Case law > Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Łódź, 1st Civil Division, dated 14th April 2021

Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Łódź, 1st Civil Division, dated 14th April 2021
I ACa 1099/18, I ACz 1451/18

  1. The court of appeal hearing the appeal is bound by the position of the court of appeal in the complaint proceedings, within the framework of which the admissibility of hearing the case in group proceedings was examined.
  2. One cannot agree with the assertion that the legislator in the provision of Article 1 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings uses the concept of a claim in the substantive legal sense.
  3. The first stage of group proceedings (during which the filing of a lawsuit and the filing of a response to the lawsuit take place), ends with the court’s decision on the admissibility of the group proceedings – this is the so-called certification phase of group proceedings. Only after the decision on the cognizance of the case in group proceedings becomes final, the court orders the announcement of the commencement of group proceedings, which begins the second phase of these proceedings, the purpose of which is to determine the final circle of participants. Certification of group proceedings is a unique solution in Polish law, not found in ordinary civil proceedings.
  4. When deciding on the admissibility of group proceedings, the court is not limited to examining only the procedural prerequisites specific to group proceedings, but also examines whether all other “ordinary” procedural prerequisites have been met. In making a (positive) certification of a group proceeding, the court confirms the fulfillment of all ordinary (i.e., applicable to any civil proceeding) procedural prerequisites, i.e.: that the case belongs to the judicial route, the domestic jurisdiction of Polish courts, the parties’ legal capacity, the parties’ procedural capacity, as well as the due representation of a party lacking procedural capacity. At the same time, the court confirms the non-existence of any of the negative prerequisites (such as res judicata, lis pendens, the existence of an arbitration clause, or judicial immunity). The procedural prerequisites peculiar to group proceedings, the fulfillment of which the court examines when certifying a group proceeding, include: the homogeneity of the claims pursued, the minimum size of the group, the identicality or similarity of the factual basis, the nature of the case.
  5. A decision to hear a case in a group proceeding bounds the court that issued it (Article 332 § 1 in conjunction with Article 361 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The court should not be entitled to arbitrarily deviate from the content of the order it issued – otherwise the stabilizing function of the order would be negated in its entirety. This principle also applies if the second instance court has previously taken a position on the admissibility of the group proceeding, recognizing the complaint against the decision of the first instance court. The situation will be different in the case where the decision of the court of first instance to recognize the case in group proceedings has become final due to the expiration of the time limit for filing a complaint. This is because the court of second instance will then not be bound by the previously issued decision made in the course of reviewing the decision on the admissibility of group proceedings. In such a case, it should be recognized that under the current model of full appeal, the court of second instance conducts for the second time exploratory proceedings in the case, which is a continuation of the proceedings conducted in the first instance (Article 378 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in principio). Thus, the court of second instance will then be obliged, within the limits of the appeal, on its own initiative to inspect the circumstances determining the admissibility of the proceedings on the merits, unless their examination depends on the raising of an appropriate plea by a party.
  6. The necessity of pursuing a “claim of one type” in group proceedings within the meaning of Article 1 Section 1of the Act of 17th December 2009 on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings means a requirement that all plaintiffs seek an adjudication of a benefit or the establishment or shaping of a legal relationship or right. A further condition for the admissibility of group proceedings under this provision is that the claim should be based on the same or similar factual basis, and that it should be a claim for consumer protection, for liability for damage caused by a dangerous product, and for tort, with the exception of claims for the protection of personal interests.
  7. The term “claim” as used in Article 1 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings has a procedural meaning. A different view would have to lead to the conclusion of the admissibility of pursuing only substantive legal claims arising from obligatory legal relationships in group proceedings (which would be in direct contradiction to at least Article 2 Section 3 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings).
  8. The first prerequisite for the admissibility of a group proceedings is that all persons covered by the group statement of claim must apply for legal protection in the same form. Thus, it is not permissible for one person to make a claim for an adjudication of a benefit (a demand for payment), and for the others to make a demand to establish the existence of a specific legal relationship (for example, to establish the existence of a contract).
  9. Doubts arise about the definition of homogeneity of claims, which determines their pursuit in group proceedings. From the point of view of the homogeneity of claims, such circumstances as: the dissimilarity of the terms of the contracts and templates linking group members with the defendant, as long as the disputed contractual clause was included in each of the contracts, do not constitute an essential element of the factual basis.
  10. Monetary claims can undoubtedly be considered to be of one type. Non-monetary claims, on the other hand, will be of one type only if they relate to the requested course of action (behavior) of the defendant, i.e. if all members of the group demand a certain action or omission (of the same type) on the part of the defendant. Undoubtedly, therefore, claims of one type would not be monetary and non-monetary claims pursued simultaneously (in a single group proceeding), or different non-monetary claims pursued simultaneously. The premise of homogeneity of claims should be understood in such a way that the demands arising from them are common to all members of the group. The action must therefore include a demand for legal protection in the same way for all group members.
  11. The issue of the factual relationship between the claims must take into account how it is understood on the basis of the institution of substantial joint participation and formal joint participation, in light of Article 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  12. The fact that individual claims for damages will require an examination of the individual factual circumstances peculiar to individual group members is irrelevant to the assessment of the prerequisite of identicality or homogeneity of the claim, as provided for in Article 1 Section 1 of the Act on Group Proceedings. Group proceedings are also permissible when the prerequisite of the occurrence of damage and its amount depends on individual factual circumstances pertaining to individual group members.
  13. An action to establish the liability of the defendant in a case for a monetary claim arising from a tort constituting a single event is also permissible in group proceedings when the prerequisite for the occurrence of damages and their amount depends on individual factual circumstances concerning individual members of the group. It is also permissible in a group proceedings to establish the liability of the defendant under a “complex tort”.
  14. It is intended that an action under Article 2 Section 3 of this act is to be brought when the monetary claims of group members are not suitable for unification in amount. The judgment establishing the defendant’s liability is intended to serve as a prejudgment for any payment proceedings brought individually by group members after the conclusion of the group proceedings.
  15. In proceedings to determine the defendant’s liability for damages, the court of merit does not examine the extent and amount of damages. Allegations concerning the receipt by group members of compensation for the property damage suffered are examined in the course of compensation proceedings that follow the proceedings to establish liability for damages.
  16. The subject matter of group proceedings when demanding the determination of the defendant’s liability are only the circumstances common to all members of the group. In contrast, it is not a matter of establishing individual circumstances affecting only individual group members. Therefore, it is not necessary to establish or prejudge that the same damage occurred to each member of the group if the circumstances of the damage are so diverse that it would be inappropriate to evaluate them in a group proceeding. It is sufficient to recognize the occurrence of a damage to the extent that it is possible and expedient to do so in a group proceeding. The examination of individual prerequisites such as the nature of the damage, the amount of the damage, the causal relationship to the designated property, the contribution of the injured party will be the subject of examination in individual proceedings.

