Case law > Order of the District Court in Kielce, V Department of Labor and Social Insurance, dated September 21, 2023

Order of the District Court in Kielce, V Department of Labor and Social Insurance, dated September 21, 2023
V P 7/23

  1. It follows from the wording of Articles 1 and 2 of the Law of December 17, 2009 on the assertion of claims in group proceedings that group proceedings should be understood as civil proceedings in cases in which claims of one type are asserted by at least 10 persons, based on the same or the same factual basis. Only claims for consumer protection, liability for damage caused by a dangerous product, and tort claims can be asserted in group proceedings, with the exception of claims for the protection of personal property.
  2. Among the fundamental issues of the Law on the Investigation of Claims in Group Proceedings is undoubtedly its subject matter scope, which in turn boils down to two problems: 1) the prerequisites for group proceedings (Article 1(1)) and 2) the type of claims that can be asserted in group proceedings (Article 1(2)). In this regard, the prerequisites for group proceedings are the homogeneity of claims, the same or the same factual basis for the claims, and a certain minimum number of ten persons for whose benefit protection is sought. In addition, taking into account the content of Article 2, the prerequisite for the assertion of monetary claims is their unification within a group or subgroup.
  3. The assessment of whether the prerequisites for the admissibility of group proceedings are met with respect to a particular case is made exclusively by the court during the first phase of the group proceedings – on its admissibility, known in the literature as the certification of group proceedings.
  4. According to the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is not required to indicate the legal basis of the claim, and can only limit himself to stating the circumstances determining the demand. This is because the choice of an adequate legal standard is up to the court. It is no different in group proceedings, with the proviso that the plaintiff must be aware of the limitation contained in Article 1(2) of the Act. It results in the fact that in this procedure, the Court’s assessment will be limited only to the normative standards listed in Article 1(2) of the Law. As a result, the Court should dismiss the claim if the prerequisites of Article 417 of the Civil Code have not been fulfilled. (or other provisions of Title VI of the Civil Code), even if even the amount claimed could be awarded under an alternative legal basis (other than those listed in Article 1(2) of the Law). This effect means that compliance with the condition of Article 1(2) of the Law will already occur if a party claims in a lawsuit that it is pursuing a claim derived from a tort. What matters, therefore, is the plaintiff’s declaration itself, and whether or not this assessment is correct is irrelevant.
  5. The verification procedure under Article 10(1) of the Law must be based on the declaration in the lawsuit. This means that the rejection of a class action is possible only if the initiating party does not refer to any of the legal grounds indicated in Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Law. In other cases, the case should be referred to the merits, with the proviso that it will focus attention only on the legal grounds listed in the aforementioned provision.
  6. The court, when deciding on the admissibility of the consideration of the case in class proceedings, does not examine whether the defendant actually committed behavior that meets the characteristics of a tort within the meaning of the Civil Code, and thus whether the claims asserted in the lawsuit are a consequence of the defendant’s culpable behavior, but only checks whether the premise in question was indicated in the lawsuit. Leaning into the issue of the validity of the plaintiff’s allegations, as well as the defendant’s arguments, occurs only at the stage of substantive examination of the lawsuit.

District Court in Kielce V Department of Labor and Social Insurance, composed of:

Presiding Judge:     SSO Grzegorz Detka

Judges:                     SSO Anna Matysiak, SSO Ewa Palmowska

having recognized on September 21, 2023 in Kielce the case from the claim of K. Ł. – representative of the group against the Provincial Hospital (…) in K. for determination decides:

to recognize the case in group proceedings.