Judgment of the Supreme Court of 31st January 2019
V CSK 596/17

1. One must find that in a case for monetary claims resulting from a tort, an action from Article 2 (3) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings is admissible without the need to determine that damage has been caused to each member of the group if the circumstances of the damage are varied in a degree rendering their assessment in a class action inexpedient. The likelihood that such injury actually took place is entirely sufficient. Moreover, there is no reason for a court in group proceedings to rule firmly that damage has occurred in the case of each member of the group if it is possible and expedient to do so in the context of group proceedings. The court may, however, omit this with the result that the examination of whether and what damage was caused to individual members of the group will take place in individual proceedings if they are initiated. This also means, which needs to be emphasised, that the court adjudicating in the proceedings [initiated] by a statement of claims of a group member, despite being bound by the prejudication obtained under Article 2 (3) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings (Article 365 CCP in conjunction with Article 21 (3) and Article 24 (1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings), may dismiss the action if it ultimately turns out that the damage suitable to be repaired did not occur.
2. Within that construction, it is the court conducting group proceedings and the court conducting the subsequent individual proceedings which must assess the circumstances justifying the award of a specific sum of money to a particular person. The limits of the jurisdiction of both courts should be set in a flexible manner which would allow for the widest possible opening of group proceedings, the use of its potential, and obtaining the economic benefits associated with the joint assessment of identical factual and legal issues common to all claims pursued.
3. The establishment of the defendant’s liability while simultaneously leaving the decision on the existence and amount of damage to the court conducting individual proceedings should be treated as a statement of the entire demand of the statement of claims in group proceedings (full judgment).