The Court of Appeal in Łódź, 1st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding judge:            Małgorzata Stanek, Judge of the Court of Appeal (Judge – Rapporteur)

Judges:                           Dorota Ochalska-Gola, Judge of the Court of Appeal;

Joanna Walentkiewicz-Witkowska, Judge of the Court of Appeal

having recognized on 17th March 2021 in Łódź, at a hearing, a case brought by W. S. as a representative of a group in group proceedings, consisting of: [data of 28 group members] against the State Treasury – Mazovian Voivode, the State Water Management Company Polish Waters, the Mazovian Voivodeship, the Płock District for determination

as a result of the appeal of the respondents the State Treasury – Mazovian Voivode, the State Water Management Company Polish Waters and the Mazovian Voivodeship against the judgment of the Regional Court in Płock dated 23rd April 2018, ref. no. I C 863/12

as well as the plaintiff’s complaint against the decision on costs of the proceedings contained in paragraph 4 of the said judgment

  1. from the complaint of the plaintiff W. B. S. amends the appealed decision in such a way that it reduces the amount of PLN 44,217 to PLN 21,617 (twenty-one thousand six hundred and seventeen);
  2. dismisses the defendants’ appeals;
  3. awards the amount of PLN 18,750 (eighteen thousand seven hundred and fifty) jointly and severally to the plaintiff W. S. from the defendants the State Treasury – Mazovian Voivode, the State Water Management Company Polish Waters and the Mazovian Voivodship as reimbursement of the costs of the appeal proceedings.