Case law > Decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 3rd Labor and Social Security Division of 5th April 2017

Decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 3rd Labor and Social Security Division of 5th April 2017
III APz 1/17

  1. It is necessary to emphasize some general content-related remarks, which will outline the subject of the dispute. Firstly, the specific nature of group proceedings needs to be emphasized, some issues of which are the examination and adjudication in this case. The legislator’s intention in introducing group proceedings into the Polish legal system was to create regulations which would provide a procedural protection of interests of several subjects injured as a result of one (common) event. This particular type of proceedings – the significance of which is expressed in the fact that it is regulated by a separate statute – is facultative, as initiating it requires a motion for the opening of group proceedings to be included in the statement of claims. It is essential to indicate the fact that group proceedings, according to the Polish Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, is reserved to narrowly defined categories of cases which further results in the fact that only specific and listed types of claims might only be pursued in these types of proceedings (consumer protection, hazardous product liability, tortious liability claims).
  2. Admissibility of initiating and conducting the proceedings as well as rendering a judgment bearing on the merits of the matter is conditioned by procedural prerequisites. Those applicable to regular proceedings under the Polish Code of Civil Procedure are also applicable to group proceedings. Nevertheless, there are further premises of admissibility of group proceedings, specific for these types of proceedings only. All these premises, with regard to all the types of cases which might be heard in group proceedings, are listed in Article 1 (1), in cases regarding pecuniary claims an extra premise appears in Article 2 (1) of the Act. These premises are both subjective ( the minimum number of group members) and objective (homogeneity of claims, common factual basis of claims, the type of claims and, in case of pecuniary claims, standardization of value of the claims taking into account the common factual basis of the claims). In case of inadmissibility of group proceedings due to the non-compliance with of any of the above mentioned premises defined in Article 1 (1) or Article 2 (1) of the Act, the court shall reject the action.
  3. Group proceedings is to constitute an effective protective measure for legal rights when there is such a bond between these rights that hearing the case with all these claims brought in a court cumulatively is cost-effective in procedural and economic terms. The motive for the abovementioned restrictions is the will to ensure homogeneity of the group and thus, as a consequence, guarantee smooth prosecution of group proceedings. Under the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings this goal is to be realized through the condition of homogeneity of group members’ claims and their being based on the same or common factual basis. This wording refers to Article 72 (1) (2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure with the proviso that Article 1 (1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings does not require homogeneous claims to be based on an equal factual basis.
  4. The criterion of the common factual basis (the same or equal) refers to the circumstances from which the claims brought in group proceedings originate. The same factual circumstances refer to a situation when the claims brought in the class proceeding originate from one particular event, equal factual circumstances in turn refer to claims originating from a series of analogous events. This distinction might sometimes be fluid, nevertheless it is practically insignificant with respect to admissibility of group proceedings. The factual basis means, in the meaning of Article 1 (1) of the Act, the fundamental initial complex of facts substantiating the claims. The premise of homogeneity of the claims should be understood in such a narrow way that, after the group’s composition is established pursuant to Article 17 (1) of the Act, all the claims brought before court could be adjudicated on and settled cumulatively. The goal is to arrive, as far as possible, at such a state of affairs where the issues covered by the court’s cognition after establishing the group’s composition, with taking into account any potential subgroupsare identical (common) for all the group members. The premise of homogeneity of claims and their common factual basis pertain, to the same degree, to all the claims brought in group proceedings. Pursuing in one group by some persons diverse types of claims or claims based on different factual bases is excluded. This ban cannot be circumvented by creating subgroups with violation of the rules described above.

 

The Court of Appeals in Warsaw 3st Labor and Social Security Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge: Magdalena Kostro-Wesołowska, Court of Appeals Judge

Judges: Aleksandra Tobiasz-Skrzypek, Court of Appeals Judge (rapporteur); Danuta Malec, Regional Court Judge (delegated)

having examined at the hearing in camera the case filed by: (…) against the State Treasury – the Minister for Justice for payment

following the Claimant’s appeal against the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 21st Labor Division dated 15th September 2016, file ref. no.: XXI 230/15

decides to:

  1. dismiss the appeal,
  2. not to charge the costs of the appeal proceedings to the Claimant.