- Group proceedings examine cases where homogenous claims based on the same or similar factual basis are pursued by at least 10 people. Group proceedings for pecuniary claims are admissible only if the amount of each member’s claim is standardized, taking into account the circumstances which are common for all members of the group. The standardization may be carried out in subgroups of at least 2 people.
The Regional Court in Bydgoszcz I Civil Division in the following ruling bench:
Ewa Grażyna Bednarek, Regional Court Judge
Joanna Sauter – Kunach, Regional Court Judge
Jarosław Zawadzki, Regional Court Judge
having examined on 23rd May 2012 in Bydgoszcz at the hearing the case filed by B.B. against G. N. B. S.A. with its registered office in W. for payment, following the motion for examination of the case in group proceedings,
decides to:
examine the case in group proceedings.
The judgements of the Regional Court in in Bydgoszcz published on the website were facilitated by the President of the District Court in Bydgoszcz in the letter of 27th August 2019, and then processed by the entity operating this website. The judgements have been translated by the entity operating this website.
The decision was reversed by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 22nd August 2012, file ref. no. I ACz 1298/12.
- The costs of the proceedings are the costs necessary for the purposeful assertion of rights and a purposeful defence. The amount that can be spent on the claimants’ statements, in the event of the dismissal of the claim as being manifestly unfounded, is not covered by the costs of the proceedings. In this respect, the defendant’s motion on obligating the claimant to submit a deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings is completely unsubstantiated.
- Modification of the statement of claims consisting in bringing forth a new claim in place of the primary one contains a tacit withdrawal of the primary claim. Lodging by the claimant a demand for establishment of liability does not constitute a limitation of the primary demand for payment, but its modification. Both demands are of a spontaneous nature, they are different in terms of content, and they intend to achieve different goals.
- In assumption, the demand for establishment of liability in cases where future group members will be pursuing payment from the defendant should be brought forth when the pecuniary claims of group members are unfit to be standardised in terms of value due to diversification of circumstances pertaining to individual members of the group. Difficulties with standardisation of pecuniary claims of individual group members in the frames of the original action for payment persuaded the claimant to modify the statement of claims for establishment. The best moment for the claimant to perform such a modification is the stage of assessing admissibility of examination of the case in group proceedings. There are no legal provisions limiting admissibility of performance of modification depending on the stage of the proceedings in the first instance, also in group proceedings.
- After modification of the statement of claims, group members pursue their claims in the same in generic terms form of legal protection – for establishment – therefore the claims are homogenous in the meaning of Article 1 section 1 of the Act (Polish Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings). It is only worth highlighting that in Article 1 section 1 the Act uses the claim in the procedural sense.
- The event being the source of the claim in the case of each member of the group is the same – it is the above-described tort [perpetrated by] the defendants, what is more – a complex tort. Yet, the requirement of the same or equal factual basis does not mean the requirement for all elements of the factual grounds in the case of each of the claims to be identical or equal. Existence of one element shared in the scope of factual circumstances constituting the basis of the group members’ claims, i.e. a damage-causing event, is sufficient.
The decision was partially reversed by decision of the Court of Appeals in Krakow of 17th September 2012, file ref. no. I ACz 1324/12. Thesis questioned by the Court was marked in italics.
Regional Court in Opole 1st Civil Division in the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Katarzyna Sieheń, Regional Court Judge
Judges: Ryszard Kądziela, Regional Court Judge
Izabela Bogusz, Regional Court Judge
having examined on 4th April 2012 in O. at the hearing in camera the case filed by K. K. – group representative of group of residents domiciled at ul. (…) and ul. (…) in K. and the city of K. against the municipality of K. – the President of K. and the district of K. – the Poviat of K. – the Starost of K. on ascertainment,
decides:
under Article 17 of Act of 17 December 2009 on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings to establish that the group includes the following group members: [data of 133 persons].
The above information was prepared based on public information provided by the President of the Regional Court in Opole.
The rulings of the District Court in Opole posted on the website were facilitated by the President of the District Court in Opole. The texts of the rulings were processed by the entity operating this website by adding theses, visual compilation and removing punctuation and literal errors. The rulings have been translated by the entity operating this website.
The decision was amended by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Szczecin of 28th August 2012, file ref. no. I ACz 399/12.
- Being a consumer is not an inherent characteristic of an entity, but an indication of its role in business transactions. The source for the establishment of a special consumer protection regime is the natural inequality between consumers and entrepreneurs. The Civil Code contains only a general definition of the term of a “consumer”, it does not determine legal consequences related therewith, which, in turn, are expressed in the frames of regulations of concrete legal relationships in which not only a consumer appears, but as a rule also requirements pertaining to the other party to the consumer relationship. In principle, the protection in specific consumer statutes is rendered dependent on who the consumer enters into a legal relationship with. Most frequently it is an entrepreneur, but also defined in different manner in connection with the purposes of the legal acts describing such relations.
