The justification of this judgment has not been prepared.

The Regional Court in Gdańsk 15^st Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding judge:            Urszula Malak, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Dorota Kołodziej, Regional Court Judge

Krzysztof Solecki, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 12^th March 2018 in Gdańsk at the hearing, the case filled by (…) a representative of the group against (…) for the declaration and payment,

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

Presiding Judge:            Anna Błażejczyk, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                             Tomasz Gal, Regional Court Judge

 Agnieszka Wlekły-Pietrzak, District Court Judge (delegated)

having examined on 15^th March 2018 in Warsaw at the hearing the case in group proceedings filed by the Municipal Consumer Ombudsman in City Hall S. (the group representative) against (…) S.A. with its registered office in W. for payment

1. Social security is a function and duty of the State, and the Constitution of the Republic of Poland says nothing about the possibility (or lack of) the partial privatisation of this function. The issue of health care or education is similar. It is undisputed that OFE (Open Pension Funds) are a private legal way of performing the State’s constitutional task, similarly to private hospitals and universities, and this possibility was not questioned by the Constitutional Court. I C 599/14.
2. (…) redemption of accounting units and their transfer to the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) are not legal acts towards which establishing their validity pursuant to Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure is possible. Regardless of the doctrine definition of the term “legal act”, it is commonly assumed that the necessary part of any legal act, and at the same time exclusively defining it, is the declaration of will. Meanwhile, both the redemption of accounting units and the transfer of their equivalent to the Social Insurance Fund (FUS) does not contain a declaration of will, but constitutes a technical act in the performance of an instruction of a statutory provision which cannot be subject to control – in the scope of Article 58 § 1 of the Civil Code – by way of a claim provided for in Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure (judgment of the Supreme Court of 19^th January 2012, IV CSK 217/11). Article 58 of the Civil Code refers only to legal actions (or declarations of intent), but does not apply to events that are not legal actions. Therefore, it is not possible to determine, by way of a claim based on Article 189 of the Civil Code of Civil Procedure, the invalidity of technical actions.

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

Presiding Judge:            Karolina Sarzyńska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Małgorzata Janicka, Regional Court Judge

Ewa Karwowska, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 12^th February 2018 in Gdańsk at the hearing in camera the case filed by the District Consumer Ombudsman in Szczecinek acting as a group representative against B. Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in Warsaw for establishment of the defendant’s liability, alternatively, for the shaping of a legal relationship,

hereby decides to

1. The necessity to pursue ‘one type of claim’ in group proceedings means that all group members are required to seek damages or the establishment or shaping of a legal relationship or law. However, this does not mean that it is not admissible to submit more than one claim in group proceedings. Group members may submit different types of claims, provided that all of these claims are sought by all group members.
2. The fact that the basic circumstances making up the factual basis of the claim are the same for a sufficient number of persons is sufficient for the implementation of group proceedings. The convergence of all circumstances constituting a factual basis of individual group members’ claims is not absolutely necessary.

1. If only one of the potential demands pursued in group proceedings is common for 10 group members, the whole statement of claims may be examined under the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings.
2. In group proceedings, the statement of claims is regarded as a complete whole and it is not possible for the statement of claims to be rejected towards certain group members and at the same time not be rejected towards the others. The group representative acts on their own behalf (Article 4.3 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings) and they merely have the right to stand in the proceedings – the group representative is the only a claimant. It is not possible to reject the statement of claims filed by individuals who are not claimants.
3. All changes concerning the demand of the statement of claims connected with the limitation of the claim require the consent of more than half of the group members (Article 19.1 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings). That is why, the order to correct formal defects cannot aim to withdraw a part of the suit or limit the claim. Such transformations of the suit cannot be required in the form of the order to correct formal defects.

The Regional Court in Warsaw 20^th Commercial Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:                   Maciej Kruszyński, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 26^th January 2018 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera, the case filed by (…) sp. z o.o. in W., against (…) (…) in N. (Cyprus) for the protection of copyrights and related rights in group proceedings

hereby decides to:

1. The criteria of group membership are in each case determined by the decision on examining the case in group proceedings.
2. Charges aimed at demonstrating that a particular person does not fulfil the group membership requirements of participation in the group may be based on: a charge of the lack of the same or equal factual basis of the claim as the claims indicated in the decision on examining the case in group proceedings; the charge that the particular group member’s claim is not homogenous with the claims indicated in the decision on examining the case in the group proceedings; the charge that the amount of pecuniary claim is not standardized with the amount of the other group or subgroup members’ claims; the charge that standardization of the particular group or subgroup member’s claim is not justified by joint circumstances; or a charge that the particular group member’s claim, contrary to the other group members’ claims, does not fall within the objective scope of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. The allegations may be also based on a failure to comply with the procedural requirements for joining the group.

Court of Appeals in Warsaw 7^th Commercial Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge: Ewa Stefańska, Court of Appeals Judge

Judges: Tomasz Szanciło, Court of Appeals Judge; Aldona Wapińska, Court of Appeals Judge

having examined on 23^rd January 2018 in Warsaw at the hearing the case filed by (…) Bank S.A. with its registered office in W. against the President of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection with the participation of the Regional Public Prosecutor in W. for the ascertainment of acts violating collective consumer interests,

following the claimant’s appeal against the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw – the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection of 21^st June 2016, file ref. no. XVII AmA 129/14,

1. The same factual basis of claims occurs when all the claims are based on the same set of facts. This is usually one and the same factual event that is the source of many claims. On the other hand, the similar factual basis occurs when various facts form basis of pursued claims, however these facts are analogical and thus show a connection justifying treating them as ‘similar’.
2. The similarity of actual events, significant from the point of view of the admissibility of group proceedings, does not assume the necessary identity of these events. Apart from significant similarities, there may also be some discrepancies in the basis of the actual claim regarding the nature of specific individual claims, their maturity, or amount. However, the occurrence of these differences does not constitute an inadmissibility of a class action based on the same basic circumstances that constitute the actual basis of an action. The following differences should be considered as not excluding the possibility of prosecuting a case in group proceedings: different value of redemption of individual insurance contracts, different amount of administrative fees, different amount of remuneration in case of death, differences in the wording of individual clauses of contract templates or names of individual standard terms used by the defendant.