Decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 6th Civil Division of 25th March 2014
VI ACz 4778/13

1. From the substance of institution of deposit it follows that it should be applied when the status of claimant’s assets does not provide a guarantee of satisfaction of the defendant’s claim for the costs of the proceedings. It is the court’s duty to assess whether in the circumstances of the specific case, a deposit is necessary to ensure the protection of the defendant’s interest in the form of claim for reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings in the event of the defendant’s potential win.
2. A provision of an agreement between the group representative and members of the group, among others regulating the principles for bearing the costs of the proceedings by the group’s members, according to which all the members of the group will be obligated to provide funds for the costs of the proceedings awarded in favor of the defendant in the event of issue a judgement dismissing the action, constitutes a sufficient security for the defendant’s interest.
3. The defendant’s motion is an indispensable condition for imposing the claimant’s obligation to pay a deposit. This motion should specify the amount of the deposit together with an indication of the probable costs of the proceedings.
4. The Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings does not indicate a moment in which the court should issue a decision on the claimant’s payment of the deposit for securing the costs of the proceedings. The costs of legal representation are borne by the defendant already before the case is accepted to be heard in group proceedings and the establishment of the final composition of the group. Teleological reasons therefore indicate that a decision should be issued relatively quickly.