Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 20th Commercial Division of 24th July 2013
XX GC 1004/12

1. It is essential to unambiguously distinguish two, independent procedural institutions of group proceedings: the premises of the admissibility of group proceedings indicated in Article 1.1 and 1.2 in conjunction with Article 2.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, the lack of which lead to the rejection of the statement of claims and the additional formal requirements of the statement of claims enlisted in Article 6 of the Act, the lack of which, if not completed after court’s summons, should lead to return of the statement of claims, according to the Article 130.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Homogeneous claims are claims originating from the homogeneous legal relationship, even if there are different substantive law claims arising out of it.
3. The necessity of the occurrence of a particular set of facts, that justify the existence of a particular legal relation does not mean that the entire factual status of the case has to be based on the same facts.
4. Declarations on joining the group are written declarations of will to participate in the group. This is only a demonstration of entering into the legal relation of representation for the purposes of the group proceedings. There is a possibility of specifying this by indicating particular elements by reference to the explicit and precise content of the statement of claims.
5. The persons organising the group gain member status after submitting the statement of claims together with declarations on joining the group, which makes it obvious, that the procedural effect is independent of the date indicated in the declarations.
6. The only limitation of the freedom of contracts relating to the legal counsel’s fee in group proceedings is the limit of the commission for pursuing pecuniary claims to 20% of the awarded amount. This limitation undoubtedly does not refer to the possibility of stipulating an additional success fee for pursuing non-pecuniary claims or accounting for the legal counsel’s associates’ remuneration at the established rate, as this is a common market practice, which is consistent with the law and principles of social coexistence.
7. If a comparison of the value of the object of the dispute and the amount of the expected costs with claimant’s material situation justifies the assertion that the possible costs of the proceedings will be reimbursed, it is possible to waive the obligation of paying the deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings by the claimant.