Order of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw VI Civil Division dated November 16, 2022
VI ACz 285/22

1. Article 15zzs1 1(4) of the Law of March 2, 2020, is applicable to cases conducted in group proceedings. on special arrangements related to the prevention, prevention and eradication of COVID-19, other infectious diseases and emergencies caused by them during the period of the state of epidemic emergency or the state of epidemic declared due to COVID-19 and within one year after the last one is revoked, according to which in cases heard in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure Act in the first and second instance, the court shall hear cases with a single judge; the president of the court may order that a case be heard by a panel of three judges if he deems it advisable due to the particular complexity or precedent-setting nature of the case. Pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Law on Enforcement of Claims in Group Proceedings, the provisions of the Law – Code of Civil Procedure shall apply accordingly to the extent not regulated by the Law. At the same time, in accordance with Article 3 of this Law, group proceedings are within the jurisdiction of the district court, and the court shall hear cases in a panel of three professional judges. In such a case, the determination of the composition comes from a provision of a separate law, but cases of this type are recognized under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. This argues in favor of their cognizance in a single-member composition.
2. The fact that the court did not interview the parties before issuing a ruling on the cognizance of the case in group proceedings does constitute a procedural defect, but not so serious as to justify a declaration that the proceedings are invalid (in particular, if already at the stage of filing the lawsuit the plaintiff attached the statements of the members of the group, in which they justified in detail their membership in the group, which gave the court the opportunity to issue a ruling on the cognizance of the case in group proceedings).
3. The response to the statement of claim in the class action relating to the claims and evidence relied on by the plaintiff to prove the legitimacy of the claims asserted may be filed by the defendant at a later stage of the proceedings, after the court has ruled on the admissibility of the class action, and before the ruling on this issue, the defendant may only comment on the admissibility of the class action.
4. In the course of the proceedings on the admissibility of group proceedings, the court shall make a formal legal assessment of the admissibility of the group proceedings. In this regard, it examines whether the prerequisites for the admissibility of group proceedings in the form of homogeneity of the claims of the members of the group, the identity or sameness of the factual basis of the claims of the members of the group, the size of the group, the unification of monetary claims, and the subject matter capacity of the claims to be examined in group proceedings are met.
5. The first prerequisite for the admissibility of a class action is that all persons covered by the class action must apply for legal protection in the same form.
6. The second of the subjective prerequisites necessary for the initiation of a class action is the formation of a group of at least 10 persons. This prerequisite must be met both at the time of filing the lawsuit and at the time the court decides on the admissibility of the class action.
7. The third of the subjective prerequisites necessary for the initiation of a class action is the unity of the factual basis. It arises when there is a bond between the members of the group based on the unity of the event giving rise to the damage. The case law sometimes indicates that claims based on an identical factual basis are claims that have the same factual basis (premise sensu stricto) or claims whose material facts are common (premise sensu largo). Although there may be slight differences between individual bases of claims, it is essential that the material facts justify the demand common to all claims. The requirement of the same factual basis for the claims does not mean that all the facts of the case must be identical for each class member. The condition of an identical factual basis is met when the facts justifying the existence of a particular legal relationship that is the basis of the claims are the same for all class members. The same factual basis for an action occurs when obtaining legal protection involves an identical situation or event, i.e. when all claims are based on the same set of facts constituting their basis. Thus, this usually involves one and the same factual event, which is the source of many of the asserted claims. The same factual basis is referred to when the claims are derived only from similar situations and events, which corresponds to the concept of an equal factual basis, which is an element of formal co-participation. Thus, the same factual basis is present when different facts form the basis of the asserted claims, but these facts show similarity that makes it impossible to consider that they are analogous in nature and thus show a relationship that justifies treating them as “the same.”
8. In the context of class proceedings for the determination of liability, the extent of damage caused to individual class members is not subject to examination. Thus, the diversity of individual factual circumstances peculiar to the members of the group remains without any effect on the fulfillment of the prerequisites for hearing a case in a class proceeding.

Court of Appeal in Warsaw VI Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           SSA Beata Waś

after hearing on November 16, 2022 in Warsaw at a closed session the case of an action brought by A. D. as a representative of a class against the State Treasury – Council of Ministers, Minister of Health, Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration for determination

as a result of the respondent’s complaint against the decision of the District Court in Warsaw dated April 27, 2022, ref. act XXV C 136/21,

decides:

1. dismiss the complaint;
2. leave the decision on the costs of the complaint proceedings to be decided in the final judgment.