Decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 6th Civil Division of 5th June 2013
VI ACz 1176/13

1. Ultimately, the homogeneity of this type of claims in this type of proceedings is decided by the factual relationship occurring between them. It should be emphasised that it is precisely this relationship that eliminates claims of different type from those raised.
2. The factual basis of the claims must be the same or equal. This means that the broad understanding of the notion of the “claim”, used in Article 1, is subject to narrowing at the fulfilment of the factual link requirement. Claims raised by group members must, therefore, be based on the same (identical factual basis) or similar (identity of the factual basis) factual basis. They should arise from one event (the same event) or events similar to one another. Which consists of facts substantiating the existence of specific legal relationships. The factual link will occur when it comes to certain events of tortious nature in the situation when it is possible to abstract factual circumstances common for the entire group, at the basis of which there are factual bases of each individual claim of the group member.
3. The factual basis of the group proceedings is a set of factual circumstances substantiating the examination of the case in group proceedings. They consist, in principle, only of facts substantiating the existence of specific legal relationships. Hence, in the event of tortious liability, homogeneity of the factual basis would be preserved if all factual circumstances constituting the basis of the defendant’s liability would be materialised in relation to all members of the group, while the character and type of individual claims, their value or maturity, would belong to circumstances not impacting the homogenity of the factual basis of the group proceedings, and thus – its admissibility.
4. Assessment of homogenity of the factual basis must have been performed ad casum, while the scope of the judge’s assessment in the case of this precondition was relatively broad. For only seemingly does this premise have an objectivised nature. In truth, the decision on admissibility of the group proceedings was dependent on the circumstances of the case and adopted criteria for assessment of the factual basis’ sameness as well as the scope of circumstances adopted as the common basis for group members’ claims.
5. The notion of common circumstances of the case, although presently occurring only in Article 2 section 1 of the Act, may not be completely ignored and constitutes a certain point of reference also in the context of interpretation of Article 1 section 1 of the Act.