- On the grounds of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, it is of no significance whatsoever whether claims arise from the same or from different legal relationships. The provision of Article 1.1 of the Act provides only that claims should be based on the same or equal (similar) factual basis. In the case a diversification of the situation of the members of the group undoubtedly occurs in the scope of such circumstances indicated by the defendant as: different content and terms of insurance agreements, application of various standard contract terms, participation of various agents and persons performing agency activities, or various manners of realisation of substantial information obligations by parties brokering the conclusion of agreements. These circumstances may not, however, influence the assessment of homogeneity of the factual basis of the action. It should be emphasised that in the case being heard, the issue is the agreements concluded with the use of the same standard terms including a contentious clause concerning the insurer’s right to collect glaringly extortionate fees constituting the entirety or a part of the policy account value in the event of termination of the insurance agreement. In truth, each of the agreements included an identical provision specifying the value and the manner of calculating the policy redemption fee. Also, the circumstance that each member of the group could differently understand the meaning of the contentious clause is of no significance for the identicalness of the factual basis of the action.
- The consumer ombudsman was awarded the capacity to be a party in group proceedings directly in Article 4.1 in conjunction with Article 2.2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, i.e. in consumer protection cases. The content of the quoted provisions corresponds in this scope with the content of Article 42.2 of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection and Article 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which in consumer protection cases, the district (municipal) consumer ombudsman may initiate actions on behalf of citizens. It is precisely the provisions of the procedural law nature that are decisive for the consumer ombudsman’s capacity to be a party in court proceedings and its position in litigation. The consumer ombudsman’s capacity to be a party in court proceedings is independent of the territorial scope of his or her operation. Group members may entrust the function of the group representative to a consumer ombudsman from any city or district in the territory of the state.
- An agreement concluded by a group representative – a district consumer ombudsman – with an attorney does not create any financial obligations on the part of the ombudsman or a local territorial authority that employs him or her. Hence, the conclusion of such an agreement did not require a separate consent on the part of the district treasurer or a person authorised thereby.
- The deposit is to serve the purpose of securing the defendant’s potential claim for the reimbursement of the costs of proceedings, in the event of difficulties in enforcing them from the group’s representative. The defendant bears the burden of proof that the non-establishment of a deposit for securing future claim for awarding the reimbursement of the costs of proceedings will render the execution thereof impossible or create substantial difficulties in the execution thereof.
- The commonality of the basis of pursued claims substantiates the possibility to join claims in a single group action. The entities in the group are characterised by a specific bond of a subjective and objective nature. The subjective bond pertains these members of the group who suffered damages as a result of the perpetrator’s single action. In a class action these persons pursue claims form a single entity (violator). In turn, subjective uniformity is related to the type of violation which results in pursuing claims jointly by the group becoming substantiated and possible. The bond existing between the group’s members must be based on the same or equal factual basis. Claims based on an common factual status are claims which share the same factual basis (a sensu stricto precondition) or claims sharing relevant factual circumstances (a sensu largo precondition). The indicated condition means that the legal or factual situation of the group’s members must be equal. Obviously, there may be insignificant differences between individual grounds of claims, however, it is necessary for the relevant factual circumstances to substantiate the demand common for all the claims.
- The Act on Pursuing Claims in Group proceedings does not regulate the costs of proceedings separately. Therefore, general provisions concerning the costs of the proceedings and general provisions concerning the reimbursement of the costs of proceedings should be applied in this scope.
- The introduction of a deposit for securing the costs of proceedings into group proceedings is meant to guarantee the defendant reimbursement of incurred costs from the claimant. The purpose of regulation by the legislator, within the group proceedings, the institution of the deposit for the securing of the costs of proceedings is protection of the defendant’s interests against unsubstantiated actions. Although the deposit for securing the costs of the proceedings is an institution facultative in its nature, it limits the claimant in the initiation of group proceedings. Therefore, obligating a claimant to submit a deposit for securing the costs of the proceedings should be consider as a factor significantly limiting the use of class actions.
- The defendant is not entitled to demand the submission of a deposit when the part of the claim recognised thereby is sufficient to secure the costs of proceedings. The indicated provision is applied when the defendant recognised a part of the claim raised by the claimant.
The decision was reversed by the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw of 25th September 2014, file ref. no XXV C 530/14.
- The Legislator did not specify the criteria of examination the request based on Article 8.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, leaving the decision at the discretionary, but not arbitrary recognition of the court. The court should refer to certain circumstances of the particular case. The defendant demanding the payment of a deposit should indicate and prove the factual circumstances justifying such a decision.
- The obligation to pay the deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings could be justified especially, if one had proven that there are circumstances indicating a high degree of likelihood that in the event of losing the case, the claimant would avoid paying the costs of the proceedings awarded to the defendant – especially that the claimant would hide its wealth in order to impede or avoid the debt enforcement proceedings. The argument for such a decision would also be that the predicted and specified costs of the defendant are so high that the lack of its reimbursement would threat its financial liquidity and that there is a real threat of not reimbursing the costs by the claimant, even due to faultless reasons.
