1. The basis for determining what specific amount is charged to an individual member for the implementation of an investment task should be the costs actually incurred per unit (Article 18(1) and (2) u.s.m.). In turn, carrying out a “specific valorization” of the one-time annual fee paid at the time of acquisition of the right by drawing up an appraisal for the purpose of updating the annual fee for perpetual usufruct and, consequently, calculating the market value of the right, which is then included in the costs of the investment, is contrary to the regulation of Article 18 of the A.s.m. For it should be noted that a contract for the construction of an apartment with a member of a cooperative, as referred to in Article 18(1) of the A.s.m., can be validly concluded only with respect to the principle of nonprofit.
2. The special feature of a housing cooperative is ex definition the conduct of business activities to meet the housing needs of its members, and the indication in Article 1(6) of the Law on Housing that the cooperative may also conduct other business activities prejudices that this is an activity other than that arising from its basic object of operation. Conducting economic activity is its primary object of operation, purpose and raison d’être. Therefore, the claim to supplement the building contribution is directly related to the cooperative’s business of meeting the housing needs of its members as arising from a contractual relationship and not a membership relationship. Referring to the ratio legis of the shortening of the statute of limitations with regard to these claims, it is pointed out that they are typical, mass, repetitive and professionalized, as well as the principles of settlement of housing contributions, the analogous application of which allows the beginning of the running of the statute of limitations to be set at the date of the expiration of the six-month period (currently three months and the claim expires) from the commissioning of the building for use (Article 10(3) and Article 18(4) of the u.s.m.).

1. Insurance of low own contribution, as a security for the repayment of the loan, in itself is not prohibited, but it is contrary to good morals to shape the provisions on UNWW in such a way that: charge consumers with the cost of insurance and do not specify who is the beneficiary of the insurance coverage, do not allow consumers to determine their rights and obligations under the insurance contract, do not specify the amount, manner and principles of formation of the due fee that consumers must pay for low own contribution insurance, oblige consumers to cover the cost of the insurance premium even if they would repay the part of the loan covered by the insurance during the insurance coverage, do not specify the maximum duration of the insurance.

Presiding Judge:           SSO Piotr Czerski

Judges:                           SSO Jolanta Szymanowska, SSO Agnieszka Wojnarowicz-Posłuszna

after hearing on June 7, 2019 in Lublin

the case from the action of J. O. (representative), acting in his own name and on his own behalf and on behalf of: [data of 25 members of the group]

against (…) Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in L. in group proceedings for payment of

Presiding Judge:           SSO Piotr Czerski

Judges:                           SSO Jolanta Szymanowska, SSO Agnieszka Wojnarowicz-Posłuszna

after hearing at a closed session on March 22, 2019 in L.

the case from the action of J. O. (representative), [data of 25 class members]

against (…) Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in L. in group proceedings for payment

Presiding Judge:           SSO Piotr Czerski

Judges:                           SSO Jolanta Szymanowska, SSO Agnieszka Wojnarowicz-Posłuszna

having examined at a hearing on October 26, 2018, in L.

the case brought by J. O. (representative), [details of 25 group members]

against (…) Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in L. for payment

Presiding Judge:           SSO Piotr Czerski

Judges:                           SSO Jolanta Szymanowska, SSO Agnieszka Wojnarowicz-Posłuszna

Having examined the case in closed session on September 21, 2018, in L.

the case brought by J. O. (representative), [details of 25 group members]

against (…) Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in L. for payment

The Regional Court in Warsaw, 21st Labor Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           SSO Grzegorz Kochan (rapporteur)

Judges:                           SSO Małgorzata Kosicka, SSR Katarzyna Szaniawska-Stejblis (del.)

having examined on August 10, 2018, in Warsaw, at a closed session, the case brought by (…) against the State Treasury – Ministry of Internal Affairs in W. for compensation,

1. The granting of public aid could not be treated in the same way as cooperation between two legally equal economic entities (i.e., as a transaction subject to the principle of autonomy of will and freedom of contract). Making aid conditional on conditions not provided for in the law must therefore be treated as unlawful (aimed at circumventing the law).
2. It cannot be ruled out that the actions of public authorities consisting in indirectly influencing economic processes that interfere with the economic sphere of individuals and violate their rights under Articles 21 and 65 of the Polish Constitution will constitute an attempt to circumvent the limits of public authority’s competence under the Constitution or statutes and, as such, may give rise to liability for damages under Article 417 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 77 of the Constitution.
3. A shareholder suffers damage in the form of a loss in the value of shares (property rights) also in a situation where the harmful action directly affects the assets of a joint-stock company (causes damage to its assets). If the harmful action is related to the exercise of public authority, the shareholder’s claim arises on the basis of Article 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and Article 417 of the Civil Code.

1. It is advisable to interpret the homogeneity of claims taking into account the objectives of class action proceedings. An overly narrow or strict interpretation of the prerequisite of homogeneity of claims would, in practice, limit the admissibility of class action proceedings.
2. The requirement of the same or similar factual basis for the claim means that the factual basis for the claim does not have to be identical circumstances, and a significant similarity should be considered sufficient.
3. The condition of the same factual basis is met when the facts justifying the existence of a specific legal relationship, which is the basis for the claims, are the same for all members of the group. This is not precluded by the existence of other facts included in the factual basis of the claim and relating exclusively to a specific member of the group (such as the nature of individual claims, their due date, or amount).
4. Case law allows for the possibility of recognizing only the amount of a given claim as the common circumstances of the case referred to in Article 2(1) of the Class Action Act and, according to this criterion, to standardize claims in subgroups.
5. The issue of determining the composition of the group, and thus the composition of a given subgroup, remains outside the scope of the assessment of the admissibility of class action proceedings.
6. The expansion of the group’s composition is permissible even before the announcement of the commencement of proceedings. Although the Civil Procedure Code does not refer to the situation of joining the group after the filing of a lawsuit and before the announcement of the commencement of proceedings, the doctrine argues that there are no obstacles to such an action.

1. The rule should be that after the final settlement of construction costs, the cooperative cannot make another final settlement that is effective against a member, and a member of the cooperative cannot demand such a settlement. However, the final settlement of construction costs, like any legal transaction, may be invalid. All provisions and rules concerning the invalidity of legal transactions, in particular those caused by defects in the declaration of will, apply to it.
2. If a cooperative owns or has the right of perpetual usufruct of land and carries out a construction project on it on the basis of cooperative construction for its own members, it has no right to collect from them monetary benefits corresponding to the value of the right to the land on which it is building, transferred together with the right to the premises. The value of the right to the land is not a construction cost for the cooperative. There are no legal grounds for charging the equivalent of the share in the right to the land assigned to the premises from the member for whom the premises are being built. If such an equivalent is collected, the cooperative carrying out construction for its members in accordance with the principle provided for in Article 18 of the Housing Cooperatives Act, i.e. “at cost,” is unjustly enriched. A different contractual provision, as contrary to the law and invalid, does not justify the collection of fees for the land.
3. The price including the unjustified value added tax (VAT) is an undue payment.