Decision of the Court of Appeals in Szczecin 1st Civil Division of 4th December 2013
I ACz 1192/13

1. The notion of a “claim” – used in Article 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings – appears in the meaning of a procedural demand. The first precondition deciding on the admissibility of group proceedings is therefore for all the parties covered by the group action to request for the granting of legal protection in the same form.
2. The homogeneity of claims in group proceedings is, ultimately, decided by the factual relationship occurring between the demands raised. A broad understanding of the term of a “claim”, used in Article 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings is subject to narrowing by complying with the requirement for the same or equal factual basis.
3. At the stage of the examination of the admissibility of a group action, the court does not assess whether the claim of a member of the group is legitimate or not, but only whether the claims of the group members are based on the same or equal factual basis. The court assesses whether the claims fulfil the conditions for filing a group action in terms of the factual circumstances being indicated.
4. In assessing the admissibility of hearing the case in group proceedings, the court should not so much examine whether claims of 10 parties, a mandatory minimum, comply with the requirements, but whether the claims of all persons as members of the group are indeed based on the same/equal factual basis.
5. The court may not assume that a group action is admissible in relation to an abstract group, the personal composition of which would be established only at a later stage of the proceedings. During the first phase of the group proceedings, the court must establish the admissibility of a group action in relation to a group, whereby this group is comprised of specific parties, whose claims fulfil preconditions for hearing the case in a group proceedings.
6. The representative forms a group at the stage of filing a statement of claims, and it is the representative who should examine whether each of the members of the group indicated by him or her fulfils the requirements of Article 1.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. The negative consequences of omissions in this scope, resulting in rejection of the statement of claims, rest with the claimant. The burden of proving a group member’s membership rests with the claimant.
7. The representative should perform a preliminary selection of parties intending to join the group. The representative may demand such parties to present explanations and evidence. If the representative finds that a given party’s claim does not qualify to be examined in group proceedings, there are no grounds to force the representative to cover such a party’s claim by the group action. The correctness of establishment of the composition of the group is verified by the court in a decision on the admissibility of group proceedings.
8. Evidentiary proceedings are conducted before the court both during the first (concerning admissibility of group proceedings) and the second stage of group proceedings (on establishment of the composition of the group).
9. The question of the statute of limitations constitutes a substantive question subject to examination only after ascertaining that a group action is admissible. The court decides on the legitimacy of the claims being pursued only during the third, content-related stage of the group proceedings. At the stage of examination of admissibility of group proceedings, the court may not entertain substantive law issues at all.
10. Receiving the consent of all members of the group to standardisation of claims (lump sum compensation) by the court constitutes a necessary condition for initiating group proceedings. In a situation where, due to the circumstances of the case a lump sum determination of the value of compensation is impossible, the legislator allows for the possibility of forming subgroups. Subgroups are comprised of parties whose claims, due to the occurring differences, are standardised in smaller groups. We are dealing with such a situation in the event where the court establishes a different nature of damages sustained by members of the group, or differing value of damage.
11. Assuming that alternative demands are admissible in group proceedings, the court hearing the case would have to examine whether it has been demonstrated that the claim covered by an alternative demand is based on the same/equal factual basis, already at the stage of assessment of the admissibility of group proceedings.