Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 21st Labor Division of 15th September 2016
XXI P 230/15

  1. It is to be noted that the goal of group proceedings, in terms of procedural economics, can be realized on the grounds of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure – in labor law cases with multiple claimants and when separate actions were merged into a single case on the basis of Article 219. Thus the legislator’s will to create a separate piece of legislation for cases of a particular type admissible under strictly determined conditions cannot be disregarded.
  2. Considering whether the claims brought in a class action case are indeed homogeneous and whether they are based on the same or equal factual basis it is to be said that, if the Claimant had brought pecuniary claims but based on two separate legal bases and thus based on different factual and legal bases, such claims do not meet the condition of homogeneity.
  3. A mere formal reference to the wording of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings does not meet the statutory requirements if the analysis of the substantiation of the statement of claims reveals that the claim clearly does not belong to any categories listed in Article 1 (2) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. What the court should bear in mind is not the legal basis invoked in the statement of claims, but the factual basis invoked by the Claimant as the basis of the claim. An action ’for payment’, without further specification of the nature of demanded pecuniary performance’, results in a necessity of assessing of the factual basis – whether the factual circumstances invoked by the Claimant substantiate the admissibility of a class action (consumer protection, hazardous product liability, tortious liability case).

 

The Regional Court in Warsaw 21st Labor Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:  Sylwia Kulma, Regional Court Judge (rapporteur)

Judges:  Bożena Rzewuska, Regional Court Judge; Grzegorz Kochan, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 15th September 2016 the case filed by: (…) against the State Treasury – the Minister for Justice for damages

decides to:

  1. reject the statement of claims,
  2. not to charge the costs of the court proceedings to the Claimant.