Decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 1st Civil Division of 3rd June 2013
I ACz 850/13

1. In accordance with the rules of logic and life experience, based on the rationality of the legislator, it is not possible to deliberate additional premises which the claim on consumer protection would have to fulfil, since in Article 1 section 2 of the Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings, the legislator deliberately formulates these types of claims widely. If the legislator foresaw any specific limitations in the scope of section 2 of the cited Act, this would be expressed in a relevant provision. Therefore, one should not overinterpret or treat the types of claims which the legislator allows to be heard as group actions too narrowly.
2. It is not possible to accept that the legislator, by implementing the draft of the legal act, would assume that only persons who are entitled to “full consumer rights” can independently and effectively represent the group, in accordance with Article 4 of the Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings. It is also impossible to accept that the legislator, even foreseeing consumer joint-entitlement of spouses covered by joint marital property would require, in each case, their joint representation on behalf of the group, specifically in light of the content of Article 209 of the Civil Code, allowing for the independent actions of one of the co-owners aimed at maintaining their joint rights and Article 6 section 2 of the Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings, pointing to the possibility of designating one person as the group representative.
3. In the opinion of the Court, there was also no reason for the establishment of a deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings in the present case. The amount of the pursued claims, their nature and the circumstances of the case do not substantiate the application of the injunction motioned for, whereas the provisions of Article 8 section 1 of the Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings is of an optional nature, dependent on the court’s discretionary authority.
4. The act does not reserve the sanction of invalidity of the entire agreement with the attorney in the case of exceeding the amount resulting from Article 5 of the Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings. The above article refers not to the pursued amount, but the amount awarded to the claimant, and it should be settled in this very context. Hence the actual analysis of the possible exceeding of the amount of the remuneration reserved for the claimant will be possible upon the conclusion of the case and not at the present stage of the proceedings.