- A municipality may conduct business activity, hence it possesses the status of an entrepreneur within the meaning of the Act of 17 December 2009 on pursuing claims in group proceedings. This is due, among others, to the fact that the object of protection stipulated by the above given Act and the Act of 16 February 2007 on Competition and Consumer Protection is similar – the protection of consumers, i.e. entities having a weaker market position when compared with the position of a professional, entrepreneur.
- Most frequently, activity consisting in providing public services is performed with an intention of obtaining profit and it is not altered even by the fact that the profit is treated as secondary, since satisfying the needs of the self-government community will always remain the primary objective – such activity qualifies to be defined as an economic activity.
- From the point of view of standards of constitutional protection stemming from Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, it would be unfair to differentiate the position of natural persons satisfying their most fundamental necessities – the right to accommodation – according to the criteria pertaining to the legal status of the entity providing such a service, i.e. whether the entity conducting such an activity is a public law entity (municipality) or a private law entity.
- The claims are homogenous if they arise from one type of a legal relationship. The homogeneity of the claims is determined by an identity of the event from which the damage arose (e.g. a tort public authorities) and a similar type of the pursued claim.
The Regional Court in Opole 1st Civil Division with the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Magdalena Domińczyk-Trzciańska, Regional Court Judge
Judges: Beata Hetmańczyk, Regional Court Judge;
Ryszard Kądziela, Regional Court Judge
having examined on 29th February 2012 in Opole the case filed by J. M. – the group representative against (…) sp. z o.o. in O. for payment,
decides:
to hear the case in group proceedings.
The decision was partially amended with the decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw of 6th June 2012, file ref. no. I ACz 868/12. The thesis questioned directly by the Court of Appeals in Warsaw is marked in italics.
- Proceedings on the establishment assume the omission of the examination of the circumstances closely regarding the individual group members, which are to be examined in the series of later proceedings conducted in a regular manner. For this reason the unification (standardization) of the amount of the claims is not required.
- The provisions of the Act (Polish Act on pursuing claims in group proceedings) do not stipulate the partial rejection of the statement of claims in group proceedings. The Court is not competent firstly to “choose” only those claims, from amongst the ones submitted, which are suitable for the said proceedings, and secondly – at the stage of examining the admissibility of the statement of claims – to eliminate the individual entities indicated as group members.
- The factual basis within the meaning of Article 1 section 1 of the Act is only the basic (initial) set of facts substantiating the claim. The discrepancies in terms of the facts substantiating only the amount of the claim are not an obstacle in assessing the group proceedings as admissible. Of course, it is the assessment of the Court as to which level of identicalness should be applied so that the given factual grounds would be similar to each other. In such a context, the aim which the group proceedings is to serve cannot be omitted. In this case, the group proceedings are aimed at increasing access to court and increasing the effectiveness of the legal protection by enabling the simultaneous ruling on the legitimacy of the claims of a larger group of persons. It is therefore to increase the effectiveness of the actions of the judiciary and facilitate potential members of this type of dispute in achieving the aim which is the comprehensive ruling.
- The unification (standardization) of the amount of the pecuniary claims is tightly linked with a different premise of admissibility of the group proceedings, i.e. the requirement of the existence of a relationship of a factual nature between the claims. The pecuniary amount pursued in group proceedings is to therefore result from the factual circumstances, common for everyone, in order to be able to establish the amount to which each of the group members is entitled on their basis. These common factual circumstances are not only the commonality of the factual basis but also those connected with the scope of the demand.
The Regional Court in Opole 1st Civil Division in the following ruling bench:
Presiding Judge: Katarzyna Sieheń, Regional Court Judge
Judges: Ryszard Kądziela, Regional Court Judge
Izabela Bogusz, Regional Court Judge
having examined on 26th September 2011 in Opole at the hearing the case filed by K. K. – group representative of group of residents of ul. (…) and ul. (…) in K. and the city of K. against the municipality of K. – the President of K. and the poviat of K. – the Starost of K. for ascertainment,
decides to:
examine the case in group proceedings.
The above information was prepared based on public information provided by the President of the Regional Court in Opole.
The rulings of the District Court in Opole posted on the website were facilitated by the President of the District Court in Opole. The texts of the rulings were processed by the entity operating this website by adding theses, visual compilation and removing punctuation and literal errors. The rulings have been translated by the entity operating this website.
