Decision of the Court of Appeals in ‎‎Warsaw 1st Civil Division of 20th December 2012
I ACz 2237/12

1. There are no grounds to apply the provisions on the proceedings for securing the claims (Article 730 et seq of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, CCP) in proceedings in the subject of the deposit to secure the future costs of the trial in a class action (Article 8 of the Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings). These proceedings are not a type of proceedings for securing the claims (despite certain similar traits). The very fact that Article 24 section 1 of the Act does not exclude the provisions of Article 730 et seq. of the CCP from being applied in group proceedings, does not automatically mean that in examining the motion on obligating the claimant to submit a deposit on the basis of Article 8 of the Act, the court should apply these provisions, especially apply them directly.
2. The aim of obligating the claimant to submit a deposit in the group proceedings is to secure the costs of the proceedings, which the defendant will incur. This is to guarantee the defendant the real possibility of safisfying his possible future claims for the reimbursement of the proceedings costs. In this meaning, the aim of establishing a deposit in the class action is similar to the aim of the proceedings for securing the claims, which consists in guaranteeing the party – in the event of approval of the procedural claim of this party – enforcement of the future judgement or achieving a different objective of these proceedings. The aim of the proceedings for securing tje claims is expressed by the premise of the legal interest in granting the security of claims, indicated in Article 730¹ para 1 and 2 of the CCP. The court, in examining the motion, based on Article 8 of the Act, should take this into consideration. Due to the fact that the claimant’s obligation to submit a deposit is not mandatory, the court should, in each case consider – based on the analysis of the circumstance of the specific case – whether the establishment of a deposit is substantiated and purposeful. The court may, to a certain extent, use the previous case law and doctrines developed on the basis of Article 730¹ para 1 and 2 of the CCP, nevertheless, this provision should not be applied either directly or per analogiam.
3. In certain exceptional cases, it is possible to consider the costs of the preparation of a private opinion, property valuation, etc. as costs essential for the purposeful pursuit of one’s right or defence of one’s rights in the meaning of Article 98 para 1 of the CCP. This is, however, substantiated, when obtaining such an opinion or expert opinion allows the party to specify their procedural stance and content related defence against procedural tasks and statements of the opposing party.