Decision of the Regional Court in Ł‎‎‎ódź, 1st Civil Division of 6th May 2011
II C 1693/10

  1. The aim of obtaining the verdict establishing the defendant’s liability is to obtain a precedent for possible individual actions of the group members for payment, or a basis for the conclusion of a settlement between the group members and the defendant. The claim included in the statement of claims understood in such a way is of a pecuniary nature, despite the fact that it does not constitute a claim for payment. It is not necessary to indicate the amount of the claim of each of the group members in the statement of claims, and Article 2 section 3 of the Act (Polish Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings) constitutes an exception to the rule of indicating and standardising the amount of the claims of the group members resulting from Article 2 section 1 and Article 6 section 1 point 3 of the Act.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw, 2nd Civil Division of 8th April 2011
II C 121/11

  1. Regardless of the possibility to seek redress of the damage, which stems from the provisions, which Article 24 section 2 of the Civil Code makes a reference to, the means of personal rights protection may be divided into proprietary and non-proprietary, which does not change the fact that they will be regarded by claims which should still be recognized as those being aimed at the protection of personal rights. The claim on pecuniary satisfaction is therefore qualified as one of the proprietary means of protection of personal rights. Since in the statement of claims itself it was ascertained that the incurred detriment (harm) is to be the source of the claims, then there can be no doubt that these claims will regard the protection of personal rights, and therefore their pursuit in group proceedings is excluded.

Decision of the Court of Appeals in Kraków 1st Civil Division of 7th March 2011
I ACz 205/11

The Court of Appeals in Kraków, 1st Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Józef Wąsik, Court of Appeals Judge

Władysław Pawlak, Court of Appeals Judge (rapporteur), Jerzy Bess, Court of Appeals Judge

having examined on 7th March 2011 in Kraków at the hearing in camera the case filed by  the Poviat T. Consumer Ombudsman as the group representative (…) against A S.A. in W. for ordering the payment of performances following the complaint lodged by the Poviat Consumer Ombudsman against the decision rendered by the Presiding Judge of the Regional Court in Tarnów dated 21st January 2011, file ref. no. I C 977/10, during an in camera hearing,

decides to:

refer the following legal issues to be resolved by the Supreme Court [of Poland]

Decision of the Presiding Judge of the Regional Court in Tarnów 1st Civil Division of 21st January 2011
I C 977/10

The Regional Court in Tarnów, 1st Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Marek Syrek, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 21st of January 2011 in Tarnów, at the hearing in camera, the case filed by the Poviat T. Consumer Ombudsman acting on behalf of (…) A. S.A. in W. for the payment of performance

orders to:

return the complaint.

Decision of the Regional Court in Opole, 1st Civil Division of 13th December 2010
I C 454/10

  1. In accordance with Article 16 section 3 in conjunction with Article 186 section 1 of the Water Law Act, only in the event of a case initiated against the owner of water or owner of water equipment in relation to the flooding of land during a flood as a result of owner’s lack of adherence to the provisions of the act, is one entitled to compensation (on the terms and conditions indicated in the Water Law Act), which can be pursued directly by means of seeking redress to court without the need of exhausting the manner of administrative proceedings.
1 35 36 37