the proceesings, it cannot be ascertained that the case regards only and solely the compensatory liability which the Water Law Act prescribes for. The statement of claims in the present case is, in essence, derived from the actions and omissions of the District’s Crisis Management Center in Kędzierzyn-Koźle, which in this scope, is not subject to the regulations of the Water Law Act. None of the provisions of the Water Law Act fully meets the circumstances of the present case, in the shape that was indicated by the defendant.

1. The group proceeding provided for by the Act of 17 December 2009 on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings is based on the idea of representation, which means that a specific person or persons bring forth an action and take part in the proceedings in the interest of group of persons placed in a similar situation. The idea or representation was implemented by appointing a representative and conferring the status of the party to the group proceedings in the procedural meaning on them. The representative handles the proceedings under their own name but on behalf of all the group members. The group members, who are the parties to the disputed legal relationship and dispose of the pursued claim, are the parties to the proceedings in the meaning of substantive law.

The decision was reversed in part (in the scope of point 2) by decision of the Court of Appeals in Krakow of 7^th December 2011, file ref. no. I ACz 1235/11. The thesis’ questioned by the Court are marked in italics.

1. In Article 1 section 1 (unlike in Article 2 section 3), the Act uses the term claim in the procedural meaning. Against the background of the Act, homogenous claims are claims arising from the same type of legal relationship. This does not mean sameness of specific standards constituting the legal basis of the specific claims (substantive law claims). The notion of homogeneity thus understood, litigation claims with their source in one legal relationship, even if various substantive law claims were to arise therefrom, should be recognised as homogenous.