Case law > The decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 1st Civil Devision of 28th September 2016

The decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 1st Civil Devision of 28th September 2016
I ACz 1663/16

  1. Declaration on joining the group is performed as to pursue the case in court and for the purpose of invoking a particular procedural effect. Such an effect takes place when the group representative presents the composition of the group to the court provided it includes the person submitting the declaration.
  2. The absolute application of provisions on the declaration of intent in relation to the declaration on joining the group is not correct.
  3. Admittedly the demand for awarding a claim includes implicite the demand for establishing [existence or not existence of legal liability]. However, the latter is determined only on the basis of the preconditions and is not explicitly stated in the operative part of the judgment. In result, the existence of a final and binding judgment in such a case does not create the res iudicata status for the demand seeking the establishment of liability.
  4. The binding force of a final and binding judgment may also be extended to the motives of the judgment in the scope in which they constitute a supplementation, specify the operative part of the judgment as the decision on the matter of the case and determine the substance of a given legal relationship.
  5. For the status of res iudicata to arise the object of the decision and the factual and legal grounds of the case must be identical.

  Having examined at the hearing in camera on 28th of September 2016 the case of Z.P. against the State Treasury represented by the Ministry of State Treasury, the General Inspector of Building Control and the Mayor of city C. for establishment [of existence or non-existence of legal liability]

following the complaint filed by the claimant against the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw dated 20th  June 2016, file ref.  II C 172/15,  , the Court of Appeals in Warsaw

decides to:

  1. amend the contested decision in point 2 by establishing that W.S and E.S are members of the group;
  2. amend the contested decision in point 3 and refusing to reject the action towards F.O.