Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 25th Civil Division of 9th March 2015
XXV C 531/14

The decision was reversed in part (in the scope of points 1 and 4) by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 6th Civil Division of 7th September 2015, VI ACz 1012/15.

1. We are dealing with “the same” (identical) factual basis of the pursued claims when the identicalness of factual circumstances takes place and the legal protection is pursued by the participants of one event, meaning that there is a link based on the fact that the same event caused the damage. The notion of “factual basis” should be understood as a specified set of factual status elements which is invoked in order to prove the claims.
2. The same factual basis of the claims occurs when obtaining legal protection is connected with an identical situation or event. In turn, the same factual basis is spoken of when claims are derived only from similar situations and events, which corresponds with the notion of the similar (equal) factual basis being an element of formal joint participation in civil proceedings.
3. We are dealing with “equal” factual basis when many similar factual events take place. The basic set of facts constituting the basis for the occurrence of the disputed legal relationship and a specific claim must be analogous. Slight differences between individual bases of claims may exist, however, the relevant factual circumstances must substantiate a demand common for all the claims.
4. The substance of group proceedings is the commonality manifested in the demand which must be typical (common) for all the claims, and is derived from the same legal or factual situation of all members of the group. On the one hand the legislator does not require the identicalness of all of the factual elements, as this would highly narrow the scope of the application of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, however, on the other hand, the group proceedings would not fulfill their objective – improvement in the effectiveness of proceedings in cases characterized by a significant level of the individuality of the facts and the characteristics of the individual group members. Group proceedings fulfill their role when we are dealing with “typicalness” or “representativeness” of the claim towards all of the group members. The condition of “typicalness” is fulfilled when a legal or factual situation of the group members is equal. Of course, slight differences can exist between the individual grounds of the claims, however, it is necessary for the material factual circumstances to substantiate the common request for all of the claims.
5. Raising alternative claims in group proceedings leads to a situation where the court determines whether each of the raised claims is common for all members of the group; otherwise, the guiding goal of the group proceedings would be forfeited, whereas the proceedings themselves would be reduced to deciding on various claims of 10 people (members of the group) against one defendant.
6. In the case of the definition included in Article 22¹ of the Civil Code, the linguistic interpretation fails; hence, this provision must be interpreted by means of a systemic and teleological interpretation. In the light of the definition of the “economic activity” it must be assumed that the fundamental condition of attributing a given act in law the characteristic of “being related to the conducted economic activity” is for this act to be taken by the entity performing it in order to achieve an profit making objective. The moment decisive for the recognition of a given natural person as a consumer, is the moment of performance of the act in law.
7. In group proceedings, a statement of claims is treated as a whole and rejecting it only in relation to certain members of the group is not possible.

The decision was reversed by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 7^th September 2015, file ref. no. VI ACz 1012/15.