Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 16th Commercial Division of 12th July 2013
XVI GC 595/11

The decision was set aside with the decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 18^th February 2014, file ref. no. I ACz 22/14. The thesis questioned by the Court of Appeals in Warsaw have been italicized.

1. Disruption of gaining profits from the conducted business activity is undoubtedly a case of violating one’s personal rights. The location of the claim aimed at personal right’s protection and also whether this is an absolute protection (without fault) – as in the case of means of protection stipulated directly in Article 24 of the Civil Code, or relative – as in the case of means of legal protection resulting from the perpetration of a tort, is without any meaning.
2. In the scope of formal requirements, the legislator finally accepted the procedural limitations of group actions through the imposition of the requirement of the same or similar (equal) factual basis of the claims, as well as the standardization of the claims of each member of the group, in consideration of the common circumstances of the case.
3. The literature presents an opinion that the same legal basis of the claim (identity of the factual circumstances) takes place when there is a bond between the members of the group, based on the unity of a legal event. This would mean that the requirement of the same factual basis would be fulfilled through the indication by the claimant, of the event in the form of the broadcasting forbidden advertisements. Such an opinion cannot be agreed with. Such a factual basis of the claims would be sufficient in the event in which the claimant would pursue only the establishment of compensatory liability. However, in the present case, the claimant is not only pursing the establishment of compensation liability, but also further consequences, resulting from this fact, meaning the compensation for damages. And in such a case, apart from the event causing damage, the circumstances substantiating the extent of the damage and the causal link between the event and the damage should be indicated, as not every relationship is relevant but only an adequate causal relationship. i.e. covering the normal consequences of a given reason.
4. The aim of the group proceedings is enabling access to court as well as speeding up the proceedings with the significant lowering of their costs, while the group action alone is to become the instrument enabling fast and effective pursuit of claims by consumers as well as by entrepreneurs.