Case law > Decision of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk, 5th Civil Division, dated October 10, 2022

Decision of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk, 5th Civil Division, dated October 10, 2022
V ACz 102/21

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk of October 10, 2022, ref. no.: V ACz 102/21, was corrected by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk of November 17, 2022, in such a way that in point 1. b), the words: “J. S. (point 104)” with the words: “J. S. (point 104)”.

  1. Due to the fact that the subgroup was intended only for the standardization of monetary claims, the creation of subgroups for the pursuit of other claims should be considered inadmissible.
  2. When issuing a decision on the composition of the group, i.e. granting a specific person the status of a group member, the court should compare the claim submitted by that person with the characteristics of the group for which the proceedings were initiated (Article 17 in conjunction with Article 1 of the Act on Collective Redress). Therefore, the claim of an individual should fall within the scope of the subject matter of the group claim, as defined in the decision to hear the case in group proceedings issued pursuant to Article 10(1) in conjunction with Article 1 of the Act on Collective Redress.
  3. Within the limits provided for in Article 1(2) of the Act on Collective Redress, it is possible to pursue monetary claims (Article 2(1) of the Act on Collective Redress) and non-monetary claims (Article 2(2) of the Act on Collective Redress) in collective proceedings. Pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Act, limiting the action to a claim for liability is permissible “in cases involving monetary claims.” This provision applies to situations where the members of the group are essentially pursuing monetary claims against the defendant, but their consolidation, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the Class Action Act, is not possible, and therefore the scope of the court’s activity in class action proceedings must be limited to determining certain circumstances relevant to the monetary claims pursued. Therefore, both Article 2(1) and Article 2(3) of the Class Action Act use the identical term “in cases concerning monetary claims.”
  4. The concept of “defendant’s liability” under Article 2(3) of the Class Action Act has a specific, autonomous meaning, different from that in Article 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as different from that in Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure, determined primarily by the purpose and functions of class action proceedings as special proceedings designed to facilitate and streamline the resolution of conflicts involving a large number of people.
  5. A claim for a declaration (determination) of the non-existence of a specific contractual relationship does not constitute a claim for determination of liability referred to in Article 2(3) of the Act on Liability for Damages Caused by the Operation of Motor Vehicles, but such a claim is based on the provision contained in Article 1(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, according to which the Act applies to consumer protection claims also in other matters, as well as in the content of Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure in conjunction with Article 3851c.
  6. The possibility of submitting a declaration of joining the group before the publication of the announcement of the initiation of group proceedings is admissible and legally effective.
  7. The burden of proof of membership in the group always lies with its representative. The defendant, on the other hand, is responsible for proving facts that prevent and nullify the plaintiff’s claim, i.e., facts that justify the defendant’s allegations against the plaintiff.

On October 10, 2022, the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk, 5th Civil Division, composed of the following judges:

Presiding Judge: SSA Elżbieta Milewska-Czaja

having examined on October 10, 2022, in Gdańsk, at a closed session, the case brought by the District Consumer Ombudsman in S., acting as a representative of the group, against Bank (…) in G. for a determination or, alternatively, for a ruling on the complaint of the plaintiff and the defendant against the decisions contained in points II (second) and III (third) of the decision of the Regional Court in Gdańsk of September 11, 2020, file ref. no. I C 245/15, decides:

1. Amend the contested decision in point II (second) as follows:

a) remove the division into subgroups from its content;

b) exclude the following persons from the group: A. A. (point 2), D. B. (point 8), A. B. (point 11), A. G. (point 12), P. B. (point 13), M. C. (point 14), M. C. (1) (point 17), J. D. (point 19), P. D. (point 21), D. D. (point 22), M. I. z d. K. (point 27), P. J. (point 29), M. K. (point 32), M. K. (1) z d. J. (point 36), E. K. (point 37), J. K. (point 38), K. K. (point 46), K. K. (1) (point 50), M. K. (2) (point 51), G. L. (point 56), L. M. (point 64), E. K. (1) (point 71), G. O. (point 73), M. P. (point 80), B. P. (point 85), R. R. (point 90), A. R. (point 91), S. R. (point 92), R. S. (point 99), T. S. (point 103), J. S. (point 104), A. S. (point 106), A. J. – uprzednio S. (point 109), K. T. (point 115), D. J. (point 118), T. W. (point 119), A. W. (point 125), M. W. (point 129), D. A. (Ł.) (point 137), B. B. (point 140), M. S. (point 143), Z. G. (point 147), P. J. (1) (148), A. J. (1) (point 151), J. K. (1) (point 153), M. M. (point 166), M. P. (1) (point 170), A. P. (point 172), R. S. (1) (point 179), J. W. (point 183), M. W. (1) (K.) (point 184), A. A. (1) (point 186), W. B. (point 187), I. G. (point 194), B. C. (poprzednio K.) (point 196), D. N. (point 199), J. P. (point 201), M. R. (point 203), D. R. (point 204), P. T. (point 206), J. W. (1) (point 207), D. Z. (point 208), T. K. (point 212), P. S. (point 215), M. C. (2) (point 222), I. G. (1) (point 225), T. K. (1) (point 229), J. P. (1) (point 236), P. P. (point 237), I. S. (point 241), J. S. (1) (point 242), W. S. (point 243), R. S. (2) (point 244), E. T. (point 252), W. T. (point 253), M. W. (2) (point 254), A. W. (1) (point 255), T. W. (1) (point 256), A. G. (1) (point 257), A. S. (1) (point 264), A. S. (2) (point 265), E. S. (G.) (point 266), R. Ż. (point 269);

c) include the following persons in the group: P. K., M. K. (3) and P. S. (1);

2. Reverse the contested decision in point II (second) with regard to the following persons: P. K. (1) (point 33), K. B. (point 217) and R. B. (point 218);

3. Discontinue the appeal proceedings in the part concerning G. O. (1), J. P. (2), C. P., A. S. (3) and K. K. (2);

4. Dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal in the remaining scope;

5. Dismiss the defendant’s appeal in the remaining scope.