Judgment of the Court of Appeals, Civil Division VI, dated December 18, 2019
VI ACa 352/18
- The basis for determining what specific amount is charged to an individual member for the implementation of an investment task should be the costs actually incurred per unit (Article 18(1) and (2) u.s.m.). In turn, carrying out a “specific valorization” of the one-time annual fee paid at the time of acquisition of the right by drawing up an appraisal for the purpose of updating the annual fee for perpetual usufruct and, consequently, calculating the market value of the right, which is then included in the costs of the investment, is contrary to the regulation of Article 18 of the A.s.m. For it should be noted that a contract for the construction of an apartment with a member of a cooperative, as referred to in Article 18(1) of the A.s.m., can be validly concluded only with respect to the principle of nonprofit.
- The special feature of a housing cooperative is ex definition the conduct of business activities to meet the housing needs of its members, and the indication in Article 1(6) of the Law on Housing that the cooperative may also conduct other business activities prejudices that this is an activity other than that arising from its basic object of operation. Conducting economic activity is its primary object of operation, purpose and raison d’être. Therefore, the claim to supplement the building contribution is directly related to the cooperative’s business of meeting the housing needs of its members as arising from a contractual relationship and not a membership relationship. Referring to the ratio legis of the shortening of the statute of limitations with regard to these claims, it is pointed out that they are typical, mass, repetitive and professionalized, as well as the principles of settlement of housing contributions, the analogous application of which allows the beginning of the running of the statute of limitations to be set at the date of the expiration of the six-month period (currently three months and the claim expires) from the commissioning of the building for use (Article 10(3) and Article 18(4) of the u.s.m.).
Court of Appeals in Warsaw VI Civil Division, composed of:
Presiding Judge: Urszula Wiercińska
Judges: Małgorzata Kuracka, Jolanta Pyźlak
having recognized on November 28, 2019 in Warsaw, at a hearing, the case from the action of K. K. as a representative of the group, consisting of [details of 39 group members] against the Housing Cooperative “(…)” in W. for payment
as a result of the defendant’s appeal against the judgment of the District Court in Warsaw dated December 5, 2017, file number III C 56/15
- rectifies the obvious inaccuracy contained in the judgment of the Regional Court in Warsaw dated December 5, 2017, ref. no. III C 56/15, in such a way that in the paragraph after the words: “from the action of K. K. as a representative of the class,” adding: “consisting of: [data of 39 class members]”;
- amends the judgment under appeal in the first paragraph so that it reads as follows:
“I. adjudge from the Housing Cooperative “(…)” in W. in favor of:
(…)
- Revokes the judgment under appeal for the remainder and discontinues the proceedings in this part of the case;
- dismisses the defendant’s appeal in the remaining part;
- award from the Housing Cooperative “(…)” in W. in favor of K. K. as a representative of the class the amount of PLN 24,300 (twenty-four thousand three hundred) for reimbursement of legal representation costs in the appeal proceedings.
