1. At the preliminary stage of the case, merely the circumstances which justify (or not) the examination of the case in the group proceedings, are significant for the court. The verification of the facts indicated in the lawsuit, as facts justifying acceptance of the claim, will always be the object of the evidentiary hearings at the stage of the substantive examination of the case.
2. For the purposes of the preliminary assessment of the admissibility of the group proceedings, the facts provided by the plaintiff are binding for the court. It is assumed that the assessment of the nature of the case takes place within the framework of the claim indicated by the plaintiff and facts provided by it. These circumstances concretize the legal relationship between the parties, shape the nature of the case and thus decide whether the case is a civil case or not.

The Regional Court in Warsaw 25^th Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Anna Pogorzelska Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Krystyna Stawecka Regional Court Judge,

Anna Ogińska-Łągiewka delegated District Court Judge

Having examined on 11^th May 2018 in Warsaw, at the hearing in camera the case filed in class action proceedings by the group representative Consumer Ombudsman in County (…) against (…) joint stock company with registered office in W. for payment regarding the defendant’s objection against the value of the dispute

decided:

The Regional Court in Warsaw 25^th Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Anna Pogorzelska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Krystyna Stawecka, Regional Court Judge,

Anna Ogińska-Łągiewka, District Court Judge (delegated)

having examined on 11^th May 2018 in Warsaw the case filed in group proceedings by the group representative District Consumer Ombudsman in Poviat (…) against (…) S.A. with its registered office in W. for payment,

1. Introducing a regulation to group proceedings regarding a deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings should guarantee the defendant a return of the incurred costs by the claimant. Such a regulation guarantees the protection of the defendant’s interest against unfounded statements of claim. Regardless of the optional function of the deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings, this institution constitutes a significant limitation of the claimant’s freedom to start group proceedings. Therefore, the claimant’s obligation to make a deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings should be deemed a factor limiting the possibility of the recourse to pursuing claims in group proceedings.
2. It is the defendant’s duty to indicate and demonstrate the facts which substantiate the need to impose an obligation to make a deposit on the claimant.
3. A motion for the deposit should make plausible that the already initiated legal action is: firstly, obviously unfounded and it is hardly possible that the statement of claims will be accepted i.e. it should be deemed as ‘litigious proceedings’ and secondly, that the lack of the deposit to secure the statement of claim makes the enforcement of the costs of the proceedings from the opposite party difficult or impossible.
4. The fact that the consumer ombudsman’s acts as a claimant does not preclude the possibility to enforce the costs of the proceedings by the opposite party.
5. If the court dismisses a claim and awards the costs of the proceedings from the consumer ombudsman to the defendant, such costs should be deemed as the costs of the legal activity of the consumer ombudsman, including in the budget of poviatthe poviat. Such costs cannot be deemed a contractual obligation incurred by the consumer ombudsman which he would not be poviatliable for without the contract being countersigned by the poviat’s treasurer.

1. It is necessary to take into account the fact that group proceedings are conducted in the interest of a large number of persons connected only by ties corresponding to formal co-participation, and that the nature of the proceedings gives rise to the possibility of participation in groups of a significant number of persons. While in the event of the death of any person it would be necessary to suspend the proceedings each time, sometimes for a very long period of time, this would distort the sense of introducing provisions on group proceedings, one of the main objectives of which is the efficiency and speed of proceedings with the simultaneous accumulation of many individuals on the claimant side. Such situations are to be prevented by the institution of a group representative as a claimant acting on behalf of all members of the group, who continues to act in the process regardless of the death or loss of legal capacity of an individual member of the group.
2. The ‘appropriateness’ of application of Article 174(1)(1) CCP in relation to a group member who is not formally a party to the proceedings must take into account the objectives of group proceedings and the distinctiveness resulting from them. These, in turn, lead to the conclusion that in the case of a group member, after the final determination of the composition of the group, this provision is not applicable – in this case, procedural succession and replacement of the deceased by his legal successor is not allowed. In such a situation, it is necessary to eliminate such a member of the group from the proceedings and the proceedings are continued in a reduced composition, if – which circumstance did not occur on the grounds of these proceedings – the number of members of the group does not fall below the statutory minimum, that is 10 persons.

1. The charge of limitation raised against some of the members of the group should be resolved in potential future individual proceedings.
2. The type of possession is therefore determined primarily by the extent of actual power over the item and whether it takes place with the express or implied consent of another person. An autonomous possession may be established where the de facto power over an item has the general characteristics facilitating the establishment of possession and, moreover, consists in the use of the item with the exclusion of other persons and is independent of the express or implied consent of another person, in particular, independent of the owner’s consent.
3. Litigation against the State Treasury means that where multiple claims are filed, in relation to different organizational units, if even one of them is allowed, in practice, it means winning the trial in its entirety. Such a judgment, once it has become final, acquires the character of an enforcement title, on the basis of which the creditor can satisfy themselves to the same extent as if the claim had been allowed in respect of each of the statio fisci.

1. In the Court’s opinion, the requirement to comply with the “principle of sustainable development” concerns both of the indicated issues, i.e. ensures: safety and environmental protection. The social benefits achieved in each of these fields must be at least proportional, socially adequate to the losses incurred while ensuring indicated goals.
2. The incorrectness of exercising public authority may consist of violations of constitutional rights and freedoms, constitutional rules of public authority operations, requirements set forth in statutes, executive acts (breaches of substantive and procedural law), as well as violations of non-legislative rules connected in different ways with legislative rules. The object of the public authority’s tort may be solely the violation of particular provisions ordering (or prohibiting) specific acts from being performed in a given situation, but not the violation of general aims of broadly understood criminal proceedings, directives and postulates.
3. In the Court’s opinion, flood protection, ensured among others through the system of prohibitions and orders stipulated in the Water Law, constitutes an imperative interference with individual rights, i.e. it is a form of the exercising public authority, the main element of which is the inequality of the parties. On the other hand, the duties belonging to the so-called dominium area, are only those whose purpose is the use of property by the state while participating in ordinary civil law transactions.

1. The prerequisite of homogeneity should be understood functionally. It becomes understandable when one understands that the type of claim and the way it is calculated are two different things. The homogeneity of the claim refers only to the first factor mentioned. The same nature of the claim is authorized by the vertical view. The idea is for claimants bundled together in the same group proceeding to make the same claim. The duality of the mechanism used to calculate it (common to all participants) does not contradict the homogeneity of the claim.

Court of Appeals in Gdansk 5^th Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge: Roman Kowalkowski (rapporteur)

Judges: Artur Lesiak, Court of Appeals Judge; Mariusz Wicki Court of Appeals Judge

having examined on 12^th April 2018 in Gdansk at the hearing in camera the case filed by B. B. against Bank S.A. in W. for payment

1. Issuing an invoice for a single-person business activity conducted by a group member does not deprive that person of their consumer attribute. The purpose of the conclusion of the contract is of crucial important in this case.