- In principle, the case is examined in group proceedings by the court sitting with three judges. However, a decision on the deposit is a formal one, not concerning the substance of the case, which can be issued in closed session. Therefore, the decision may be issued by the court sitting as a single judge.
The decision was reversed by the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw of 25th September 2014, file ref. no. XXV C 530/14.
- The amounts indicated in the declarations on joining the group cover the value of the claims which individual members are entitled to. Therefore, the amount indicated in the declaration defines the value of the demand of the person joining the group, and this value may be later standardised. The individual parties give their consent to such a standardisation, which is a consequence of joining the group. In the case standardisation is performed, the value of the claims pursued in the subgroup may undoubtedly be lower than the value of individual claims to which members of a given subgroup were initially entitled to.
The judgements of the Regional Court in Wroclaw published on the website were facilitated by the President of the District Court in Wroclaw in the letter of 27th August 2019. The texts of the judgements were processed by the entity operating this website by adding theses, visual compilation and removing punctuation and literal errors. The judgements have been translated by the entity operating this website.
The authority obliged to provide public sector information is not responsible for its processing, further sharing and use.
The Regional Court in Katowice 2nd Civil Division in the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Agata Stankiewicz-Rataj, Regional Court Judge
Judges: Izabella Knych, Regional Court Judge, Anna Bogaczyk-Żyłka, District Court Judge (delegated)
having examined on 5th June 2014 in Katowice at the hearing in camera an action for a declaration of the invalidity of the contract and for payment filed by M.L. – the representative of the group in the class action against the Housing Association (…) in B.
hereby decides to:
examine the case in group proceedings.
- The claims can be considered as homogenous when they result from one type of legal relationship. Claims pursued by the group’s representative are claims for compensation, resulting from the defendant’s tort, hence they are homogenous claims.
- A factual basis of the claims in group proceedings is a set of statements indicated by the group’s representative in the substantiation of the statement of claims from which the claim of each of the group members expressed in the said statement of claims is derived. An equal factual basis of claims can be spoken of when the fundamental factual circumstances comprising the basis for the demand of the statement of claims are similar.
- In the case of tortious liability, the commonality of the factual basis is preserved when all factual circumstances comprising the grounds of the defendant’s liability occur in relation to all the group members. Therefore, these must be common for all the group members: damage-causing events, a causal link between these events and the damage and the damage itself. Claims stemming from the same type of event (tort) may be recognised as based on the equal (similar) factual basis.
- The issue of the existence of the causal link between the defendant’s specific actions and omissions and the occurrence of damage to an individual undoubtedly belongs to the sphere of factual circumstances resting at the basis of the action. Hence, it is not possible to hear a case in which this issue is differently shaped for various members of the group in group proceedings.
- The objective of the proceedings in the case for the establishment of the defendant’s tortious liability is determining a homogenous principle of the defendant’s liability towards all members of the group and parties which may acquire this status. As it follows directly from the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings (Article 2.3) in a declaratory action conducted in group proceedings, the claimant does not have to demonstrate the existence of a legal interest. Such a regulation stems precisely from assuming that – in tortious liability cases – the damage occurrence mechanism is equal for all the members of the group.
- The provision of Article 417 CC regulates the liability of the State Treasury and local government units for damage caused by an unlawful action or omission while exercising the public authority. The actions of a municipality related to the construction of a sewage grid and the conclusion of agreements with residents should be qualified as actions in the scope of civil law since no elements of the sovereign shaping of a situation of individuals arose. There are no grounds for qualifying the municipality’s actions generally related to the construction of the sewage grid, including the participation in the costs of construction, as acts of authority in its sovereign capacity.
- The persons acceding to the class action proceedings need to meet all the conditions prescribed in art. 12 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, namely they ought to stake out the claim, indicate the factual circumstances which substantiate the claim, the circumstances which substantiate the affiliation to the group and show evidence in support of these facts.
- The court should, already while establishing the composition of the group, check if these separate claims are not subject to a limitation period.
- If a court finds at this stage a claim to be subject to the statute of limitations, a group member may pursue claims individually, e.g. invoking Article 5 CC.
The Regional Court in Warsaw 1st Civil Division in the following ruling bench:
Alicja Fronczyk, Regional Court Judge
Ewa Ligoń-Krawczyk, Regional Court Judge
Rafał Wagner, Regional Court Judge
having examined on 4th April 2014 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by M.B. as the representative of the group: (…) against (…) Limited Liability Company for payment
decides to:
establish under Article 17 (1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings the composition of the group as follows: [43 group members].
The Regional Court in Warsaw 25th Civil Division in the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Anna Pogorzelska, Regional Court Judge
Judges: Janina Dąbrowiecka, Regional Court Judge; Hanna Jaworska, Regional Court Judge
having examined on 31th January 2014 at the hearing in camera of a class action filed by E. L. against (…) for payment,
hereby decides to:
hear the case in a class action.
