The Regional Court in Warsaw 3^rd Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Andrzej Lipiński, District Court Judge (delegated)

having examined on 26^th October 2019 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the action filed by the Municipal Consumer Ombudsman in Olsztyn against Bank Millennium S.A. with its registered office in Warsaw in group proceedings for payment,

hereby decides to:

1. Pursuant to Article 24 (2) of the Act of 17 December 2009 on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings (Journal of Laws of 2018, item 573, as amended), the provisions of Article 100 (2), Articles 101-103, 105, 107, and 109-112 of the Act of 28 July 2005 on Court Costs in Civil cases, the exemption of court fees is impossible, neither in whole, nor in part.

The Regional Court in Poznań 18^th Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding judge:         Joanna Ciesielska-Borowiec

Judges:                         Magdalena Ławrynowicz, Adrianna Foligowska

having examined on 8^th October 2019 at the hearing in camera of the group action filed by [data of 15 persons] against R. T. Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in Ł. for payment,

decides to:

The Regional Court in Warsaw 4^th Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Magdalena Kubczak, the Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Anna Tyrluk-Krajewska, the Regional Court Judge

Tomasz Jaskłowski, the Regional Court Judge

having examined on 27^th September 2019 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the action filed by Ł. K. – a group representative against bank (…) S.A. in W. for the establishment of the defendant’s liability,

hereby decides to:

1. The Court while deciding on the admissibility of the group proceedings is obliged to issue a decision on the basis of the state of affairs at the time of the issuing of that decision. Thus, all the allegations concerning the original shape of the group action, in particular related to the numerosity of the group and subgroups, are irrelevant for that decision.
2. At the stage of examination of the premises on the admissibility of the group proceedings, the Court is solely obliged to make a formal assessment on the admissibility of the group proceedings. However, the Court is not entitled to examine the merits of the claim.

The decision is not valid and final.

1. The requirement of homogeneity of claims stipulated in Article 1 Section 1 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings means that all persons covered by the class action shall apply for legal protection in the same form.
2. The pecuniary claims shall undoubtedly be considered as homogeneous claims. The non-pecuniary claims shall be homogeneous solely when they relate to the defendant’s requested course of action, which means that all group members request a specified defendant’s act or omission (of the same kind).
3. The premise of numerosity shall be fulfilled at the moment of filing the lawsuit as well as at the moment of the Court’s on the admissibility of the group proceedings.
4. The third subjective premise, stipulated in Article 1 Section 1 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, which shall be fulfilled to initiate group proceedings, is commonality of the factual basis. The commonality arises when a bond between group members based on the unity of the event leading to the damage exists.
5. Therefore, the identical factual basis exists when there is one multilateral legal relationship, and a similar factual basis – many legal relationships.
6. The very purpose of allocating the money from a loan for the purchase of a residential premises, its renovation or furnishing eliminates the debtor’s status as an entrepreneur.
7. Even if the debtor, who concluded the contract for residential purposes, simultaneously runs a business activity, their consumer status does not change in the present proceedings, because the conclusion of the loan (credit) contract is not directly related to that activity.

1. Pursuant to Article 15 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings the deadline to raise objections shall be stipulated in the form of a decision (the Act uses the expression “within the term stipulated by the court”). However, imposing an obligation to express the defendant’s stance on successive modifications of the scope of the claim in the form of orders shall not be considered as resulting in being deprived the possibility to protect the party’s rights.
2. The opinion that a list of group members shall be only one and final and the term to raise objections starts as of its service, is not correct.
3. Running a business activity in the real estate, which was financed by a credit (loan) does not prejudge the direct relation between a contract of credit and the business activity.
4. Group proceedings for the establishment of the defendant’s liability is specific and autonomous in nature and cannot be identified (in terms of structure) with the proceedings ending with a preliminary judgement within the meaning of Article 318 of Polish Code of Civil Procedure, as well as proceedings for the determination of law or a legal relationship pursuant to Article 189 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure.

1. Since the Polish legislator provides for autonomous grounds of liability resulting from assistance in inflicting damage (taking benefit from the damage inflicted by another person), it means that the ancillary’s action (who benefits from the damage) is not covered by the general regulation of liability for its own act stipulated in Articles 415 and 416 of the Polish Civil Code.
2. Pursuant to the model set forth in Article 361 of the Polish Civil Code by the Polish legislator, a perpetrator of damage bears liability only for usual, not all, results of their acts or omissions. The usual results of the acts or omissions are such actions or omissions which usually happen in particular circumstances.
3. The ancillary’s liability derives from the liability borne by the perpetrator of damage. Hence, the essential condition of liability resulting from assistance in inflicting damage is proving that the perpetrator’s tort liability is justified.
4. It follows from the very construction of the ancillary’s liability that in order to be “helpful to inflict damage” one should be aware of the tort which the ancillary would participate in. If there is no such awareness, any ancillary’s actions or omissions are merely an elements of the facts leading to the occurrence of damage, but they are not acts which resulted in liability for damages.
5. A bank’s professional duty to act with special diligence relates to the protection of funds entrusted to the bank by a bank account holder and, in its nature, is related to contractual liability.

1. Pursuant to Article 16.1 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings the burden of proof that the particular persons are group members of lies with the plaintiff. A detailed name list of group members must be drafted and it have to be proven that each of them meets the requirements on joining the group.

Court of Appeals in Kraków 1^st Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Marek Boniecki, Court of Appeals Judge

Judges:                            Grzegorz Krężołek, Court of Appeals Judge

Sławomir Jamróg, Court of Appeals Judge (rapporteur)

having examined on 28^th June 2019 in Kraków at the hearing of the group action filed by Z. R. acting as a representative of the group consisting of: [data of group members] against the State Treasury – the State Water Enterprise ‘Wody Polskie’ in Warsaw [Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie w Warszawie] and the (…) Voivodeship for establishment of the defendants’ liability,

following the defendants’ appeals against the judgement of the Regional Court in Krakow of 19^th October 2017, file ref. no. I C 1419/10,